Mental health and medication connundrum

I often hear of people saying "well, he's off his medicine," or "she quit taking medicine." This can be critical for some people, but does anyone ever stop to ask why someone elects not to be medicated? I suffer from a fairly significant case of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. I also choose not to be medicated, but I have a reason. My non-medicated state does not mean that I am non-treated.

I think that is what most people mean by non-medicated-- non-treated. I have tried countless medications, and they all end with similar results. I either have increased anxiety and become almost incapable of leaving my house (opposite intended effect I know) or I feel nothing. I am no longer depressed (sad), but I no longer care either. I have no anxiety about going out, but there is nothing out I care to see so I don't go. My dog died? Oh, well, crap happens. My friend is having a baby. Yeah, okay, I guess that happens too. I just don't care. Eventually the "I just don't care" becomes I don't care if I am alive. I enter into an almost constant state of suicidal thoughts. I wouldn't try to die, but geez, why stop it? I cannot live like that either. If I had tried one or two I might say keep going. Of the ones listed on verywellmind.com (and no I don't know if that is a great website, but it serves my purpose) I have not tried MAOI's, I think because they interact with my other medication. They aren't a possibility without completely changing my medications and I can't do without one of them. Also, I have tried 2 if not 3 tricyclic antidepressants, and all three increased my PVCs significantly. Next, the site lists SSRIs. I have literally tried all but one of them. I have tried multiple SNRIs as well. The last category lists atypical antidepressants, and like the MAOIs, I will say, I haven't really tried them. I was offered Welbutrin once and my mom almost strangled me. Welbutrin is not good for epileptics. I have tried at least one other of them, with no luck.

When I say that I tried them, I don't mean for one or two weeks or months. I mean, except for Elavil (which increased my heart rate dramatically almost immediately), I would be on them 6-8 months minimum and a few of them 2-3 years with regular med checks and adjustments. The side effects were worse than the depression and anxiety is most days. There lies the problem. Sometimes it isn't worse, but it is rare. This is why I am not nontreated but I am nonmedicated. There are no "happy pills" that can just be taken for rare instances. I have to be proactive and find ways to combat the depression regularly. (I can't take Ativan).

I look for ways to deal with it constantly. I try to exercise and especially get outside time for running/ walking. I also try to manage my diet, environment, and therapy options. I do go to therapy. I work on things outside of therapy. I look for new methods of therapy. I look for ways to minimize the stress and natural anxiety. The bottom line is, I would rather assume you won't read this, no one likes me, and that I am a burden than to feel like life isn't worth living. I can find some joy in life even with these anxieties. Antidepressants take that away. We need to remove the stigma from getting treatment for depression and anxiety, but we also need to empower people to formulate their treatment in whatever manner they see fit. Maybe I will try another medicine one day, but for now, I can't. I just don't want to spend another year wanting to die. I would rather that come in short waves.

***please note that I used non-medicated rather than unmedicated and non-treated rather than untreated for a reason. Unmedicated denotes a need for medicine that isn't present whereas non-medicated indicates a conscious decision not to medicate. The same goes for un or non-treated. I know I need treatment so I am treated. I have made a conscious choice not to medicate due to side effects.

Twenty years ago today

May 16, 1998  I married my ex. We were married for 13 years. This date has very little meaning for my happiness these days, but it isn't a reason to be unhappy. See, we may be divorced, but we are still coparents. Reid has a mom and a dad. Both are important to him.  I have learned a lot since I was 20 years old. First, I learned that just because two people aren't good to each other, or aren't good together, doesn't mean they aren't good people. I have learned that marriage is not something to enter into because you want to be in love and married.

Did I love him? Sure, but I don't think it was the same kind of love that one needs to be married. I was twenty and didn't know the difference in types of love that were necessary to build certain types of relationships. We were married for thirteen years mostly because I was too stubborn to admit that I may have been wrong. Chris wasn't a bad guy. Sure he did things that pissed me off to no end. If you go back far enough on this blog, I am more than sure that you will find proof of that very fact. I know that I did the same to him. That was then. Are we the best of friends, now? No, not really. I do have to say, though, in the realm of exes, I would rather have him than some of the others I have seen. I have a laundry list of reasons for why we should not be married that I can blame on him, and I am absolutely sure that he has the same. We are great people who don't belong together.

Here's what I can say:

He is a great dad. He wants what's best for Reid. He takes time with him and makes him feel good. He takes his time to come to games and take him to dinner. He makes sure that he is well taken care of. He's a good guy.

If you are going through a rough split and have kids, don't rush things. Be patient. The split is your choice, but don't expect to magically get along. Chris and I were nasty to each other when we were married and when we first split. We would never be that way to each other now. We have come to terms with our split, and we realize who is really important, Reid. No one but Reid. Now, if I need something, I know I can go to Chris if I need to, and he can come to me. We can eat dinner together because it makes Reid happy. I can pick Chris up from the airport when he needs a ride because his ride bailed on him. I can give him relationship advice and talk to him about what is bothering me if I need an impartial audience. Why can we do this? Is it because we are in love, love each other, or belong together? Nope. Absolutely, positively not. I could not be married to him again if you paid me, and I am 1000% sure he would say the same. Does that make either of us bad? Nope. We are incompatible. He is a great fella, and I think I am a pretty good gal. Good gals and great fellas don't always belong together. I now have Everett, and he is a great fella too. He is my other half and my great fella. Chris is someone else's great fella.

I appreciate him for who he is. He is Reid's dad.  Reid loves him endlessly as he does me. He worries about him and he worries about me. That is all that is important. Reid. We care for Reid and take care of him together. He isn't my son, nor Chris's; he is ours. We parent together. We handle what Reid needs as a team. I am grateful to him. He gave me the greatest son I could have asked for. As a matter of fact, he also shared his oldest son with me, and Tyler will always be mine in my heart. Tyler has a great mom and I wouldn't replace her, ever, but I will always love him as my own. Chris is a great dad and has two great kids to prove that. Sure Tyler's mom and I have a hand in that too, but genetics plays a part, and the fact that Chris makes sure his kids know that he loves them is incredibly important.

