Feb 27, 2015

Lady Justice Sides With Cash: Legal Bias Against Low Income Persons

One thing we can all hope for is equal treatment under the law. If I kill someone, I hope that I will be thrown in jail just like the next guy. This consistency allows lawbreakers to know what the punishment will be, and hopefully this will persuade them to be not break the law. There are obvious human and systematic flaws in this system. I can speed down the same road day after day with no troubles, but one day just like any other I get pulled over and given an expensive ticket. This leads to the trouble I see with many drivers: they're not afraid of breaking the law, but rather they're afraid of seeing patrol cars on the road. The biggest flaw, however, with the punishment system is the effect of money. The lawbreaker with money faces lower punishment than the man without money. In an insignificant example lets look at our speeder: a $200 fine for a person who works for minimum wage is a larger punishment relative to wealthy gentlemen receiving the same. A more significant and important situation is one where a person's money allows them to receive a smaller absolute punishment. Money can allow us to purchase better legal help; money increases freedom, and this is not justice.

The justice system is ran like a for-profit business instead of on the principles it is supposed to be founded on. Another acquaintance of mine was found guilty of an assault with little evidence against him. The case rested solely on the persecutor's narrative. The defendant couldn't afford a lawyer and the liberal government in BC at the time had cut legal aid so he wasn't even given a lawyer to defend him. A relatively recent news article claims that most legal aid funds don't even go into legal aid. We don't actively consider that we may one day need legal aid. The rich don't think about this - they can hire better lawyers if need be anyhow. There's no demand for funds going into legal aid. The people that need it are deemed unimportant.

If lawyers have this make-or-break it power, then there is something wrong with the system. The textbooks are too complicated. People with low literacy skills flood jails. In the end the rich and the educated have more freedom. A potential solution is to nationalize lawyers and have the state assign them, but most competent lawyers would all move to more lucrative countries. A more practical solution would be to have an open source of information on the web that is easily accessible by everyone.

Feb 25, 2015

Wed Review (A. Ralph Epperson - The New World Order)

Ever notice how people spewing bullshit like to WRITE IN ALL CAPITALS AS IF THIS PROVES THAT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS ACTUALLY OF ANY SUBSTANCE AT ALL? Eppeson deploys this rhetorical technique often.

This was a pretty interesting read, possibly because the author has such a strong personality - which, ironically, he tells us in a preface will not influence his analysis of the facts. He actually states that he is just relaying evidence that he has found to us, and will not have a bias in the matter.

My favourite part of the book is his attack of the secularism of public schools. He blames Dewey for this, and attempts an attack of Dewey's character. Yes, the man argues ad hominem. Dewey said he denies the existence of eternal truths, like the ones religion spews. Epperson hates this and, in capital letters, calls Dewey insane for denying eternal truths - because, you know, eternal truths are eternal, so how can they not be true? Epperson engaging in some desperate tautological horseshit.

With these criticisms in mind, I think this is a fairly good overview of the topics central to modern conspiracy theories and it was a fun read due to Epperson's hilarious interjections.

Feb 23, 2015

Monday Morning Quotes (Bertrand Russell, 2/23/15)

"A certain power of enduring boredom is therefore essential to a happy life, and is more of the things that ought to be taught to the young."


"The secret of happiness is this: let your interests be as wide as possible, and let your reactions to the things and persons that interest you be as far as possible friendly rather than hostile."

Bertrand Russell

Both of these quotes are taken from Russell's book for the layman "the Conquest of Happiness" where he spends some of his time explaining to the average man how he can lead a more fulfilling and happy life. He divides the book into two section; one, how to avoid unhappiness; and the other, how to achieve happiness. Both of these quotes are taken from the later section. It seems almost trivial to point out that one can have more happiness by allowing happiness to come from more places, but perhaps it needs to be said. Russell recommends that we also have hobbies that lie outside the mainstream of our lives. As an example he mention a novelist friend of his that is ecstatic over baseball. This allows us to be happy even when our lives may not be going too well. Even if the novelist's latest novel bombs and his wife leaves him, he'll still be able to look forward to the next baseball match.

