My FAQ

TL;DR

First, do no harm.

So long as it does not violate this essential principle, I am content to share company and discourse with anyone of any view.  In situations where reality forces a "harm or harm" scenario, the path of least harm as understood by those performing it is the best one; such as the harming of one to prevent their harming of many.  As such requires informed judgement and decision, personal rights and freedoms are of highest paramount.

A secondary consideration, albeit by a smaller extent, is that I endeavour to treat others with respect; please consider any dialogue from my side to be in a calm baritone, and take seeming of aggression as being displays of disappointment.  Though I may slip on this from time to time, it is an important part of society that is often overlooked these days - I will typically refrain from speaking in anger if I can, and it is always my goal to treat others with the benefit of the doubt.

Lastly, humilitias; I am always open to what others may have to say, their views, and even their feelings.  While others may say such in sarcasm, it is frequently made clear the pains that unchecked pride bring to the world.  Speak your mind, and bring honesty.  I will remember another's wisdom long after the sting of a sharp tongue has been forgotten.

A slightly longer read

  Religion & Science

Theologian and scientist, fundamentalist nonsectarian with Swedenborgian/Elohist leanings, biomedical sciences with focus on microbiology.

Confessed mild obsession with macrophages, viruses and "near life" organisms.  Working on a paper regarding the theoretical medical applications of gastrointestinal micro- and macro-parasitic organisms to hosts suffering a depleted microflora.

Well-versed in pre-Canaanite history and the impact of early Levantine cultural practices on the religion of the proto-Sinaitic peoples.  Polyglot with theorist's understanding of a handful of ancient tongues.  Ordained, infrequently practice sermons as a "young men's" pastor, inclined to work on a gothic themed "night church" once council gives approval.

Personally quite critical of practices and claims by other faiths, both in established beliefs and in "spiritual" traditions that lack more formal recognition.  Despite this, it is no more my place to judge such than it is for the reverse, and I recognise the richness that such faiths and practices have brought to the cultures of the world - so long as they maintain the rights of others in turn.

Happy to keep my science from my religion and visa-versa.

  Rights

Politically centre right with emphasis on personal rights; feminist as meaning "protect equality", honouring Susan Anthony.  Sex-positive, as a reflection on the personal rights, despite my personal gut reactions on the topic, so long as all parties are consenting - "What happens in your bedroom is your business".

Much in the same vein as this, what people consider to be their sexual expression or identity is of no more interest to me than it needs to be.  If I am not providing you with medical assistance, medical testing, or courting you, I don't particularly need to know what you feel your gender identity is.  Personally, I feel that the myriad of "special spectrum gender expressions" is a mockery of the issues that trans people go through regularly, but in the lack of clear evidence with regards to such, I will default to a respectfully neutral stance.

So, I will assume you to be the gender you appear to represent (male or female if such seems obvious, neutral if not), and try to remember should you desire a particular pronoun.  My limitation of such is with regards to self-respect or clear inconvenience - I shall then assume the request is an elaborate form of "trolling" and move on.  Likewise, it is entirely disrespectful to "deadname" a person.  While people are within their right to such vulgarity, I will not overlook it if it is in my attention.

I am critical of movements and policies that seek to create inequality, or that engender violence, such as laws that restrict choices or that "justify" acts of aggression.  As any movement, feminists must assess motives and policies of ourselves and others to prevent the abuse and misuse of the movement for personal or political corruption.  LGBT+ and LGBT+ ally, but highly critical of intersectionalism and the resulting fragmentation and devaluing of feminism overall.

Involved in indigenous rights movement for Australian Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples, seeking equal treatment - not just recognition - for Australia's precolonial peoples.  In particular, I am quite focused on the growing inequality of treatment towards our Indigenous communities, and the increasing separation this causes for the multicultural legacy of Australia, which is unacceptable. I descend from a rich and diverse heritage, disclosing only because of how frequently it seems to matter to people.