Twenty years ago today I married a guy I had no business marrying, but I wouldn't trade that choice for all the money in the world. My twenty year old self thought that loving someone would fix the incompatibility. I love lots of people, but I would never marry them. Don't disparage your ex if you have one, especially if you have kids. You may have made the wrong choice in partners, but it doesn't mean that there wasn't something wonderful to come from that choice. Chris made the wrong choice in marrying me, but I am sure he'd do it again to have Reid. So, twenty years later, I want to thank him. Thank you for teaching me that there are very different important types of love. Thank you for being a good guy. Thank you for being a great dad. Thank you for having my back when we parent our son. Thank you for being there when I need for you to, and trusting me to be there when you do. Happy anniversary, sort of.

Logical Fallacies- Slippery Slope

This is the "world is going to end because we didn't plant grass today," argument. This fallacy often seems plausible. The slippery slope argument often hinges on worse and worse things until the world is basically ending. I most often see this when debating gay marriage and gender identity.

The argument with gay marriage is usually laid out as: if we have same sex marriage, what's next? Marriage between a man and his cow? Pedophiles marrying their victims? and so on and so forth. Generally speaking, this is absurd. The majority of people that say things like "people should be able to marry whomever they choose," are speaking of two consenting adults. Now, at the risk of falling prey to another logical fallacy, no, they don't always say it, but it is implied. "How is it implied?" you may ask. Well, I have never actually heard a logical, sane person argue for anything other than same sex marriage when they actually get into the argument. When pressed for more information on the policies they seek, they will argue for two consenting adults be allowed to marry regardless of gender.

The other way I see this fallacy is when people are discussing gender identity or sexual orientation. People will suddenly break in with something like "if I feel like a dog, that doesn't mean I am actually a dog." or "What next? people identifying as poodles." This is a bit extreme. From what I can tell, there are two basic genders, on either end of the spectrum. None of them come up with a whole new gender. There's male, female, gender fluid (both), and agendered (neither) for the main categories, and it may be somewhere in between for some. None of these are listed as poodle, duck, tree, or anything else. It's an extreme reaction to something the person doesn't understand.

This is the slippery slope. Neither of these things are really going to happen. We can even create laws to prevent them. The laws could state that marriage between consenting adults is legal, as long as all parties agree to the terms. It becomes less sexy then, but the government isn't very sexy to begin with. We also must acknowledge that separation of church and state means that there is no religious connotation of marriage under the legal definition. Churches may elect not to perform ceremonies, but they can for heterosexual couples as well. As far as gender, we can also limit this to only human genders. We can insist that people will choose a human gender. We don't have to acknowledge the ones who want to identify as a tree. Bathrooms should all be single stall unisex anyway, so don't get me started.

Don't fall down the slippery slope. Things that you do not approve of or understand may exist without the drama of thinking the worst will happen.

The Bill of Rights- The Tenth Amendment

The tenth amendment covers those things that should be left to the states.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Basically this one covers everything that the federal government should stay out of. People should govern themselves or the states should; the federal government should stay out of it. This is a debate between the Democrats and Republicans in many cases. One side wants more government control while the other wants less. There should be some common ground in this area, as what is best for the people may be different depending on each situation. No, I don't think the government needs to know everything I do always, but I do think that some consistency throughout the states would be good. I am not a lawmaker, however, so I cannot decide which of these things are better to be left to states and which should be federal. There are cases for both. The fact of the matter is, the constitution says that somethings should be left alone.

The Bill of Rights- Ninth Amendment

The ninth amendment is a catch all.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This amendment basically says that the rights of the people are not limited to those outlined in the constitution as it is written. We have more rights than are outlined here. The rights of the people to be free shouldn't be infringed upon, and the constitution felt the need to say that this document wasn't conclusive. There really isn't much to debate in this one.

I do feel that 2nd amendment supporters should actually use the 9th amendment instead. The wording of the second is unclear as to whether or not we should be armed to have a well regulated militia or if everyone has the right to bear arms for any purpose. This one says that the the amendments are not conclusive, so they could protect the rights of the citizens to protect themselves. Just my two cents worth, though. ;)

Logical Fallacies- False Dichotomies

False dichotomies are related to being black and white. They are also either or. It is a fallacy of limitations, though. Many people do not see the shades of grey in the world, and that is the fallacy of seeing things as black or white. There is also the dilemma of limiting one's choices. Like the example of conservative or liberal that was the black or white debate, this one is popular in politics as well.

During the last presidential election, people were hellbent on choosing between republican or democrat. Maybe they were the two most likely choices, or the ones with the most viable candidates, but they weren't the only choices. Many people believe that voters either voted for Hillary or for Donald. Well, that's simply not true. Many states have provisions for write in candidates (NC has restrictions such as you must be registered as a write in candidate) and almost every state has provisions for third party candidates. If a candidate files in a state prior to their deadlines, and following their rules, many parties may be represented on a ballot.

Take Randolph County for instance. There is an upcoming sheriff's election. There are two parties with candidates running before the primary. The Republican Party may choose from Greg Seabolt or Robert Graves. The Libertarian Party has Eric Hicks and Adam Brooks for candidates. Eric Hicks is actually a republican, but thought he would ensure his nomination by switching parties for the primary. This way he would make it on the final ballot in November, but Adam Brooks entered the race. Now, I am not sure why Hicks chose Libertarian, as I have not followed him that closely, but I imagine it has to do with the fact that it's not one of the "two major" political parties in the US, so he thought there would be less likely a challenger. We still have two parties to choose from, but they aren't the parties that most people would consider. It would seem that we only have two choices.