I do find it important when he mentions inculcating an ability to endure boredom in children. It seems like our education system wants to do the other. I remember numerous times when us school children were required to 'sit quietly' and wait for the teacher to do something that we were unaware of. In my physical education class when I was 13 we students regularly had to wait an extra 10 to 15 minutes after the bell sounded to start of class as our teacher talked in his office with another teacher. About what we were given no clue. Instead of creating games among ourselves or enjoying a book alone, we just sat there bored and angry.

I also think that a strong ability to overcome boredom goes a long way to saving money. Instead of curing boredom by shopping or buying the latest video game, if we were to develop an interest in the cheaper things in life we could get by a lot easier. I'm here thinking of the $2 I spent on a thousand page book of classic poetry last week that I spent an hour reading the first 20 pages of. At that rate, even a welfare recipient could be content (not to mention free services like the public library). The ability to enjoy yourself alone with an inexpensive activity can go a long way to a more enjoyable and less stressful existence. The second is to be able to entertain yourself as a group; I have little to say on the manner as I've yet to become able to enjoy myself socially without having consumed a costly amount of intoxicants of a various sort, some of which may have worse consequences than simply draining my wallet if publicly conspicuous.

Russell's advice, as I think he makes clear, work only for the moderate man. A person suffering a serious mental illness, although not harmed by following his advice, should seek help with a medical professional. I do think this is one of the faults of the overall book. I'm unaware of the prevalence or recognition of depression when Russell's book was published so perhaps it was imperceptible to the man, but I would like to see if there are any studies done (or capable of being done) between the prevalence of depression and the skills Russell wants us to teach our young. Would these skills have any effect on lessening depression? From personal experience of mental illness, I think they could. We could also add a few lessons to Russell's imagined curriculum that deal explicitly with handling mental illness. Such as when to seek help and a plea to encourage discussion. These lessons could also help dispel any bad connotations still associated with mental illness.

Feb 20, 2015

I had eggs and toast for breakfast

So scholars will sit there and debate Nietzsche's familiarity with Dostoevsky's main works. (Nietzsche mentions the early works, but not the more 'important' ones). These same intellectuals will then deride the prevalence of "this is what I'm eating right now" blogs. It is the case that, were able to go back and see the status updates of Aristotle, many major scholarly issues would be solved.

Feb 18, 2015

Wed Review (Frank Miller - Holy Terrror)


I re-read this tonight just to see if it was as terrible as I remember. I didn't even finish it the first time I read this book before I promptly gave it a one-star. Having read more of Miller's work in the interim, I think I understand Miller's stance more thoroughly.

This comic is pretty much a Sin City story substituting the protagonist for Batman* and the enemy for the Al-Qaeda. And, like how Sin City is over-the-top and stereotypical, this comic is as well. I didn't like it because the stereotypes in this case were not against mafia-esque gangs but entire groups of people (people living in the middle-east). Batman says to a captured enemy: "So Mohammed, pardon me for guessing your name, but you've got to admit the odds are pretty good it's Mohammed" - I don't know if that's Miller being racist (is that racist? its a bit like assuming a white English man is named John - in one of my highschool classes there were three Michaels, out of 15 boys, so I would call anyone I didn't know Mike), or making fun of America as captured in the persona of Batman.

I wonder if this book would be higher rated if Miller took out Al-Qaeda and substituted a made-up group, as is common to super-hero literature. In his previous works, Miller seems very critical of a hands-on government. Even in his latest blog post condemning the Wall-street protests, the reader can deduce that Miller is against any kind of government intervention - preferring the lesser evil of a free-market allowing the 1% to thrive. I would like to read this book not as Miller wanting to attack the Al-Qaeda, but rather as his fears of how the government can take control of its populace during a period of 'terror'. (ie, the ridiculous USA PATRIOT Act** post-9-11.)

As much as I would like to deny it based on this book, we can't deny that Miller is one of the most prominent writers of modern times. Even if comics remain a small element of literature Miller has found an enormous audience in his movie adaptations of 300 and Sin City. The popular Nolan Batman films are strongly rooted in Miller's Batman work and the Daredevil flop was strongly based on his Daredevil work, and we can expect the next Daredevil movie to follow suit. Does this man's nasty opinion deserve to have such a large and unwitting audience?