No competition really exists between feminism and "mens' rights" or race-specific outreach; if the end goal is to alleviate suffering, without the increase of suffering to others, then the politics is a far tertiary concern.  Even on topics where I disagree, I value the input of such different views, who may illustrate or highlight concerns that are easily overlooked by those with a similar political bias.

  Experience

Volunteer at a domestic violence centre, often exposed to the realities that face victims.  Carer for a psychologically disabled person, and for a toddler, often exposed to the realities that face children and the mentally ill.  Ironically, also disabled, and well versed in the realities that face the physically impaired.  Pet owner, and well versed in the realities of responsible ownership & care.  Exposed often to the politics that runs for all of the above, from statistics to budgeting allotment.

Beyond my own experiences, which would amount to anecdotes in most situations, my political stances are typically based on the weight of data in favour of "which causes least harm".  The strength of my opinion is based on the strength of the data that supports it - as such, on a number of topics my view is quite in favor of what some would consider controversial points.  It is necessary to my belief structure that I confess some of my stances are at odds to my personal instincts regarding such, but it would be unethical to act in a fashion that logic says would ultimately be injurious.

  Political Points

Strongly in the "no child sexual exposure", "free expression", "unsafe space", "vaccine", "agricultural biotech", "firearms control", "anthropogenic climate change", and "renewable plus responsible nuclear" camps, open to changing my positions based purely on hard data; anecdotes and stories are not 'data'.  All positions compatible with my "do no harm" outlook; protecting the community and/or the environment, as based on impartial data.

There is no "controversy" about child and animal sexual activity.  Children and animals are not capable of making consent, and as such all such activity is the definition of rape.  Child rape media (commonly referred to as "child porn") is the recording of children being raped.  Animal rape media (commonly referred to as "bestiality porn") is the recording of animals being raped.  Those who purport that such is "harmless" often ignore that the media needed creation somewhere; these are the only people who claim there is a controversy.

Artwork, discussion, and literature should only be constrained where the usage of such will cause direct harm.  Free speech ("freeze peach" I am told these days) is of paramount import to equality movements, prevention of atrocities, advancement of human interests, and our capacity to manage the environment of our planet.  This necessarily includes exploration of topics that may be distasteful, offensive, or even puerile, both as these may yield worthwhile discoveries or realisations not obvious to more delicate conversation, and as the mark for what is 'acceptable' or not may swiftly shift to incorporate more and more topics as being 'improper', posing a risk to rights movements, equality, and even liberty in of itself.

The weight of psychological and therapeutic studies show that people who suffer from traumatic experiences benefit from a Pavlovian exposure to the topic of their concern.  By their being presented with the topic, and not being exposed to the corresponding stressor, those who suffer are enabled to overcome their phobic response.  As such, the concept of "safe spaces" is contradictory to the healing process of the vast majority of sufferers, by instead creating an environment of fear and avoidance to the topic.  As my official stance is to oppose that which causes most harm - in this case, the extended harm of the majority of sufferers at the risk of minor harm to a few as well as the compounded inherent issue of violating free expression - I cannot say that I stand in the favour of "safe space" mentality, especially as those few individuals are in the position to protect themselves by making informed decisions regarding their own exposure.

With regards to firearms; if you are in the situation where you would not or cannot easily seek police assistance for crime, then such ownership is necessary.  If you are in the situation where you can or would easily seek police assistance, then such ownership is unnecessary.  In all situations, the ease of firearms access and use simply increases the rate by which disagreement becomes conflict.  Firearms impact on violence have been so thoroughly researched that complaints typically amount to "there is a secret conspiracy that exists purely to discredit me" in the end.

Personally, I do love firearms, despite my pacifist vows and the knowledge that they enable violence, and I am quite happy to while away hours at the local range - though my injuries preclude me from competitive shooting.  I much favour the Glock 17 by experience, where I find that an underbarrel torch typically assists with my stability, but for longarms; friends have shown me the joy that is a heavy stock Ithaca 37.  Neither of these should be taken as product endorsements, and I am more than happy to experiment and find new "favourites".

