It seems that in the mass media and entertainment, the perception that men can never win a contest over woman is jammed down your throat. Now, in a way, men are to blame for this because they do put on an air of incompetence to get out of doing boring tasks like cleaning and changing diapers so we can't be blamed if this sharade works. The problem is when it gets to an extreme.
Feminism has killed chivalry because new age women want so much to be men. Just because they want to act like men, doesn't make them men. Just as how New York men are still men even though they act like women (see my book). I have been yelled at almost every time I've walked a girl home in New York. They think that I am hitting on them. The reality is, this is how I was raised, men should never let girls walk home alone at night. The reason, which may surprise you, has nothing to do with my ability to fight versus the girl I'm walkig home. The point is, the odds that I will have to prove that I can fight is much lower than the girl would have to prove that she can fight. Take the Puerto Rican day parade a couple years back. Three women were raped in broad daylight...one of which was a kickboxing instructor. The point is, men are dumb enough to get themselves killed defending a woman. Ask any cop what are the worst fights they see...it's men fighting over woman. Humans are predators, and like all predators, they go after what they perceive as vulnerable and they perceive women by themselves as vulnerable and don't care about men by themselves. It is taught that if you come face to face to a lion, the worst thing to do is run. They can outrun you and everything it has killed ran first. If you stand your ground and make loud and aggressive noises, the lion may think you can defend yourself and you will be less likely to prove it (good thing, because you'll fail that test). Humans act the same way, a man they look as another predator ready for the fight, a woman they view as running prey.
The other reason is that they may want something from the female that they don't from the male...namely intercouse that they have no qualms of taking by force. It is a fact that women are less likely to be attacked when with a male than by themselves....It is not true that men by themselves are more likely to be attacked than men with women or men with other men. So women, if a man walks you home, let him, it's safer that way because of the perception that predator men have. Do not feel that you owe the man anything if they do though becuase people should never be rewarded for doing what they're supposed to do.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Forever 21...Grow up
This is going to be very short. I think I've discovered a problem in today's society. Everybody wants to live in Neverland. Nobody wants to admit they are grown up. We glorify "Cougars" now as the feminist movement has gotten so ridiculous that older women are going after college students or young men. Women are looking for young meat during the mid-life crisis just as how men notoriously have in the past. You have parents who want to be their kids' friends rather than admit they don't listen to the same music or watch the same shows they do. They try so hard to be hip. It bothers me that though people at work are my parent's age they all listen to the same music that I listened to growing up. It doesn't endear them to me it's creepy.
Once the generation gap is blurred, kids do not have structure and discipline they need. With no guidance, the future doesn't look too bright. We live in a world where adults want to be kids and kids want to be adults. Where will the moral compass come from?
Once the generation gap is blurred, kids do not have structure and discipline they need. With no guidance, the future doesn't look too bright. We live in a world where adults want to be kids and kids want to be adults. Where will the moral compass come from?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Intelligence
What is intelligence? Psychologists have tried to measure and answer this for eons but they would be the first to admit that their tests fall short. Now, I'm not a science guy so I'm not going to develop a test for it, but I will try to define it so that others may extrapolate a test for it.
As in most terms I define, I will say what it is commonly perceived to be but isn't. Intelligence is not what you know. Just because someone can recite Locke, Descartes, Aristotle, Nietzche, or whoever they find interesting doesn't mean that they are intelligent. The intelligence part comes in the application of what you know.
I will give two facts that may seem contradictory then tell you where they're not. Fact 1: Most of the greatest inventions in history were invented or developed by people who didn't go to a prestegious college or didn't have much of an education to begin with. Fact 2: Owners of large corporations know Fact 1 yet they continually favor hiring those who have degrees from Harvard, Yale, Oxford or other prestigious universities. Why? Shouldn't they realize that on average, these are not the people that revolutionize things?
The answer to this question is that the intelligence doesn't come in the invention, it comes from applying the invention. The Wright Brothers were brilliant in their discovery of how to make an airplane but the intelligence came from people who took what they did and created supersonic aircrafts. Now, can you argue that the Wright Brothers showed intelligence by my definition in that they took how a bicycle works and applied it to create flight...yes, that's why I said it was brilliant, but the nameless people who used that knowledge to make a supersonic aircraft should not be dismissed either.
The part of intelligence that continues to baffle me is how come people who dominate all standard tests of intelligence whether it be straight A's in school, perfect scores on standardized test or high IQ's decide to remove themselves from society. Into the Wild documents one such person. What does he see that I don't? One of my high school teachers was valectadorian at Stamford, he then decided to run across the United States then went back and rode a bike across the United States to figure out what to do with his life. Like I said, he's a high school teacher...that couldn't have been the answer. He is the only person I've ever taken writing advice from since I believe everyone else's advise to be bad, but why can't these people function in the real world? It can only be two possibilities from what I see, A) They realize the fruitlessness of the ratrace of life so remove themselves from society (Into the Wild and my teacher shortly after graduation) or B) They can't apply what they know to better themselves. If it is B, then they really can't be considered too intelligent.
As in most terms I define, I will say what it is commonly perceived to be but isn't. Intelligence is not what you know. Just because someone can recite Locke, Descartes, Aristotle, Nietzche, or whoever they find interesting doesn't mean that they are intelligent. The intelligence part comes in the application of what you know.