We have more than two choices now, as we did in November of 2016. In November of 2016 we could vote Democrat (Clinton), Republican (Trump), Independent (Johnson), Write-in (Stein), or not voting. See in NC, You have to register as an optional write-in candidate. Jill Stein was the only NC candidate to do so. BUT we still had more than two options. People kept complaining about the two options, but didn't want to take the time to actually vote for/ campaign for another option. People complain about there being only two choices, but there are not. It's a false dichotomy. Nothing will change because the democrats won't vote republican and vice versa. Well, What if people start electing not Democrats or Republicans? But they won't.... oops that's circular logic. We'll discuss that one next. We have limited ourselves by devising a dichotomy and living by it, when it doesn't really exist. We have more choices, but we can't see the forest for the trees.

Logical Fallacies- Genetic/ Origin Fallacy

This fallacy bases it's argument on the origin of the argument. This one is popular in political circles. Donald Trump said it; therefore we know it's crap. Hillary Clinton said it, so it must be evil. While I don't like to accept anything Donald Trump says at face value, it isn't wrong just because he said it. For example, like him or not, heck, like Hillary or not, he was kind to her back at the debates when he said she was a fighter and not a quitter. I don't necessarily agree with everything Hillary says or does either, but she is a fighter. I had definite reservations about her being president. This isn't about her politics, or his. What this is about is that no matter how you feel about someone, they may have a valid point. Dismissing a valid argument because the person with the idea is an enemy or you don't like them, is a fallacy in itself. His point, in this case, was valid and true. I cannot dismiss it just because he says it.

This one is difficult at times. Donald Trump, in my opinion, is a bigoted misogynist. I don't trust most of what he says. That said, I can't dismiss an argument just because he says it. I fully believe that we should validate, research, and explore his (or anyone's) arguments before believing them as fact. I also believe that we shouldn't believe anything based upon origin, either. People shouldn't believe everything anyone says. Not even our parents or friends. I mean, look at the whoppers our parents told us in childhood. ;) I love my dad, but basing an argument on things he says could be dangerous. He tells a great story. That doesn't mean they are 100%true.

People are often wrong, and often right. We are fallible, and should investigate all claims. Accepting or denying claims based upon the genetic origins is ill advised.

The Bill of Rights- The Eighth Amendment

This amendment keeps us from being held with excessive punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This means we cannot be put to death for stealing a loaf of bread. We also can't be held on a million dollars bond for that same loaf of bread.

Most Americans agree that the punishment should fit the crime. Petty theft shouldn't carry decades in prison. Rape should carry more than 6 months.

Most of the time when this particular amendment is debated, we tend to be angry about the lack of punishment. We tend to be discussing how an accused rapist is later discovered to be wrongly convicted, but the accuser isn't charged, or the punishment is lighter.

Another debate is how one person of a certain race is given a lighter sentence than those of other races. Punishments must all fit their respective crimes regardless of skin color or gender.

This amendment is supposed to keep us from being punished harshly for a minor crime, though. There are other laws that are meant to handle punishments being different for groups based on gender or race.

The Bill of Rights- The Seventh Amendment

The seventh amendment, again, is a little debated amendment.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This is just saying that in civil suits worth more than $20, the defendant has the right to a jury trial. This doesn't mean that a jury trial is required, but people can elect to have a jury trial, rather than rely on the judge to determine whether or not the defendant must pay. That's basically this amendment in a nutshell. 

We can't be forced to have just one person determine our fate in civil court. That's great news!

Logical Fallacies- Black or White

This logical fallacy seems to be a favorite on Facebook. It is also one of the dumbest arguments I see. Rarely is anything cut and dry, black and white. Just because I believe in one thing, doesn't mean I can't acknowledge belief in something else. Just because I like purple, doesn't mean I hate green. Two things can occur simultaneously. Not all liberals believe in banning weapons. Actually, very few people believe in an all out ban on firearms. Not all conservatives believe that everyone should be armed. Some actually believe in gun laws that work. Also, just because one has a conservative belief, doesn't mean that they are conservative in all their beliefs, nor vice versa.

This meme keeps going around:


Which irritates me either way. First, not all liberals believe in not owning guns, and higher taxes. I know more liberal gun owners than people obviously think. I also know more "conservative" potheads than not. Actually, most of the people trying to push for legalizing Marijuana on my social media networks are ultraconservative, anti-abortion, pro-gun, self-proclaimed rednecks. I rarely see middle of the road people advocating for any of this. Belief in one of these things doesn't make on completely liberal or conservative. Most of us have both liberal and conservative beliefs. The world is not black and white. Stop putting people in categories and trying to piss one another off, and actually start listening. Some conservatives have good ideas, and some liberals do too!

Very few things are cut and dry. People aren't entirely liberal or conservative a lot of the times.

Theft is wrong. Starvation is also wrong. There is a grey area where people sometimes justify theft because the thief was starving and was desperate. Others see theft as always wrong. The world is full of grey. Not everything is one or the other. I love George Jones. I also love Eazy-E. I cannot discount one genre of music because I prefer another. Each has its own merit. The world isn't black and white.

Logical Fallacies-Bandwagon/ Fallacy of popularity

This fallacy hinges on the belief that if everyone is doing it/ believes it then it must be true. Think of lemmings. One jumps over a cliff and more follow. Many of our moms would say "Well, if Johnny jumped off a bridge would you do it too? I don't care what Johnny is doing."

There have even been a few social experiments that have proven that people will believe things just because others do. Telling people 74% of Americans believe XYZ can make some people believe it as well. For example, if I tell people that 84% of Americans wear green on Tuesdays, people will begin to believe that wearing green on Tuesday should be a thing. I mean 84% of people think it's okay. It must be. This is a simple belief that will not affect much other than laundry, but there are debates that can be much more significant.