With regard to medicine; if you are in the situation where you would not seek medical assistance during an emergency, then feel free to profess whatever alternate to science you wish.  If you would, then complaints about those same professionals really sounds like hypocritical posturing.  Vaccines have been so thoroughly researched that complaints typically amount to "there is a secret conspiracy that exists purely to discredit me" in the end.

Climate science is likewise well-established now, with demonstrated trends across both hemispheres indicative of strong upward trends.  Despite commonly purported beliefs that the world is/was headed for an "ice age" to the point that such was reported in TIME and similar, the impact effects of events such as La Nina and El Nino have been measured, and the data paints a clear picture.  As such, oil and coal use usage should be limited, urgently, and sustainable methods of power with lower impact should be implemented immediately.

  Electrical Generation

Every argument about nuclear power has grounding in two facets; disasters, and irresponsible corporate behaviour.  Commentary about disposal of waste is about corporate management, as properly-stored radioactive material is no more dangerous than the unmined radioactive material already in the ground by nature.

In the case of disasters, which we cannot prevent but can plan for, then nuclear power is less likely to cause damage to the environment and surrounding area than coal or gas plants, and with the added bonus that they also cause next to no environmental impact by operating - the big plumes are non-irradiated steam.

For the argument about corporate responsibility, I agree - corporations should be held to as much account as individuals, and the individuals who make the decisions should be held to such account also.  This is not just for mundane operation of the plant; disposal and storage of spent rods and other radioactive byproducts is likewise in vital need of responsibility, and with such is no more dangerous than any other storage or burial.

To condemn an environmentally-friendly, highly efficient method of power in the name of baseless fears is irresponsible, and I cannot support such.

A lot of fuss goes up about solar and wind generated electricity that is likewise baseless.  Wind turbines do not cause "noise feedback".  Solar panels do not "consume the sun", and even if they magically were able to suck power from the sun, it would take the entire planet billions of years to be able to do any significant exchange of power from our solar powerhouse.

No, solar and wind/water turbines are not magic.  Where do people even come up with this?  In the case of turbines, the rotary action cranks a generator in the same fashion as if you were turning a really big crank wheel.  Solar panels are a bit more complex, but it's not sorcery.  They're both safe, if less efficient methods of gathering power from natural sources, and far less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels.

Geothermal plants are strangely not as opposed as they should be - they're highly inefficient and have a tendency of massive amounts of poisonous wastewater being generated which, as with nuclear power plants, requires corporate responsibility to maintain public and environmental safety.  It's odd that the people who oppose nuclear aren't opposed to geothermal.

Gas and coal are outdated, expensive, and hazardous, both in terms of environmental emissions and in terms of resource gathering.  I cannot fathom why they're still maintained in today's day and age, as even if someone were a climate denier it'd still mean the difference between a smoke-free and inexpensive, or smoggy and expensive, power generation system.  If you won't listen to the science, at least listen to the aesthetics.

  Animals

I loathe animal abuse.  It's a thing I've run into more than once in my life, and it's disgusting, bullying or selfish neglect laid bare.  This isn't to speak of those who are in situations they cannot control themselves, especially if they seek help.  The torturers, the maimers, the sexual abusers.  These are despicable.

Pointless killing; that is, not with a need for survival or to assist the balance of nature in that region, is just as disturbing - endangered species are frequently put into further danger because of reckless hunting or fishing, and personally I feel stronger penalties need to be applied so to encourage responsible behaviour.  Hunting or fishing species that are not endangered, even simply for cultural purposes, is not as abhorrent to me, as the practices assist to maintain the ecosystem as much as any other predator.

A sharp line is drawn, however, is in responsible use within industry.  So long as the killing of an animal is for beneficial purpose, effort is taken to ensure that the animal does not suffer pain or neglect, and there is not a clear advantage in other paths, it is, in my view, a necessity that cannot be easily disregarded.  While I respect the views of those who disagree, it is on the understanding that we must agree to disagree.  Should this disagreement not be respectable, then you are part of the reason that people react badly to animal rights activism.

While I am not a vegan, I am an intermittent vegetarian, for health as well as philosophical reasons.