I will give two facts that may seem contradictory then tell you where they're not. Fact 1: Most of the greatest inventions in history were invented or developed by people who didn't go to a prestegious college or didn't have much of an education to begin with. Fact 2: Owners of large corporations know Fact 1 yet they continually favor hiring those who have degrees from Harvard, Yale, Oxford or other prestigious universities. Why? Shouldn't they realize that on average, these are not the people that revolutionize things?
The answer to this question is that the intelligence doesn't come in the invention, it comes from applying the invention. The Wright Brothers were brilliant in their discovery of how to make an airplane but the intelligence came from people who took what they did and created supersonic aircrafts. Now, can you argue that the Wright Brothers showed intelligence by my definition in that they took how a bicycle works and applied it to create flight...yes, that's why I said it was brilliant, but the nameless people who used that knowledge to make a supersonic aircraft should not be dismissed either.
The part of intelligence that continues to baffle me is how come people who dominate all standard tests of intelligence whether it be straight A's in school, perfect scores on standardized test or high IQ's decide to remove themselves from society. Into the Wild documents one such person. What does he see that I don't? One of my high school teachers was valectadorian at Stamford, he then decided to run across the United States then went back and rode a bike across the United States to figure out what to do with his life. Like I said, he's a high school teacher...that couldn't have been the answer. He is the only person I've ever taken writing advice from since I believe everyone else's advise to be bad, but why can't these people function in the real world? It can only be two possibilities from what I see, A) They realize the fruitlessness of the ratrace of life so remove themselves from society (Into the Wild and my teacher shortly after graduation) or B) They can't apply what they know to better themselves. If it is B, then they really can't be considered too intelligent.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Illegal Immigration
People miss the point of the problems with Illegal immigration. I always hear the same arguments "you're grandparents were immgrants, why are you against them now?" or "You're just too lazy to get an education for skilled labor." You're missing the point! The problem with illegal immigration has nothing to do with the illegal immigrants that do all the shit jobs most white people don't want to do for less pay than Whites. The Irish followed the same strategy when they came to this country, I do not condemn them nor do I condemn the few that come here and contribute to the work force. I do, however, blame the ones that take their gang violence from their country to here.
In Juarez, Mexico, drug cartels are constantly at war with each for territory. This war has crossed into America. It is true America has gangs like the Bloods and the Crips and the Irish immigrant formed gangs too, but they were much more small-time than these machete wielding ruthless barbaric killers that the surrounding countries have to offer. These people are descendant from cannibals and people who ripped out people's hearts, decapitated them and kicked their head down a flight of stairs when they were being more humane. The less humane ones used heads to play soccer. This is only a couple hundred years ago. Yes decapitation was a form of capital punishment in France but at least they reserved it for criminals not people they just happen to find.
To let you know the problem that they have caused, Mara Salvatruca or MS13 has an entire division of the FBI devoted solely to them. For those of you who don't know, they are an El Salvador based gang and they are the only gang in American history that has yielded an entire division of the FBI. That doesn't include the Latin Kings and the Drug cartels of Mexico. The Mexican army cannot contain these gangs and they are coming here. This is why a mayor in a border town of Arizona enlisted the minute men, a policy that treats illegals as invaders to this country to be shot on site. This is why Arizona passed the law allowing cops to check the papers of people they think may be illegal. It's not about taking jobs, it's about keeping the gang violence out of this country. Unfortuantely, when Arizona incorporated it's minutemen policy, illegal immigrations is estimated to have quadrupled into New Mexico. Not hard to find out why.
Ronald Raegan said that a country with no borders is not a country at all. Movies like Machete will tell you that the big drug cartels want the wall to be built so they can control it. If they limit the supply of drugs into this country, then they can jack the prices up. I say, this is a good thing, limiting the amount of drugs and decreasing the amount of suppliers is a good thing. Making prices cost prohibitive so less people will be able to partake is a good thing. I agree the wall will not keep everyone out but it will decrease the number significantly. Just because it isn't perfect, doesn't mean nothing is better. The most disappointing thing is, our President sides with the gangs. Look how Arizona has been villified by the federal government merely for trying to limit gang violence in their state by attacking it at the source. Also keep in mind that despite being sued by the federal government and the national hysteria and condemnation, Arizona remains steadfast because they value their safety over their reputation. Although, I am in favor of the extremist position to enlist the minutemen at every border in addition to the fence, I understand that killing everyone may be bad policy. The electrified fence really shouldn't be such a polarizing issue and is the obvious choice.
In Juarez, Mexico, drug cartels are constantly at war with each for territory. This war has crossed into America. It is true America has gangs like the Bloods and the Crips and the Irish immigrant formed gangs too, but they were much more small-time than these machete wielding ruthless barbaric killers that the surrounding countries have to offer. These people are descendant from cannibals and people who ripped out people's hearts, decapitated them and kicked their head down a flight of stairs when they were being more humane. The less humane ones used heads to play soccer. This is only a couple hundred years ago. Yes decapitation was a form of capital punishment in France but at least they reserved it for criminals not people they just happen to find.
To let you know the problem that they have caused, Mara Salvatruca or MS13 has an entire division of the FBI devoted solely to them. For those of you who don't know, they are an El Salvador based gang and they are the only gang in American history that has yielded an entire division of the FBI. That doesn't include the Latin Kings and the Drug cartels of Mexico. The Mexican army cannot contain these gangs and they are coming here. This is why a mayor in a border town of Arizona enlisted the minute men, a policy that treats illegals as invaders to this country to be shot on site. This is why Arizona passed the law allowing cops to check the papers of people they think may be illegal. It's not about taking jobs, it's about keeping the gang violence out of this country. Unfortuantely, when Arizona incorporated it's minutemen policy, illegal immigrations is estimated to have quadrupled into New Mexico. Not hard to find out why.