*The character is called The Fixer, but this story is obviously a revision of a Batman story

**stand for: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2000

Feb 16, 2015

Monday Morning Quotes (Heidegger and Kierkegaard, 2/16/15)

What follows are two quotes on metaphysics that have been derided as nonsensical by some and brilliant by others. It would probably take a whole book to discuss the significance of either of these quotes. But I'll just leave one question: What does it mean?
"Despair is a sickness in the spirit, in the self, and so it may assume a triple form: despair at not being sonscious of having a self (despair improperly so called); despair at not willing to be oneself, in despair at willing to be oneself.
"Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short it is a synthesis."
 Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

This quote is taken from the first chapter to The Sickness Unto Death. I've heard that this quote is Kierkegaard parodying Hegel but I'm not entirely sure. It's possible that Kierkegaard is poking fun by using such an obtuse and obscure language. However I recently watched a video on contemporary neuroscience that suggests that the self may be a simple illusion created as a byproduct of the brain's left hemisphere trying to construct a narrative of reality.


"What is to be investigated is being only and—nothing else; being alone and further—nothing; solely being, and beyond being-nothing. What about this Nothing? … Does the Nothing exist only because the Not, i.e. the Negation, exists? Or is it the other way around? Does Negation and the Not exist only because the Nothing exists? … We assert: the Nothing is prior to the Not and the Negation…. Where do we seek the Nothing? How do we find the Nothing…. We know the Nothing…. Anxiety reveals the Nothing…. That for which and because of which we were anxious, was 'really'—nothing. Indeed: the Nothing itself—as such—was present…. What about this Nothing?—The Nothing itself nothings."
 Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

It became an English scholar's joke that 'nothing noths'.

Feb 13, 2015

Pollution Management 101 and Political Alienation

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the two different methods the Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia use to reduce carbon emissions and to select the best alternative.

Carbon tax and cap & trade are both methods that policy makers can use to reduce carbon emissions. Pollution is a negative externality; left to themselves firms with produce more pollution than the socially efficient amount because the private marginal cost of the firm is less than the social marginal cost. This occurs because the marginal cost of the pollution is not borne by the firm. This is an example of a market failure that causes an efficiency loss. Policy makers can correct the problem by internalizing the cost of pollution for the firm. Pollution abatement, on the other hand, is a positive externality. Free markets will not do enough to abate pollution because the social marginal benefit is higher than the private marginal benefit of the firm. The government can correct this by giving the firm incentive to do more pollution abatement.

It should be noted that the socially efficient level of pollution is still above zero. Even though some radical environmentalists would like to see Canada and its industries produce zero levels of carbon emissions it is in the public interest to pollute. The rule of thumb used in pollution abatement is that pollution should only be reduced as far as the costs are lower than the benefits. Pollution abatement is, in itself, considered to be a reasonable social objective as proven by the amount of media and international attention it receives. Numerous international organizations have pollution agreement sides, such as NAFTA. Canada has agreed, in these treaties, to reduce green house gases by specific amounts. It is, however, hard to put an economic price tag on the social benefit of pollution abatement.

There are four basic solutions to all externality problems.
  1. Internalizing the externality
  2. Quantity controls and standards
  3. Taxes and subsidies
  4. Market creation
The first method is impractical in most situations. The second method is the one that Canada has been known to adopt in the past. Economists prefer the latter two methods because they both utilize economic incentives; they are the two methods that will be examined in depth.

Taxes and subsidies - Carbon Tax
Carbon tax achieves the socially efficient level of pollution by raising the firm’s marginal cost to the social cost. Taxes raise the private marginal cost by the amount of the tax. This is shown diagrammatically in figure 1 in the table of figures. By raising the private cost to the social cost the firm will produce the socially efficient quantity, shown in the figure as Q-optimum. Taxes work well because they offer incentive effects for pollution abatement and they take advantage of some market forces. Taxes are easily incorporated by the firm into its normal cost of doing business.

The firm will abate carbon emissions as long as the marginal abatement cost is lower than the cost of the tax. When the marginal abatement cost becomes higher than the tax the polluting firm will choose to pay the tax and pollute. This situation is shown in figure 2. The cost of pollution abatement to the left of the cap line is shown by the area B, the tax cost is shown by the area A and B. Thus it is cheaper for the firm to abate pollution up to the point of the tax line when the abatement cost become the area C and D, more than the tax cost.