  Piracy & Copyright

The purpose of copyright systems are to ensure the rights of the content producer in terms of fair compensation for goods or services.  Regretfully, the entire field is now convoluted, with skewed points intermittently spread throughout legislation that enables unfair distribution, unfair methods of prosecution, and restricted liability against people who abuse the patents system for power or profit.

Given the difficulties faced by rights holders in the information age, it's necessary to adapt and adjust the system, yet those who stand to benefit most from such a change - those same rights holders - are resistant to it out of sentimentality and traditional hypersolicitation.  This does not validate those who take such and make profit from it, though in areas of traditional embargo or extortionist tactics, doing so is more of a rebellious resistance than an act of greed.

With the advent of three-dimensional printing, the interactions of copyright enforcement and piracy are becoming more prominent, and closer to the forefront of the world.  It's my hope that this will be seen to within my lifetime, though I doubt it will come to pass.

  Gaming

"Old hand" gamer, practised with pre-Mario era Donkey Kong, Magic Fly, Elite, Populous, and more.  Veteran roleplayer, cut my teeth on "brown book" Dungeons & Dragons, proficient in the art of making dice from wax, and survived the "Satanist" scare with only a few dozen books burned.  Versed in game systems from 7th Sea to Zen & the Art of Mayhem and most of those in between; have had the pleasure of both fluff writing and rules testing for other developers.  Now local coordinator for Adventurers League and creating my own game settings.

Reviews are typically for self-purchased games on PC, heavy leanings towards "role playing" games such as Mass Effect or Neverwinter Nights and/or construction-survival games such as Minecraft or Terraria.  Have both a 360 and PS3, will be upgrading to PS4 but still not sold on the XBO.  3DS code is 0275-9035-0728 if you ever need to add me; I typically play Pokémon and Bravely Default.

  #GamerGate

As a sex-positive feminist, the initial issue regarding rumours of proclivities by a games developer to garner favourable reviews is only offensive in the aspect of corruption. The honest representation of video games is of great interest to me, as I saw first-hand the effects of unchecked outrage towards an undeserving pastime - the "Satanic" crisis regarding roleplaying games, which saw my landlord burning nearly four hundred dollars of my books at the peak of the movement. As the impact of harassment by those who decried the activity began to rise, I stepped back from the tag on the merit of wishing to show no support to a movement carrying the harm of others.

It has been a topic I was able to remain neutral toward, by benefit of not having it be central to my view, until in recent times which showed the quoting of persons such as Jack Thompson to the UN Broadband Commission. On the study I have been able to make to the situation since, it is slowly becoming apparent that those who claim harassment are engaging in such against all manner of vulnerable people, openly and viciously, with the adoring sanction of the media at large. In the meantime, these same people are being caught more often with "false flag" attacks against themselves, faking their own death threats in the image of the tragedy at Gleiwitz.

I would prefer time to deliberate on such, in order to determine my position on the topic by merit of logic and understanding the issues at hand. Unfortunately, those same "social justice warrior" people - and it is not "peripheral" or "egg" accounts doing such - have been repeatedly accusing me of being one of the consumer movement because of "too many right wing accounts following me", because of my habitually posting my messages publicly, because I use the "cat's eye" icon as an avatar, because I condemn violence, because I am a gamer, and because I have expressed interest in ethics within the games community. This then leads to accusations of rape, threats of abuse or violence to those I provide care for, and other detestable behaviour that is then taken "seriously but not personally" and passed to the appropriate authorities. Since "locking" my private messages to those who I follow while they follow me, this abuse has diminished rapidly. Apparently people are somewhat susceptible to social pressures.

Should my view be of any value to others, I shall disclose that this harassment directed to myself and others has increased my suspicion that the evidence of fakery is authentic. I shall update once the entirety of the topic has been processed by my poor old brain and filtered by my standards for merit.

  Economics

"Self-funded retiree"; primarily self-created investments.  Neither influenced by offers of favour or monetary gain, nor by threats of withholding charity or aid from others.  Frequently accused of such, typically by people who feel they are important enough for giant corporations to spend money on contradicting their views on the internet.