Ronald Raegan said that a country with no borders is not a country at all. Movies like Machete will tell you that the big drug cartels want the wall to be built so they can control it. If they limit the supply of drugs into this country, then they can jack the prices up. I say, this is a good thing, limiting the amount of drugs and decreasing the amount of suppliers is a good thing. Making prices cost prohibitive so less people will be able to partake is a good thing. I agree the wall will not keep everyone out but it will decrease the number significantly. Just because it isn't perfect, doesn't mean nothing is better. The most disappointing thing is, our President sides with the gangs. Look how Arizona has been villified by the federal government merely for trying to limit gang violence in their state by attacking it at the source. Also keep in mind that despite being sued by the federal government and the national hysteria and condemnation, Arizona remains steadfast because they value their safety over their reputation. Although, I am in favor of the extremist position to enlist the minutemen at every border in addition to the fence, I understand that killing everyone may be bad policy. The electrified fence really shouldn't be such a polarizing issue and is the obvious choice.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Reverse Generalizations
As I expressed in my book, there are a reason for stereotypes and generalizations but you need to be responsible with them because you will be hard pressed to find a member of the group that has every single stereotype that is associated with them. This is going to take the reverse because I'm sick and tired of people believing that labels don't apply to them. Just because you don't exemplify every stereotye, doesn't mean you're any less a part of the group. For instance, Greeks are normally tardy to everything. I am very punctual, my punctuality doesn't make me any less Greek. The reverse comes in when political parties are entered into the mix.
The tipping point for me came when I read a book called, "Why I drink." As I read through the book, it was liberal idea after liberal idea then he said, "I hate when people call me liberal because I hate hippies, so therefore I'm not liberal."
This is merely an exception to the general rule. I can still say that if an issue comes up, you'll agree with the liberal point of view, this is just an exception. The label is still good and shouldn't be excluded. Stereotypes and generalizations are not science, humans are all unique in some aspect so obviously exceptions will come up unless that person is incapable of thinking for themselves and just follows party lines. One of my closest friends hates when I call him conservative, yet I can't think of one issue that he's liberal on. He's against affirmative action, favors lower taxes, wants much stricter border control, believes in strong family values, pro-capital punishment, pro-life etc. etc. He just hates politics so tries not to discuss it but anyone who comments on society and current events is being political in some shape or form. Since "Conservative' is an adequate label for me, I can say that on any given issue, him and I will agree and we do. When we debate, it's always based on logic and reason about the issue. That's what he tells me, "I'm not conservative I just take an issue and think about it logically and make a conclusion" My response, "Precisely why you're conservative you just don't like the label" Conservatives base their views on logic, liberals on emotion.
Labels are an important way to let someone get to know you. You need to give them shortcuts so don't condemn them just because you have a couple exceptions. Even in psychology, which tries to provide a scientific understanding of human personality, they allow for exceptions. Every single psychological disorder is based on the DSM-IV, in which at least 10 traits are listed and if a certain number apply to you, you are diagnosed with that disease. Not one disease on the DSM-IV requires every single trait to be evident, yet the label still works.
I have more respect for people that have no nationalistic ties and hate being labeled than with people that claim to be of ethnic descent but hate being labeled because at least their consistent with their illogical thinking. If you consider yourself white, black, HIspanic, Dominican, American etc. etc. but don't like being labeled because of a couple exceptions, you are being a hypocrit. If a majority of traits fit you, embrace the label because given the 6 billion people on this planet, there probably are a lot of people that have a similar combination of traits as you...deal with it!
The tipping point for me came when I read a book called, "Why I drink." As I read through the book, it was liberal idea after liberal idea then he said, "I hate when people call me liberal because I hate hippies, so therefore I'm not liberal."
This is merely an exception to the general rule. I can still say that if an issue comes up, you'll agree with the liberal point of view, this is just an exception. The label is still good and shouldn't be excluded. Stereotypes and generalizations are not science, humans are all unique in some aspect so obviously exceptions will come up unless that person is incapable of thinking for themselves and just follows party lines. One of my closest friends hates when I call him conservative, yet I can't think of one issue that he's liberal on. He's against affirmative action, favors lower taxes, wants much stricter border control, believes in strong family values, pro-capital punishment, pro-life etc. etc. He just hates politics so tries not to discuss it but anyone who comments on society and current events is being political in some shape or form. Since "Conservative' is an adequate label for me, I can say that on any given issue, him and I will agree and we do. When we debate, it's always based on logic and reason about the issue. That's what he tells me, "I'm not conservative I just take an issue and think about it logically and make a conclusion" My response, "Precisely why you're conservative you just don't like the label" Conservatives base their views on logic, liberals on emotion.
Labels are an important way to let someone get to know you. You need to give them shortcuts so don't condemn them just because you have a couple exceptions. Even in psychology, which tries to provide a scientific understanding of human personality, they allow for exceptions. Every single psychological disorder is based on the DSM-IV, in which at least 10 traits are listed and if a certain number apply to you, you are diagnosed with that disease. Not one disease on the DSM-IV requires every single trait to be evident, yet the label still works.