Most of these revolve around belief in a deity or religion. "You can't tell me that 3/4 of the world's population is wrong. There is a higher power." Now, I am not actually going to debate whether or not God or a god exists. What I am saying here is that God doesn't exist simply because people agree that He does. To further that, I am not going to say that He doesn't exist simply because large numbers of people say that he doesn't exist. The world isn't round because lots of people say it is. The world is round because it can be scientifically proven to be round. I don't care how many flat earthers say that the world is flat. Their agreement doesn't mean that it is true.

Also, be careful about jumping on a bandwagon. Slavery was popular amongst Southern plantation owners in 1785, but that doesn't make it right. It was still wrong and harmed thousands of Africans and African Americans.

The Bill of Rights- Sixth Amendment

The sixth amendment is mostly agreed upon in most circles. It reads as follows:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

This amendment protects citizens from long waits for trial, a "stacked" jury, traveling an unreasonable distance for trial, being charged and not knowing for what, being testified against without the ability to confront his or her accuser; and allows for witnesses of their own; and permits the accused to have a lawyer. Most people think this is generally a good thing. 

The times I see this right imaginarily infringed upon, it is for heinous crimes. The person denying the rights feels that it is justified. Pedophiles should just be taken out back and shot, and have no need for a trial. While I don't disagree with the sentiment, it opens a dangerous can of worms. What if we take the rights of any accused pedophile, rapist, or murderer and throw them under the jail? What about the falsely accused? What about those acts of self defense (in the case of murder)? What about the jealous ex trying to get someone in trouble? We tend to agree that anyone who knowingly falsely accuses someone of rape should then be charged with a crime with equal punishment. If we take away the sixth amendment rights, the falsely accused would be killed or incarcerated under false pretenses. 

For these reasons, the sixth amendment is necessary. I think most of us can live with that. 

The Bill of Rights- The Fifth Amendment

I plead the fifth... do I really understand that?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

This one is full of information, and most of it is not debated, but the phrase "I plea the fifth" isn't used properly most of the time. 

Let's take this section by section. 

1. You cannot be held without an indictment, unless there is an extenuating circumstance of war (exception here is for war crimes) or public danger (there's a serial killer on the loose, I think). I am not even clear on the two exceptions myself. I think that it must be the Summer of Sam or a War Crime to supersede the need for a formal indictment or charges. Not all charges require grand jury indictment, but you must formally be charged before being compelled to answer for crimes. We see this in crime shows frequently... they can only hold the perp for 24 hours for questioning before having to cut him loose or charge him. No, Law & Order is not the authority on constitutional law, but it is a reference point for this portion of the Fifth Amendment. 

2. Double Jeopardy- you cannot be charged twice for the same crime. This one I don't quite understand the inner workings. For example, OJ was found not guilty of killing Nicole. Why can he not just admit now that he did and avoid prosecution. Jeopardy is attached to capital crimes such as murder. The state cannot appeal, so he could admit to it without going to prison. So why not just admit it? Did he not do it? Most of the court of public opinion feels he did. I do think that I understand he could be charged with other crimes such as obstruction of justice, lying under oath, and other such crimes. I do not believe those have the same penalty, though. 

3. This is the part people use incorrectly. "or shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Witness against himself would indicate that he is guilty. If someone is called as a witness against someone else, it is to testify that someone or something did something wrong. It doesn't say that you can't be compelled to witness for yourself (which you aren't required to do either) but you cannot be forced to admit wrongdoing. Pleading the fifth is not refusing to testify it is refusing to incriminate oneself. 

4. This part means that we (the police, city, state, etc) cannot seize property without just cause. No one can just take the property one owns for use of the state. You must be compensated fairly. 

Think about how you use these phrases. 

Logical Fallacies- Ad Hominem

This logical fallacy is easy to get caught up in. This fallacy is an attack on the character of your opponent rather than the merits of the argument. While I will never say whether I voted Democrat, Independent, or write in candidate in the last presidential election, it is a well known fact that I did not vote for Donald Trump. The reasons that I don't think he is the right candidate are almost all related to his character. That said, even a blind squirrel gets a nut sometimes. He may come up with a plan that has value and merit. He hasn't, in my opinion, as of yet, but that's not the point of this.

If I am debating with someone, for instance, Donald Trump, and I am opposed to his argument, or his stance, I cannot challenge his character as a good reason to be against this argument. For example, if he says that homosexuals should be married in civil ceremonies only, and I want to oppose that, I can't say that's a stupid plan because you're a womanizer who cheats on his wife, therefore you have no authority. His marital sexual escapades have no bearing on your knowledge of the law, constitutionality, nor feasibility of your plan. Let's face it, Bill Clinton was somewhat similar in his alleged escapades, and we let him stay president. Donald Trump has suffered the same allegations, it doesn't matter in terms of the argument at hand.

It's easy to attack a conservative or a liberal for holding beliefs you do not like. It is also easy to shut out a solution simply because you do not like the author of the solution. That is 99% of the issues in the US today. We don't like the other side, so we don't want to meet half way. IF you want your argument to be valid, refrain from attacking the other side's character. Attack, instead, the other side's argument.