Taxes are an enticing form of pollution abatement for the government because it provides a clear source of revenue. However, when compared to standards and cap & trade, the government has less control over the quantity of emissions. Taxes affect the cost of doing business and the market determines the quantity of emissions and the amount of pollution abatement activity. With sophisticated forecasts the government can have a fairly good idea of how much a tax will affect the quantity of emissions. Taxes require accurate monitoring technologies to ensure appropriate tax amounts are levied. Having known schedules of future tax hikes will positively affect the behaviour of the firm towards future abatement practices, such as investing in more efficient equipment.

One of the main problems associated with taxes is public relations. Many citizens and firms are strongly against raising taxes. Taxes may also be more susceptible to lobbying parties than the cap & trade method which may deter sufficient tax levels being set. British Columbia adopted the Carbon tax in 2008 . It did this to address the problem of carbon emissions and to bring in additional revenue.

Market creation - Cap & Trade
Cap & trade is a policy example of quantity control and market creation. It also works to limit pollution to a level equal to the socially efficient quantity. It does this by internalizing the cost of the externality through permits. A set amount of issued permits allows the government to limit to the amount of carbon emissions.
In the Cap & trade method the government issues out carbon permits to polluting firms. Each permit gives the firm permission to emit a unit of carbon. There are various ways of handing out these permits. One way is to give more permits to high pollution abatement cost firms. A second is the give each firm the same number of permits. The third, and probably best way, is to auction off the permits. In the first two methods the permits can be re-sold in a secondary market. All methods allow the forces of the market to decide the price of pollution. If the firm’s marginal abatement cost is lower than another firm’s abatement cost it would propose a trade. The abatement cost to the firm is reduced by the amount is saves by selling the permits. This is shown in figure 3. The low marginal abatement cost firm saves the costs shown by the areas C, G, and K by selling the permit to the high marginal abatement cost firm. The government has less control over the price of emissions in this method compared to the tax method but cap & trade utilizes market forces to set a price that more accurately reflects the actual value of pollution relative to the limit the government wishes to set.

The fact that the government is able to set a cap on the quantity of emissions through the amount of permits it releases may be one of the reasons the Government of Canada wants to adopt a cap & trade method; it will enable them to reach its international pollution abatement goals with more certainty than a tax would. It’s a better approach then simple quantity controls and standards because it allows the market forces to determine the price of pollution, giving low marginal pollution abatement cost firms incentive to reduce pollution and high marginal pollution abatement cost firms the ability to ‘buy’ more pollution.

Policy makers can use either the tax method or the cap & trade method to reduce pollution to the socially efficient quantity. Both methods increase efficiency and prevent the market failure associated with externalities. Economists prefer tax and cap & trade over standards and quantity control because they both utilize market forces. The main difference between the two methods is how they are administered and how the costs are distributed. The cost to the firm can be lower for the cap & trade method, depending on how the permits are distributed. If the permits are auctioned off cost to the firm may be very similar to that of the tax method . Both methods give the firm incentive to reduce carbon emissions and to abate them through new technology investments. The government receives revenue through taxes but using the auction distribution method of cap & trade the government can also receive revenue. Neither method is universally or significantly better than the other. The best selection depends on the specific situation and needs of the policy maker.

I feel the best method for Canada and the Government of British Columbia is the cap & trade method. The main goal of pollution abatement is reducing the quantity of pollution to the socially efficient amount. The cap & trade method allows more certainty at meeting the reduction goals than the tax method. The cap & trade method also helps at reducing the power of lobbying parties as the cost of pollution is set by market forces and not by a policy maker. By using the auction method of permit distribution British Columbia could achieve much needed revenue.


I wrote this article a few years ago and unfortunately Harper's Government in Canada doesn't seem to want to address the issue. They posted a video on their YouTube account claiming that we should "REJECT this expensive new tax hike". Comments are closed so we can't hold an open discussion on that channel. Harper recently claimed that  "nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector" which is misleading at best and probably just false. Countries like Norway and Mexico use techniques that I mentioned earlier and the European Union has a cap and trade program that covers a range of industrial facilities.