I have more respect for people that have no nationalistic ties and hate being labeled than with people that claim to be of ethnic descent but hate being labeled because at least their consistent with their illogical thinking. If you consider yourself white, black, HIspanic, Dominican, American etc. etc. but don't like being labeled because of a couple exceptions, you are being a hypocrit. If a majority of traits fit you, embrace the label because given the 6 billion people on this planet, there probably are a lot of people that have a similar combination of traits as you...deal with it!
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Worst crime
I often times ask taboo questions that people seem to villify me for. This is going to be one of these times. Of all the crimes out there, I believe the only two that can be given any stake to the worst crime are rape and murder. I'm not of the Afghan notion that all crime is stealing so this is a ridiculous argument, I do not consider murder or rape stealing even though I will use words like "Theft" and "Taken"when describing murder.
If you murder someone, they are dead. You have taken a life. Their friends and family will grieve vehemently at this heinous crime. Some of them may want revenge and seek out to kill the muderer with good cause. As for the murdered party, they do not have to live with the horror of what happened to them. They also will not get to experience the things they may have seen or done had they not been killed. I don't like that because you have no idea how someone's life will progress. I'm sure homeless people didn't think they'd be homeless. The person could have failed in their business ventures and hated their life. Potential worth cannot be measured without making assumptions so I discount these notions. One aspect that will help murder in this debate is the bible has a commandment "Thou Shalt not commit murder" but not one for rape. They do have some for coveting a neighbors wife, which can be extended to rape if the person is married but you do not have it singled out the way murder does. The biggest argument I see for muder's side is that women will "choose" to be raped to avoid being murdered.
When you rape someone you have forced them to have sex with you whether by mere physical means or put them in a situation where they were too scared to say no. This causes intense anger from friends and family and the need for revenge is much greater. As for the victim, they have to live with the knowledge that they were raped. Some rape victims never recover from the emotional anguish and seculde themselves in the hospital and put themselves in a catatonic medically unresponsive state. Others do maintain a relatively normal lifestyle. Most, however, are somewhere in between. It is very common that they generalize their assualt to all men and perhaps become Lesbians. They overreact to the slightest touch of a man and see it as violent. Some spend astronomical amounts of money on psychologist, which never seem to help. Then again, psychologists don't seem to help in any situation. This is not a good way to go through life. The real question is living with being raped a fate worse than death? Also common in rape is vaginal or anal tearing. This leads to medical bills and infections, especially in the anal case. Semen is an immunosuppressant so it is designed to weaken the defenses agaisnt toxins and the rectal walls are very thin and given what exits from the rectum, the likelihood of infection is high. Also, it is an increased risk of STD's. Unlike consentual sex, when raped, a woman's vaginal walls do not lubricate themselves, and the body will actually tighten up as a defense mechanisms, which only makes the damage worse. Even though, this natural defense will block a path to the uterus making it difficult to become pregnant, this is negated because semen can live inside the vagina for up to three days. After the rape encounter is over, the body reopens the path, thus the semen can continue its journey. Because of this, it is a myth when people claim that you can't get pregnant from being raped. Since it is still rare, I won't heavily weight the pregnancy aspect and all the emotional stress that comes with having an unwanted baby or an abortion.
Now that we have put forth what happens in either case, let's combine them. Similar to murder, when you rape someone, you have committed immeasurable damage. You cannot measure the grief that friends and family have though in a rape victims case, there is less sadness from friends and family but more anger. The need for revenge from friends and family is much stronger with rape than it is for murder. The men close to the injured paty in both situations will feel a sense of inadequacy since they are the ones who were supposed to protect them. You don't really see this if a male gets raped or murdered since the thought is they are supposed to defend themselves. It's interesting that when it comes to rape, raping a woman is seen as much worse than raping a man. When evaluating the friends and family affect of rape, the definitive question is does the enhanced anger in the case of rape make up for the sadness in the murder case? I feel that the more emotions that are triggered, the worse the crime. This is why when evaulating the effect of friends and family, the edge goes to murder.
As it comes to the victim, in both rape and murder it is highly unlikely the victim will have a normal life after being raped and impossible in the murder case. There is no emotional scarring from being murdered because the victim is dead. The generalization of all men are evil and never being able to trust men is likely with rape. The rape victim will have to go through the therapy and medical treatment involved in rape, whereas a murder victim avoids this aspect. The cost of a funeral is high, but that goes to family usually. Medical bills normally go to insurance or taxpayers, but it's highly annoying going to get treatment of any kind. Now, some argue that it is theoretically possible that a rape victim can fully recover emotionally and physically from the encounter and this is not a possibility in murder but the likelihood seems too low for me to weight it heavily. When evaluating the effect on the victim, the edge seems to go to the rape victim.
Now the question is, which is the greater discrepancy? Is the gap between affect on family and friends between murder and rape larger than the gap between effect on the victim with rape? Answer that, and the worst crime is found. I find myself leaning toward being raped is worse but I do not fear death so I am likely biased. I also look at the common political strategy in dealing with a scandal. They liken it to cutting off the tail of a dog. It's much more humane to just do it in one cut then to cut a little piece off and work you're way up the tail. Murder seems to be just doing it one cut, but rape has so much more things for the victim to deal with that it's cutting the tail off a little bit at a time. Despite this conclusion, I can't seem to get it out of my head that when women are put in the situation, they choose rape over murder, that is the only thing that stops me from being completely certain of my conclusion.