The Bill of Rights- The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This one, most people seem to agree on, for the most part. People do not want to be randomly searched, and they agree, generally that this is bad. There was a policy, I believe in NY, several years ago that met with controversy— stop and frisk. Many people were on board with stop and frisk, because it could prevent crimes from occurring. I don't know the statistics on this, so that is not what I am debating. The fact is, regardless of the effectiveness, it violates the constitution. It is unreasonable to search an individual walking down the street. The amendment says that citizens cannot be searched, nor their property taken by law enforcement without a warrant. We can't search people because we want to, we think they don't belong in an area, or it might stop a crime. We have to follow the constitution and obtain a warrant. There is the exception of probable cause. If an officer stops someone and they are truly acting suspicious or if they feel there is probable cause that a crime is occurring, they may be permitted to search you anyway. This is where the word unreasonable comes into play. Unreasonable means that you cannot be searched willy-nilly, but you may be searched if there is a good reason. If you appear to be hiding something or trying to obstruct the officer's view of something, you may be searched. 

An officer may not enter your home and search it. They may not stop you on a traffic stop and just search you. They must a.) ask permission or b.) have probable cause. If an officer knocks on my door tonight and asks me if he can search my home, I am well within my constitutional right to say no. That said, the officer will often attempt to get a warrant at that point, making the search legal. However, if he has no justifiable reason, a warrant would be conceivably more difficult to obtain. The same is true for a traffic stop or for being stopped while walking down the street. 

No one wants to be unnecessarily searched, and the constitution protects that. 

Logical Fallacies- False Cause

One of the hardest fallacies to recognize is the false cause. So, what is a false cause? This is when people assume that two things are related that may or may not be, they just have commonality. Just because two things happen in close proximity (either in space or time), it does not mean they are related. For example, a study a few years ago said that women with PCOS were more likely to have a child with Autism. There were a few problems with this study, but the major problem was that it was small scale, and only looked at one factor PCOS. Not every child with Autism was born to a mother with PCOS and not every mother with PCOS bore a child with Autism. The study took place in only one country. This may mean that there are environmental factors, rather than physiological ones. The factors were not researched. The commonality of both conditions was cited. Just because many women with PCOS have children with Autism, doesn't mean that is a risk factor. It may be entirely independent of what causes Autism. People have searched for years for reasons Autism exists. 

It doesn't really matter for this post WHAT causes Autism, but it matters that the link isn't solid. The fallacy here is assuming that because two things exist in close proximity that one must be the cause of the other. 

A hypothetical example would be that the majority of mass murders happen in the South (I made that up and don't know if that is even remotely true), therefore since the South is warmer with more humidity, the people are more likely to kill. Well, it may be warmer and more humid, which can certainly make people miserable, but that doesn't mean that heat/ humidity creates killers. There are other factors to consider. Do these Southern mass murderers have other things in common? Race, socioeconomic status, gender, psychopathy, sociopathy? What caused the psychopathy/ sociopathy? Was that genetic or due to the environment of the killers? Simply assuming two things are related doesn't make them so. They may happen in the same span of time or with the same frequency, but that does not mean that one causes the other. 

Often I see this with the violence debate. People often debate that violent video games cause violent behavior, but many studies have shown just the opposite. Here, here, here, and here are articles in mass media that contradict that. I know you can find many articles that say it's true, but it really isn't clear, and is often a false cause. We are linking two things together that aren't necessarily related. Gun violence isn't necessarily related to video game violence. If it were we would have more issues throughout the world. Many other countries actually spend more on violent video games and play them more frequently, but are not seeing mass murders. It may be the cause. I don't know. What I do know is current research doesn't support this, and we can't assume that because two things happen at the same time, or even together, that one causes the other. 

That is the false cause fallacy or the fallacy of cause. 

Logical Fallacies- Argument of fallacy

This is an interesting one that I see from time to time. This fallacy hinges on a previous fallacy. Claiming someone's claim is wrong just because the argument contains a fallacy does not make the claim wrong. I realize that there are currently people who believe that the Earth is flat, but all evidence I have tells me that it is round. Now, if I argue that the world is round because only idiots believe otherwise, it's a bad argument, but not necessarily untrue that the world is round. I have attacked my opponents character, but I have not proven that the initial claim. Scientifically speaking, it may be a proven fact. It may be frustrating to me that people deny and doubt science. That does not mean that my argument that contains a fallacy is inherently false.

Some people will say that since I said something that was logically false (only idiots believe...) that my whole argument is wrong. You may have a harder time believing my claim when I use logical fallacies, but that doesn't make it untrue. I am guilty of this sometimes as well. If I see someone unable to form a coherent sentence trying to tell me something about language, I won't believe them until I hear it from a more credible source. I sometimes make grammar mistakes, even as a person with a master's degree in English, but I try to at least sound coherent. We need to stop and argue credibility rather than false claim when an argument contains a fallacy already. Rather than say that the world is flat because my claim that only idiots believe it is flat is a fallacy and therefore it cannot be round, we need to say that because the claim contains a fallacy, a new argument must be made without a fallacy. The argument is weakened due to the fallacy.

The Bill of Rights- The Third Amendment

The third amendment reads as follows: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 

This amendment is not debated often, but as a scholar, it is still important to understand what it means. This amendment is the one that sort of gives us the right not to house soldiers if we do not wish to do so. 

This amendment was included because the people did not want the government imposing on them and forcing them to quarter soldiers. This is great, but carefully read the final phrase—but in a manner prescribed by law. This gives the possibility to force us to quarter soldiers, but there must also be a law in place. I don't know if there is a current law, but it is also possible to create a law in time of need. We have not had a domestic war since the Civil War, and have had very few domestic attacks that lead to war. This doesn't mean that we couldn't be required to at some point, but it is not likely that we would have a need to house a soldier any time soon. Should it become feasible, I am sure that this will be a hot button issue. 

The Bill of Rights- The Second Amendment

This is one of the hottest amendments going. People love to debate the second amendment. Let us take a look at the actual amendment and what is and is not covered. I am not a lawyer, so I cannot get involved with the actual legal aspects, but I am an English scholar, so I will debate the linguistic meaning of the amendment.