Nothing I mention here is new or revolutionary. I would like to get more info on why Harper is so against enforcing policies that I feel would help control waste emissions.

I hate politics. I feel so alienated by it all. And when the ruling government posts shit like this image, I just want to die. Even someone non-partisan, a non-Canadian, should be offended by this. This isn't sharing knowledge. It isn't helping me make a critical decision come election time. It's crap that makes people not want to vote - and that's what allowed Harper to gain power.

Feb 11, 2015

Wed Review (R. Crumb - The Book of Genesis)

This is borderline being an illustrated novel, as opposed to a comicbook. The drawings are more illustrations of what is occurring in the text and don't impact the story telling.

This could be an issue for enjoyability, but I still respect Crumb's dedication to doing a straight-up, no words changed adaption. The illustrations occasionally have some image that is humorous. They also depict the text in ways that the reader wouldn't necessarily imagine. So, we almost get two books here: a nice translation of The Genesis (without the archaic language of some translations, or the watered-down New International Version - the standard edition at most Churches I've had the misfortune of being in)as well as avoiding the two column printing style that's difficult to read.

The reason to buy this book is to get a glimpse into the head of Crumb: we see what he's seeing while reading the book. The first, obvious, occurrence of an interesting illustration of the text is the Garden's serpent being depicted as anthropomorphic; thus, when God condemns snakes to move on their bellies, the serpent loses his arms and legs (as opposed to a more traditional illustration that would necessarily suggest that God either condemned the snake before the snake's actions or condemned the snake to never evolve).

I think many parts of Genesis are insanity. Like Noah living till 950 years old. But it is an interesting historical document (of the history contained in the book, which must be taken carefully; but, more importantly, it's a document of how the ancients understood their own history).

It's an odd state of affairs that a comicbook like "The Action Bible" receives the Christian Book Award, but this book, a more honest rendition of the bible, is overlooked. Crumb's Genesis was beaten out by "The Hole in Our Gospel: What Does God Expect of Us? the Answer That Changed My Life and Might Just Change the World" which is about some rich dude who gets paid to go to a poor country and listen to poor people then tries to help them out financially while pushing Christian ideology on everyone with cherry-picked quotes from the new testament.

I recently checked out the Kingstone Bible comic adaptation. It's written by a diehard Christian writer and starts with Genesis. The very first line was altered (to reflect a more Christian approach to the Old Testament, God is described as happy being alone and he is described as being a being of three parts). It's ridiculous that a non-believer respects the Bible more than all the other religious adapters have. I'd love to read more word-for-word adaptions as I find well-researched illustrations help me understand the physical world the Bible depicts.

I'd also recommend for anyone interested in another Bible adaption to check out The Book of Revelations by Matt Dorff and co


They do a word-for-word adaption of that strange book. The illustrations make the reading more entertaining if not necessarily making the book easier to understand.

Feb 9, 2015

Monday Morning Quote (Sophocles, 2/9/15)

from Sophocles's Antigone (trans. Robert Fagles)

Antigone has buried her brother she says this to King Creone. 

Of course I did. It wasn't Zeus, not in the least,
who made this proclamation - not to me.
Nor did Justice, dwelling with the gods
beneath the earth, ordain such laws for men.
Nor did I think your edict had such force
that you, a mere mortal, could override the gods,
the great unwritten, unshakable traditions.
They are alive, not just today or yesterday:
they live forever, from the first of time,
and no one knows when they first saw the light.
 Antigone was produced shortly before 441 B.C. and is one of the most popular of the ancient Greek plays. Antigone is the daughter of Oedipus and in this play she challenges the king for the right to bury her brother. The king has decreed that the corpse be left to the elements. Antigone's two brothers killed each other fighting over the right to rule Thebes. Antigone ignores the decree and buries the brother even though the act is punishable by death. George Steiner says that Antigone is the one piece of literature that demonstrates "all the constants of conflict in the condition of man. These constants are fivefold: the confrontation of men and women; of age and of youth; of society and of he individual; of the living and the dead; of men and of god(s)."