If you murder someone, they are dead. You have taken a life. Their friends and family will grieve vehemently at this heinous crime. Some of them may want revenge and seek out to kill the muderer with good cause. As for the murdered party, they do not have to live with the horror of what happened to them. They also will not get to experience the things they may have seen or done had they not been killed. I don't like that because you have no idea how someone's life will progress. I'm sure homeless people didn't think they'd be homeless. The person could have failed in their business ventures and hated their life. Potential worth cannot be measured without making assumptions so I discount these notions. One aspect that will help murder in this debate is the bible has a commandment "Thou Shalt not commit murder" but not one for rape. They do have some for coveting a neighbors wife, which can be extended to rape if the person is married but you do not have it singled out the way murder does. The biggest argument I see for muder's side is that women will "choose" to be raped to avoid being murdered.
When you rape someone you have forced them to have sex with you whether by mere physical means or put them in a situation where they were too scared to say no. This causes intense anger from friends and family and the need for revenge is much greater. As for the victim, they have to live with the knowledge that they were raped. Some rape victims never recover from the emotional anguish and seculde themselves in the hospital and put themselves in a catatonic medically unresponsive state. Others do maintain a relatively normal lifestyle. Most, however, are somewhere in between. It is very common that they generalize their assualt to all men and perhaps become Lesbians. They overreact to the slightest touch of a man and see it as violent. Some spend astronomical amounts of money on psychologist, which never seem to help. Then again, psychologists don't seem to help in any situation. This is not a good way to go through life. The real question is living with being raped a fate worse than death? Also common in rape is vaginal or anal tearing. This leads to medical bills and infections, especially in the anal case. Semen is an immunosuppressant so it is designed to weaken the defenses agaisnt toxins and the rectal walls are very thin and given what exits from the rectum, the likelihood of infection is high. Also, it is an increased risk of STD's. Unlike consentual sex, when raped, a woman's vaginal walls do not lubricate themselves, and the body will actually tighten up as a defense mechanisms, which only makes the damage worse. Even though, this natural defense will block a path to the uterus making it difficult to become pregnant, this is negated because semen can live inside the vagina for up to three days. After the rape encounter is over, the body reopens the path, thus the semen can continue its journey. Because of this, it is a myth when people claim that you can't get pregnant from being raped. Since it is still rare, I won't heavily weight the pregnancy aspect and all the emotional stress that comes with having an unwanted baby or an abortion.
Now that we have put forth what happens in either case, let's combine them. Similar to murder, when you rape someone, you have committed immeasurable damage. You cannot measure the grief that friends and family have though in a rape victims case, there is less sadness from friends and family but more anger. The need for revenge from friends and family is much stronger with rape than it is for murder. The men close to the injured paty in both situations will feel a sense of inadequacy since they are the ones who were supposed to protect them. You don't really see this if a male gets raped or murdered since the thought is they are supposed to defend themselves. It's interesting that when it comes to rape, raping a woman is seen as much worse than raping a man. When evaluating the friends and family affect of rape, the definitive question is does the enhanced anger in the case of rape make up for the sadness in the murder case? I feel that the more emotions that are triggered, the worse the crime. This is why when evaulating the effect of friends and family, the edge goes to murder.
As it comes to the victim, in both rape and murder it is highly unlikely the victim will have a normal life after being raped and impossible in the murder case. There is no emotional scarring from being murdered because the victim is dead. The generalization of all men are evil and never being able to trust men is likely with rape. The rape victim will have to go through the therapy and medical treatment involved in rape, whereas a murder victim avoids this aspect. The cost of a funeral is high, but that goes to family usually. Medical bills normally go to insurance or taxpayers, but it's highly annoying going to get treatment of any kind. Now, some argue that it is theoretically possible that a rape victim can fully recover emotionally and physically from the encounter and this is not a possibility in murder but the likelihood seems too low for me to weight it heavily. When evaluating the effect on the victim, the edge seems to go to the rape victim.
Now the question is, which is the greater discrepancy? Is the gap between affect on family and friends between murder and rape larger than the gap between effect on the victim with rape? Answer that, and the worst crime is found. I find myself leaning toward being raped is worse but I do not fear death so I am likely biased. I also look at the common political strategy in dealing with a scandal. They liken it to cutting off the tail of a dog. It's much more humane to just do it in one cut then to cut a little piece off and work you're way up the tail. Murder seems to be just doing it one cut, but rape has so much more things for the victim to deal with that it's cutting the tail off a little bit at a time. Despite this conclusion, I can't seem to get it out of my head that when women are put in the situation, they choose rape over murder, that is the only thing that stops me from being completely certain of my conclusion.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
What makes a good friend?
I say that I have really good friends but I wasn't quite sure how to define what exactly is a good friend. So this blog will first focus on what a good friend is not and then move on to what it is.
A good friend is not someone that calls you every day. Sure a good friend can call you every day, but that act in and of itself does not make them a good friend. My closest friends are people I don't talk to too often but when we do talk we pick up right where we left off even if it has been years since we spoke. Time does not destroy the connection of a good friend. You should at all times be able to pick up the phone and call them for help regardless of how long its been since you spoke. This just happened to me as a friend who I haven't spoken to in almost two years just contacted me for help. I readily agreed even though the conversation near two years ago didn't go so well.