The amendment is specifically worded: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The first part of the amendment is often left out of debates. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," would seem to say that the right is an organization to protect. "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," would be a continuance of that statement. So, in order to create the "well-regulated militia," we cannot infringe on the rights to "keep and bear arms."

How many people screaming for their guns are members of a militia? For those who are members of a militia (I am assuming a government sanctioned one such as the Armed Forces), are you screaming to keep your militia issued arms?

This amendment does not mention types of arms either. This is where interpretation comes into play.

Certain things have been found in certain cases in the US court systems. It is legal, and within the confines of the law. For example, it is legal to ban personal weapons at government facilities. How, then, does this prevent anything if we still have mass shootings. I don't know if it does or doesn't, but I do know that needing certain permits does not give you the right to carry anywhere. Another thing that has been decided is that it is legal to say certain groups aren't permitted firearms, that firearms must carry a permit and other nuances. This law doesn't say that you can have as many weapons in whatever style you like. There can be regulations.

I have a few ideas for what some of those regulations could be, and it would not infringe on any already given rights. That's not for this post though. The debate I am covering here is not one of what should be done, only one of what cannot be done. At any point, the government can declare that there is already a well-organized militia and that personal firearms are not permitted, and second amendment rights may not be infringed upon. That is an interpretation challenge.

For this purpose, though, the amendment does not actually cover personal use. It covers a well-regulated militia. We don't need one of those. We have one of the strongest militaries in the world. Does this mean the second amendment is outdated? Can it be argued that this actually covers individuals, not member of the militia? These are questions debated by the legal system. I am not going to debate them for you. Linguistically speaking, this amendment does not cover the average citizen's right to bear arms because he feels like it.

When this was written, however, hunting rifles likely weren't even considered, as they were essential to life. You may have lived in an area where you could get meat at a market, but it was more likely that someone was hunting for the bulk of the meat. Some people lived on farms with cows, chickens, pigs, and other animals typically killed for meat, but it wasn't unusual to be hunting for deer, elk, bison, or other meat. It may have, very well, been assumed that hunting rifles would be a right. These rifles were essential to the maintenance of life. Are they still? Maybe. It certainly could be argued.


This post isn't to debate, however, the intention, nor the interpretation. This post is to make you think about the wording and that it doesn't necessarily cover what you think. The second amendment does not mention the right for individuals to bear arms. The supreme court has interpreted it that way. The thing with interpreting reading is that each reader has a different interpretation. Interpretations are formed based upon many factors that are not related to the document. People's histories, biases, and life experiences shape their reading and interpretation. Ask any Biblical scholar. They certainly know that things are interpreted differently. 

I could get involved with explaining communities of readers and literary theory, but that isn't what this is about. It is simply about the fact that people don't understand what is really written in each amendment. We do have the right to bear arms in order to form a well regulated militia. We don't necessarily have the right to own an arsenal. That comes from interpretation by the supreme court. 

Logical Fallacies- Strawman- If I only had an argument

Many people do not know what logical fallacies are. They are examples of "reaching" as many people call it. People will form an argument and think it is valid, but there is a gaping hole. This will explain what the types of holes are.

The first fallacy we will visit is the Strawman fallacy. This one is currently running rampant on social media. The strawman argument is taking an argument, stripping it to the base form, then twisting it to an extreme. We will visit both sides of the gun control fight with this one.

Scenario 1:
Person A: We need to restrict the sale of firearms, and create stronger background checks.

Person B: Why do you hate America? You just want to take my guns and let the bad guys kill us all.

Scenario 2:
Person B: I don't feel that gun restrictions are the answer.

Person A: Why do you want to make guns available to everyone? No one will be safe. Everyone will just open fire wherever they go.

Now, these are not the actual arguments the individuals are making, but they are the twists that people place upon the arguments.

What person A is likely saying is that we need to try to regulate what is available and to whom. We know that there will be some criminals who get weapons anyway, but we may be able to stop some people or at least delay them. Sometimes delaying the procurement of weapons will buy time to remove the threat.

What person B is likely saying is that he or she feels vulnerable without the means to defend him or herself with a firearm. He doesn't want to willy nilly open fire. Most gun owners do not want to fire their weapons for defense ever. They only want to feel secure.

The scarecrow was made of straw. There was nothing significant to his body. It easily falls apart. Let's avoid using the strawman argument. Try to stop and listen when it feels that the argument is extreme. Unless the other person actually creates an argument that is that extreme, don't assume that is what they mean.

The grass is just as bloody on the other side

***This blog should have been published a long time ago. It was not. I am hitting publish now, even though it may be older news.

There have been many discussions recently about race relations and authority figures. Some of us have experience with one side or another, but most of us are bystanders in a world of unrest. It would appear there are two sides. You're either with us or against us, and by this, I mean whichever group you sympathize with most fully. It seems neither side wants you to understand the other. There is the issue. No one desires to believe they are similar to the other side.


I want you to think for a minute about the minority side-- the faction that believes they are wearing a target for the color of their skin. I want you to think about what the world has taught them and their ancestors. Beginning in 1619 Africans were brought to this country for animalistic reasons. We (America) didn't want people. We wanted an animal to work the fields, do our dirty work, and not talk back when told to. We didn't want humans we wanted a silent workforce too stupid to expect anything better. These savages didn't live the way we did so they must be subhuman (whatever that means). So we took these savages by any means necessary-- trickery, lies, or just plain kidnapping.


Many of you may be saying, "But that ended in 1863, so these guys need to get over it." Well, the end of slavery and the end of the civil war ushered in the Jim Crow era. It may have been illegal to own another person, but it was also illegal for those who had been owned to do much of anything. A Black man could be accused of sexual assault for looking at a White woman, but a White man could pretty much rape a Black woman in the center of town, and that was okay. If you think that has changed, I would like to offer two names. Darryl Hunt and Brock Turner.