In the short passage I quoted we see Antigone denying the King's authority to dictate morality. In Creone's mind it is he that has the ultimate authority over good and evil. The only thing good is obeying his commands. The only thing bad is to go against his commands. Antigone argues that morality and even law itself transcends the particular instance and the societal dictates of the present.

Feb 4, 2015

Wed Review (David Hume - An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding)

A few years ago I had, for lack of a better term, an existential crisis. I was completely unsatisfied with the explanations for existence/purpose that I had been given by parents/teachers/friends. It terrified me that no one had ever written about this concerns (obviously people had, I was just never introduced to them). I felt like an idiot for allowing my mind to dwell on concepts such as the basis of human understanding.

It's nice, it's calming to know that extremely intelligent people, and many of them, have been concerned with the basis of human knowledge - and a few of them were as skeptical as I was.

Hume is a beautiful person. He allows us to move past complete skepticism without the need to blindly ignore the fact that complete skepticism is a genuine concern. And he did this hundreds of years ago, under the pressures of being called an 'atheist' and other bad things that could ruin his reputation and his life. I was afraid to explore these concepts in the 21st century for fear of being called weird and depressing.

Feb 2, 2015

Monday Morning Quote (Foucault, 2/2/15)

"The incredulity currently elicited by the prospect of a life lived free of a preoccupation with penises, vaginas, and orgasms, may one day seem as myopic, and historically curious, as the Victorian dread of masturbation."

Michel Foucault

Foucault spent much of his career exploring the relationships of power and knowledge. Power is traditionally viewed as the exercise of force or control over individuals or particular social groups by other individuals or social groups. Foucault was one of the first thinkers to systematically reconsider this view. Power is seen as being constitutive of both the relationships which exist between the groups and therefor power takes form in the individual and social group identities.

Knowledge is subjectively influenced and controlled by power. This is not Foucault's innovation, however. This idea is expressed by the sophist Gorgias in Plato's dialogue of the same name. In the dialogue Gorgias makes his famous claim that 'man is the measure of all things.' In modern philosophy we find the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes making the claim that knowledge is in fact an expression of power. Foucault's innovation is to explore how power takes form and what effect it has on our understanding of things. Ultimately, knowledge can not be analyzed in absence of a discussion of the relationships of power. An understanding of knowledge, therefor, won't take the form of a study of epistemology but rather an intricate study of social relationships.

The basic message explored in today's quote is that many of our current day values may be drastically altered in the future. Indeed these types of changes can be seen all throughout history. Although humans have remained genetically similar throughout recorded history, the manifestations of their values have altered considerably. All this is in direct opposition to the common sense view that there exist a 'correct' value system as set out in the Christian religious dogma that has plagued us for thousands of years. 'Thou salt not' begins the most wrong-headed sentences in existence. There are no moral facts.

The stability of a society was thought to rest upon its ability to cohesively indoctrinate its people and to have them internalize standard values which are practiced consensually. So the idea that there are no moral facts may be a frightful one indeed as one has to then rely on each individual successfully adopting the social norms. However, the study of deviancy suggests that this is not the case. It is rather the case that we can have different conscience collectives for different sub-groups within society and that individuals can and often do break social norms without punishment.

The theory of labeling posits that the person expressing consistent deviant behaviour in one area eventually becomes recognized according to a value-laden term. In today's quote the deviant person, by expressing their sexual freedom, may come to be labelled as a pervert. This label serves to isolate the person from 'normal' society and they may resort to escaping from society and finding social significance within a deviant subculture. Foucault was no stranger to this path as, apparently, he regularly spent time in clubs that were apart of the BDSM world. It follows that the institutions put in place to prevent extreme deviancy (deviancy that is considered illegal, not simply a deviancy from the norm) can be seen to encourage deviant behaviour by forcing the individual to take this shelter and become the label. I argue that the labeling of an individual allows change to occur to the dominant value systems in a society. For example, if the people that make up the gay community of today never joined forces in their 'deviancy', we would perhaps still be in a society that has no toleration of gays, societies that still exist in the world.

In the end, individuals do retain some freedom as to their chosen values. Perhaps there is hope that we can adjust our current values and one day, as Foucault suggests, live in a world free of an obsession of sexuality or whatever other aspect of social life that we currently find hindering.