A good friend is not someone that demands change from you. This is such an easy point yet it is the most often misconstrued. This is the number one reason why friendships dissolve. If you find yourself having to sacrifice your morals because this person either exploits them or doesn't accept them, you shouldn't be friends with them. I have a rule that I don't let my friends drink alone. Someone who I thought was my friend at the time, then called me every day to drink with him. Clearly he was an alcoholic. I found myself revising this rule to never drinking during the day, so he just called me at night. He continually exploited these rules and used them against me, if someone does that, you should break contact with them..and I did eventually. Despite what people think, people cannot and do not change. You can convince the world you're someone else but you will never convince yourself. Eventually your true self will break out and you would have wasted your time with anyone that wanted you to change. People who have broken off friendships with me say things like "You never plan" "You're just too argumentative" "I can't be friends with someone who's stubborn" If these are all traits of someone you can't be friends with, you were wasting your time being friends with me because those are traits I possess.
If you're someone that continually questions, you need friends who are patient to clearly explain things to you without getting frustrated. Personally, I'm not someone that likes people getting too close. When I feel a friend getting too close, I unleash the darkest and most horrible parts of my personality, the argumentative, brutally honest, aggressertive in your face full on assault. My closest friends are all people that were unimpressed by it, to them, they saw no difference between that and how I normally act it was just an exaggeration. The point is, you should never hide who you are from a close friend. In a way, it's like picking a spouse, they need to see every crumb of your being and not be scared off. One of my closest friends has a similar personality to mine, the only difference is, he shows you the horrible parts of his personality when he first meets you to see if you get scared off so he doesn't waste his time. I argue that this is a better way, but not one I utilize. I would do almost anything for my close friends, and I can say the same about them.
A good friend is not someone that is not there in bad times. If a friend is not willing to help you in your most vulnerable state, they are not friends. It's easy to be friends with someone when times are good, but times never stay good, and when shit hits the fan, the bad friends leave. Remember this in case times get good again. Oddly, I have a friend who is the exact opposite of this. There are two times in my life where I would believe I hit rock bottom. Both times, she showed up, lifted me up and put me on track to getting things right with my life and then went away again. When times are not too good, good, great or anywhere not rock bottom, she wants nothing to do with me. She is what made me think about this. But if a bad friend is someone that isn't there when you hit rock bottom but only in good times, then the natural opposite of that is someone who's there during rock bottom but not in good times, this logically makes it the opposite of bad, which we call good. The other point is, if someone can convince you're friend to not be friends with you, they were never good friends. Even if that person lied, your good friend should be able to confront you on it and realize the person was lying because they know you and what you would or would not do.
A good friend is not someone that calls you every day. Sure a good friend can call you every day, but that act in and of itself does not make them a good friend. My closest friends are people I don't talk to too often but when we do talk we pick up right where we left off even if it has been years since we spoke. Time does not destroy the connection of a good friend. You should at all times be able to pick up the phone and call them for help regardless of how long its been since you spoke. This just happened to me as a friend who I haven't spoken to in almost two years just contacted me for help. I readily agreed even though the conversation near two years ago didn't go so well.
A good friend is not someone that demands change from you. This is such an easy point yet it is the most often misconstrued. This is the number one reason why friendships dissolve. If you find yourself having to sacrifice your morals because this person either exploits them or doesn't accept them, you shouldn't be friends with them. I have a rule that I don't let my friends drink alone. Someone who I thought was my friend at the time, then called me every day to drink with him. Clearly he was an alcoholic. I found myself revising this rule to never drinking during the day, so he just called me at night. He continually exploited these rules and used them against me, if someone does that, you should break contact with them..and I did eventually. Despite what people think, people cannot and do not change. You can convince the world you're someone else but you will never convince yourself. Eventually your true self will break out and you would have wasted your time with anyone that wanted you to change. People who have broken off friendships with me say things like "You never plan" "You're just too argumentative" "I can't be friends with someone who's stubborn" If these are all traits of someone you can't be friends with, you were wasting your time being friends with me because those are traits I possess.
If you're someone that continually questions, you need friends who are patient to clearly explain things to you without getting frustrated. Personally, I'm not someone that likes people getting too close. When I feel a friend getting too close, I unleash the darkest and most horrible parts of my personality, the argumentative, brutally honest, aggressertive in your face full on assault. My closest friends are all people that were unimpressed by it, to them, they saw no difference between that and how I normally act it was just an exaggeration. The point is, you should never hide who you are from a close friend. In a way, it's like picking a spouse, they need to see every crumb of your being and not be scared off. One of my closest friends has a similar personality to mine, the only difference is, he shows you the horrible parts of his personality when he first meets you to see if you get scared off so he doesn't waste his time. I argue that this is a better way, but not one I utilize. I would do almost anything for my close friends, and I can say the same about them.
A good friend is not someone that is not there in bad times. If a friend is not willing to help you in your most vulnerable state, they are not friends. It's easy to be friends with someone when times are good, but times never stay good, and when shit hits the fan, the bad friends leave. Remember this in case times get good again. Oddly, I have a friend who is the exact opposite of this. There are two times in my life where I would believe I hit rock bottom. Both times, she showed up, lifted me up and put me on track to getting things right with my life and then went away again. When times are not too good, good, great or anywhere not rock bottom, she wants nothing to do with me. She is what made me think about this. But if a bad friend is someone that isn't there when you hit rock bottom but only in good times, then the natural opposite of that is someone who's there during rock bottom but not in good times, this logically makes it the opposite of bad, which we call good. The other point is, if someone can convince you're friend to not be friends with you, they were never good friends. Even if that person lied, your good friend should be able to confront you on it and realize the person was lying because they know you and what you would or would not do.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Why I hate Lebron James
Lebron James has been all over sportscenter talking about how being booed motivates him and he's looking forward to December 2 when he returns to Cleveland to play the Cavaliers. I've heard people ask me "Why do you hate him? He has a right to leave?" Lebron decided to take Jesse Jackson's approach and pull the race card. Well, let me explain it objectively since not all problems people have with Lebron are legit.