These savages were criminals. No way could they be trusted to behave humanly. Eventually, we ushered in the rights movements such as the Civil Rights movement in the 60s and the Women's movements either through suffrage or women's liberation. Rosa Parks refused to give up a bus seat. I wonder what would happen today should a "Rosa Parks" refuse an order of an officer. Would she be shot? It would seem so.


Any time these families have relied on authority, they have been let down. The slaves were treated (and counted in government) as less than human. The officers then arrested them for whatever could be imagined in a racist society. Next came Civil Rights movements, where peaceful protestors such as Rosa Parks and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were arrested, again by officers sworn to uphold the law. Now, we have a Black president. Shouldn't that stop these race issues? No, I think that is part of what has exacerbated them. I am proud that, in my lifetime, we have had an African American President as well as will very likely see a female one (even if it isn't Hillary, I don't think it will be long). However, many generations have been taught fear of the unknown and resistance to change. The president has always had a certain look-- skin tone. People aren't sure how to deal with change. It's an us or them society these days. Bigots will always happen. This president has helped us to find the closet racists. What about the other side???


Let's think about what White America has been taught over the centuries. Well, for many years, people were taught that these were Savages. They were considered to be subhuman. Those who were near human were simple minded and dense. During the Jim Crow era, Blacks wanted to take over, steal the land and women from hard working Whites. In the 60s it was okay to be free but why intermingle? Heaven forbid they want a White man's education. They were simple stupid folk destined to be drivers, cooks, and manual laborers. The occasional well-educated Black man was met with resistance because his White counterpart was taught to fear him.



In the Antebellum South, authority figures only dealt with the slaves or any Black person if they were not falling in line with their masters or bosses (for the free). Then during Jim Crow, they were repeatedly taught to seek out the subhuman scum before he or she could infect the "right" way of life. Only resistance. During the Civil Rights movement, "they" were coming to take all that was good and holy. They no longer knew their place, and the unknown was fearful.



Authority figures had never dealt with the law abiding citizen. What he had known was fear of the unknown.


50 years separates us from the Civil Rights Movement to now. Why hasn't anything changed? Why is it getting worse? In the Civil Rights Era, things were to be equal finally. No one had more right than anyone else. While this may be true on paper, there were still quite a few people who were unhappy with the way "things" were taken from them, so they found ways only to promote certain people. It seems a little more acceptable these days to do this with gender relations. It's a boys club. The men make the rules, and the little women follow them. For example, a woman as a Firefighter. She is taken less seriously than her male counterparts and told to let the big boys handle it. This is because we are taught from a very early age that women are the fairer sex. Women cannot perform unrefined jobs. The same happens with race.



From an early age, groups are taught their lot in life. This group with this shade of skin belongs here. And this group belongs here. And God forbid the tween shall meet. I never cared about skin color or gender or any other arbitrary condition, but my surroundings did. I remember when I was in high school I was close with a Black male. Because we hung out and talked, a rumor was started that we were dating. For some people, that believed the story that was just scandalous. How could the White girl at stereotypical southern white high school date a Black guy??? Well, we weren't dating. I actually never have dated a Black guy. I am not at all opposed; I just never did. Why would it matter? Well, I was taught, through my surroundings that "they" were dangerous. "They" would hurt me. Lucky for me, I am stubborn and don't believe you until I experience it for myself. I can tell you this from my personal experience. No one race has hurt me more than another. It's not race. It's an individual. Somewhere, someone decided that White girls shouldn't date Black dudes. Um, whatever.


Well, cops were taught these same things and more. Now they go into these Black neighborhoods full of people who have never been helped by the Cop and have often been hurt, and there is palpable tension. If you hit a man often enough eventually he will fight back. For almost 400 years Blacks have been abused by White society in America. They are angry. Cops are taught these people need to be kept in their places. They aren't to rise up against you. If they try, it is very dangerous, and you must fight back.


For many generations, cops have been doing the hitting because they have been taught to fear the savages through societal messages. Everyone is afraid. Everyone is tired. It is coming to a head.


Think about it this way. Think of non-Whites as a battered woman or child. I use woman or child because men who are battered are rarely taken seriously. But I digress. Anyway, that woman or child has always known an abuser, a man. The woman was abused as a child by her father, grew up and was abused by every man she met. She never knew a gentle hand. The kid was abused, sent to foster care, abused some more, etc. Abuse is all either of them have known. Imagine the police are the men in this scenario. No one would dare say that all men are abusers, but some are. The battered people are non-Whites. The only experiences the damaged people have with men is abuse. How trusting do you think these oppressed people are going to be with men?


The only interaction many Blacks have with officers is adverse. They only want to hurt or kill them. How easy do you think it will be to trust a good cop? How easy will it be for the battered woman or child to trust a man? What about a good guy? Now, imagine that the cop only hears from other cops how these broken people are. They are stupid; they lie; they are plotting to kill you; they are devious. Now imagine the abused women and children ban together. How long before they begin to fight back? They fear for their lives. These men are the source of their strife and struggle. How long before the rage builds to the point that they can only see the abusive males? How long before they accuse every man of being bad? How long before every man is fed up? How long before every man is afraid for his life due to the rage?


These aren't just men, nor are they damaged-women. These are Blacks tired of being targets. These are cops tired of being scapegoats and accused. These are living breathing people without a way out. The most dangerous kind. Nothing left to lose. Neither side is all right. Neither side is all wrong. And neither party wants to work it out with the other because they are scared. Who can blame them? Each side has been fed lies and deceit about the other. This has sparked misguided and life-altering actions. Do I condone the riots? No. Do I get it? Yes. Do I condone the trigger finger??? NO!!! But I get the fear that causes it. We won't get far this way, but I get it. I get why both sides are angry.