First off, it has nothing to do with race. Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant, Dewayne Wade, Charles Barkely, etc. etc. are mostly beloved by people and they are black. Lebron James was vey popular the last seven year when he was in Cleveland...and he was black then too. Jesse Jackson can call Dan Gilbert a "Slaveowner" all he wants, doesn't change the fact he's full of shit. First off, Lebron James was paid by the Cleveland Cavaliers, slaves weren't. Slaves were physically punished when they disobeyed, Lebron never was. Slaves can be sold by their masters, Lebron chose to go (though you can say when players are traded, this is slave mentality but Jesse misses this obvious condemnation of all sports). So, by no stretch of the imagination can the race card be pulled.
Why then does Cleveland hate Lebron? Yes, the one hour special to announce his decision was extremely arrogant. In fact, the only way it's legitimate is if he stays in Cleveland. Yes, you have a lot of suitors but if he said that his loyalty is to the Cavs, the pain on the suitors is minimal so it would have been okay if it was that. It bothers me how after the special, New Yorkers said, "He dissed New York" NY didn't get dissed so they should stop complaining. Going to any other team, be it the Knicks, Nets, Bulls, Clippers, etc. it would have been just as bad as joining Miami because he is admitting he can't win by himself and needs help of two of the top 10 NBA players. The reason why I hate him is because he lied and didn't show any remorse for it. For seven years this man promised us a championship and always failed. Mo Williams and Zyldrunas Illgauskas were all stars so shut up about him not having help. Yes, Shaq was a shell of himself, but he was good for 20 minutes of evey game he played. The only reason we didn't win a championship is because of horrible coaching, that Lebron recruited. Anyway, I digress. If he would have said something like "You know, I'm sorry to the people of Cleveland, I tried bringing a championship here, but we fell short. Right now, I've been given the opportunity to increase my chances of winning by joining Miami. As anyone who's followed my career knows, winning a championship is the most important thing to me, which is why I've decided to join Miami" Now, when he did this, it's through Twitter or a press release or something NOT a one hour special. Instead we get "I'm taking my talents to Southbeach" and not one word or remorse for breaking his promise after Cleveland had supported him against all his critics, even boycotting Pappa Johns pizza because they made fun of Lebron. What did we get for that loyalty?....a complete remorseless 1 hour statement to shove it in our faces. If you say no athlete shows humility and apologises for not winning, I'll point to Tracy McGrady who despite leading the NBA in scoring during his teams' playoff runs, every time they were eliminated he said, "It's on me" and lowered his head and apologized to the fans because he promised more and didn't deliver. That's why we hate Lebron, he doesn't do this. It is never his fault, it's always the "supporting cast." He's the coach and captain so it's on him.
Some say he's a Cleveland product, so he should have loyalty to his home town. Lebron addressed this and he's right. Cleveland and Akron are not the same city. Not even close. Cleveland loves to claim all of northeast Ohio for themselves, they pretend Cedar Point is part of Cleveland when it's 45 minutes away. Now that Akron raised Lebron, suddenly one hour away is the same city. He's not a Cleveland guy so that needs to be disqualified.
I think the Heat do have a chance to win the championship but I do not support them. All I hope is 2004 happens again. The Lakers had Kobe, Shaq, Karl Malone and Gary Payton, all four are cinch hall of a famers and they choked in the playoffs. Not once during the season did I doubt that team would win the championship, but they lost the championship in a five game series (the one they won went to overtime) to a team who, at the time, had no transcendant star, the Detroit Pistons. The only hope I have for this happening this year is that the "THrete" is dumb enough to not let Pat Reilly coach this team. We'll see if 2004 happens this year. But Lebron, you deserve to be hated for your remorseless farewell.
First off, it has nothing to do with race. Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant, Dewayne Wade, Charles Barkely, etc. etc. are mostly beloved by people and they are black. Lebron James was vey popular the last seven year when he was in Cleveland...and he was black then too. Jesse Jackson can call Dan Gilbert a "Slaveowner" all he wants, doesn't change the fact he's full of shit. First off, Lebron James was paid by the Cleveland Cavaliers, slaves weren't. Slaves were physically punished when they disobeyed, Lebron never was. Slaves can be sold by their masters, Lebron chose to go (though you can say when players are traded, this is slave mentality but Jesse misses this obvious condemnation of all sports). So, by no stretch of the imagination can the race card be pulled.