I cannot fix these issues. I can pray. I can hope. I can ask leaders of both sides to learn to open dialogue. This is my invitation to do that. Stop. Listen. Learn. Retrain yourself to trust the other side. Just a little. Learn that not all cops are bad. Not all Blacks are either. Foster change. Be that change. Tell me what I can do to be the change.



Am I okay with what is going on in Charlotte? Absolutely not. Am I okay with unarmed men being targeted and shot? Absolutely not! I will say that I am enraged by the thought of it. Am I saying this incident or that was an unarmed man being shot? No, but some of them are. Period. People have become so engrossed in their fear and have grown so trigger-happy when it comes to defense, they forget another human is on the other end of the bullet. Please stop, pray, talk, and love.

The Bill of Rights- The First Amendment

Hello everyone out there. We seem to be at a difficult point in the US. Many people are talking about rights being taken away and people being treated unfairly. Some of the things that you all are angry about are not actually things to be angry about. I mean, y'all are individuals and can be mad about anything that you want, but you are mad about something that is beyond your control and none of your business. 

I am going to spend the next few weeks visiting two things, 1. The Bill of Rights and 2. Logical Fallacies. I will have individual posts for each of the amendments in the bill of rights and yet more individual posts for logical fallacies. None of these posts are meant to make you or anyone feel stupid, rather they are to educate you on what these amendments actually say. I will first interpret the meanings of the words as they are, not the judicial interpretation. I may speak a little about the judicial interpretation, but this is mostly to point out what these amendments mean. 

The first amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Things to be taken from this amendment.

1. Religion- we cannot base laws upon religion, religious belief, or religious interpretation.
1. Establishing a law based on the Christian religion with God or religion as the basis establishes Christianity as the national religion. 
1. The interpretation of the US as a Christian nation is inaccurate. 
1. The US is a nation of primarily Christians, but it is not a Christian nation. It cannot be, based on the first amendment to the constitution
2. Banning homosexual anything (marriage, adoption, etc.) on the basis that it is a sin establishes the US as a "Christian" nation and therefore cannot be done. It is unconstitutional on the basis that homosexuality is a sin in some denominations. 
3. The free exercise thereof means that I cannot be required to participate in the traditions, nor can I be required to stop any traditions that are not a direct violation of someone else’s rights (within reason). As a religious institution, I cannot be required to allow two people to be married if it goes against my religious doctrine, but only within the confines of my church or facility. If I am a pastor, I am not required to marry them. I cannot, however, discriminate on the basis of my religion if I own a non-religious based business. It’s not an easy interpretation.
2. Freedom of speech or of the press
1. Speech includes not speaking either. I am not required to say or pledge if I choose not to. I can say anything I like. I can choose to sit out rather than speak, if I choose. 
2. The press is also free to print anything they like within reason. I can write a story about how stupid I believe someone to be. I just cannot do anything to interfere with their pursuit of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. If I print that they are a sexual predator, I need to have proof. 
3. Peaceable assembly means that I cannot stop you from congregating. 
1. Nazis can congregate. I can’t stop them. Quakers can congregate; I can join them but not prevent them. I cannot dictate who can assemble. That said, when you are assembled, you cannot be violent, destructive, or harm others. Nazis can rally in downtown Greensboro. Hippies can protest next to them. Neither group can harm the other. 
4. Finally, petition the government for a redress of grievances.
1. This means that you can write to, protest to, or request the government revisit a law or change one. It also means that if we have an issue with the way the government is handling things we can ask for a reinterpretation. 

In a nutshell, I can't tell you what to do based upon religion. The reason something is allowed or not, cannot be "God says so." It can be the reason you do or do not participate, but it cannot be the reason everyone can or no one can. Therefore, I cannot prevent LGBTQ individuals from marrying, using a restroom, buying a house, or purchasing a cake. If I am a business, I cannot prevent people from using my services based on religious principle. If I am a church, I can, but only because the individual is choosing to practice my religion, and I can say that is not the way the religion is practiced. I cannot make you speak, nor can I stop you from speaking. Speech can include gestures, writing, or other methods of communication. I cannot stop you from sitting during the anthem, nor can I compel you to say the anthem. If you don't like me, you can tell anyone you choose, and as long as telling them doesn't interfere with my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, I can't stop you. You cannot spread false rumors that keep me from being employable or obtaining housing, but you can tell anyone you like that you don't like me and why. Anyone can congregate, as long as they aren't violating the law. Women wanna march? Okay. Men wanna march? Okay. Bigots wanna march? Okay. Here's the thing: anyone can hold a meeting, rally, march, or anything else. Anyone else can march "against" them. As long as no one breaks the law, they can stand and argue all day. Lastly, we can petition the government, march for change, and ask that new laws be written. This one is a little frustrating, because it is interpreted in such a manner, that lobbies are okay. I am not so sure that lobbies in Washington are what we need. It doesn't matter how I feel about the right, it is there. 

That is the thing about any of this—it doesn't matter what you think. You can disagree with someone's response. You can think they are an idiot, a sinner, an entitled little shit, or anything else, but you can't stop them from invoking those rights. Football players taking a knee may enrage military veterans, but it is well within their rights. It is not in the right of owners to fire them for doing so. It is an exercise of free speech. Now, sponsors can pull sponsorship for them doing that, but they cannot lose their jobs. Sponsorship is a contract and contracts can be renegotiated at anytime. Football players are sort of in a special category because they are also on contracts; they cannot be fired for invoking their rights, but they don't have to be offered another contract. They can be offered a lower contract rate, or other recourse may be taken, but they cannot be released for being Americans and invoking their right to kneel. We can stop watching if this makes us angry. We cannot stop them from doing it. I am not defending taking a knee in this post, but I am saying that it is well within their rights.