Why then does Cleveland hate Lebron? Yes, the one hour special to announce his decision was extremely arrogant. In fact, the only way it's legitimate is if he stays in Cleveland. Yes, you have a lot of suitors but if he said that his loyalty is to the Cavs, the pain on the suitors is minimal so it would have been okay if it was that. It bothers me how after the special, New Yorkers said, "He dissed New York" NY didn't get dissed so they should stop complaining. Going to any other team, be it the Knicks, Nets, Bulls, Clippers, etc. it would have been just as bad as joining Miami because he is admitting he can't win by himself and needs help of two of the top 10 NBA players. The reason why I hate him is because he lied and didn't show any remorse for it. For seven years this man promised us a championship and always failed. Mo Williams and Zyldrunas Illgauskas were all stars so shut up about him not having help. Yes, Shaq was a shell of himself, but he was good for 20 minutes of evey game he played. The only reason we didn't win a championship is because of horrible coaching, that Lebron recruited. Anyway, I digress. If he would have said something like "You know, I'm sorry to the people of Cleveland, I tried bringing a championship here, but we fell short. Right now, I've been given the opportunity to increase my chances of winning by joining Miami. As anyone who's followed my career knows, winning a championship is the most important thing to me, which is why I've decided to join Miami" Now, when he did this, it's through Twitter or a press release or something NOT a one hour special. Instead we get "I'm taking my talents to Southbeach" and not one word or remorse for breaking his promise after Cleveland had supported him against all his critics, even boycotting Pappa Johns pizza because they made fun of Lebron. What did we get for that loyalty?....a complete remorseless 1 hour statement to shove it in our faces. If you say no athlete shows humility and apologises for not winning, I'll point to Tracy McGrady who despite leading the NBA in scoring during his teams' playoff runs, every time they were eliminated he said, "It's on me" and lowered his head and apologized to the fans because he promised more and didn't deliver. That's why we hate Lebron, he doesn't do this. It is never his fault, it's always the "supporting cast." He's the coach and captain so it's on him.
Some say he's a Cleveland product, so he should have loyalty to his home town. Lebron addressed this and he's right. Cleveland and Akron are not the same city. Not even close. Cleveland loves to claim all of northeast Ohio for themselves, they pretend Cedar Point is part of Cleveland when it's 45 minutes away. Now that Akron raised Lebron, suddenly one hour away is the same city. He's not a Cleveland guy so that needs to be disqualified.
I think the Heat do have a chance to win the championship but I do not support them. All I hope is 2004 happens again. The Lakers had Kobe, Shaq, Karl Malone and Gary Payton, all four are cinch hall of a famers and they choked in the playoffs. Not once during the season did I doubt that team would win the championship, but they lost the championship in a five game series (the one they won went to overtime) to a team who, at the time, had no transcendant star, the Detroit Pistons. The only hope I have for this happening this year is that the "THrete" is dumb enough to not let Pat Reilly coach this team. We'll see if 2004 happens this year. But Lebron, you deserve to be hated for your remorseless farewell.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
"I would die for you" ~ is that the best you got?
This expression is normally used to decribe an intense love for someone. A common way to say this is "I love you so much I would die for you." But is that really an expression of your love? Is it good to die for someone? Dying for a country isn't too bad. But a country cannot cry for you. A country cannot love you back. I would admit that dying for someone is a show of loyalty but is it the ultimate expression? I believe there is one better.
If I were to say to someone, 'I would die for you," I'm not sure if that person should be too impressed. I am on record in my book that I do not fear death. In fact, I consider myself on borrowed time already so is it really much to say "I would die for you"? There are many people I can say that about, which makes me believe it's not that strong of a connection.
People also look at dying for somoene as the ultimate act of selflessness. I would argue it's very selfish but I'll give my replacement before getting back to this.
This theory came to me this year when I was with one of my closest friends. She was voluntarily putting herself in a potentially dangerous situation. I followed her knowing that it wasn't too much safer for me either. The moment the journey started I got this rush of feeling come over me that I have never experienced before. For lack of a better description, it was a murderous rage. I followed her with the intent to kill someone. Since I had a knife on me at the time, I kept one hand on the knife ready to draw it and strike at the slightest indication of someone trying to hurt her. As she approached people, I did nothing but stared at them. Despite speaking with her, they all made eye contact with me before pursuing the conversation. I'm glad nobody tried anything because I would have overreacted. When we got back to safety, it hit me what had happened....I was ready to kill for her.
The reason people don't do things is because they fear the consequences. When you're dead, there's no repercussions, you're just dead. No more suffering, no fall out that you have to atone for. Perhaps judgment day is something but hey you just sacrificed your life for someone, must religions look kindly on that in the afterlife so you're good there. This is especially true for people like me who really wouldn't mind if I died. The people you leave behind, however, that's a whole different story. It is quite possible that the person you died for would feel guilty that you did that. That guilt would eat him or her up, especially if you didn't do it because it was your job (Secret service furthering my point that it doesn't mean you love someone if you would die for them). If someone died for me, I'd be extremely upset and most likely would have what psychologists call "Survivor guilt." That term normally is for people who cause the fatal incident but I will generalize it to when someone dies for you. I would admit it's a very noble way to die. Dying for someone close to you is a pretty good way to go out. If I had to choose how I would go out, that may be it. But this is my point, the value serves the deceased, not the protectee. Yes, they get to live and they'll probably be appreciative of that but they live with the guilt that you had to die for them to live. That's not nice.
Killing for someone, you are around for the repercussions. Take my incident, I'm convinced that given how easily I felt I'd be able to be set off, I would not be able to argue defending a friend or self-defense, which legally would allow me to kill. I could very likely end up in jail. Or, the person I killed may have people who want revenge so come and kill me. I would constantly have to live my life thinking that maybe someone that would kill for that person would come and kill me. Thus, even if I wasn't in jail, I wouldn't really be safe. I don't think I'd do well in jail, it's a messed up place. I've talked to inmates and they say, "You can get by in jail, just don't let anyone fuck with you,but don't fuck with anybody and stay out of people's way." How exactly do you balance that out? That's a different topic though.
Since my act of loyalty, killing for someone, doesn't end there because I have to deal with the fall out; and I wouldn't have to if I died for someone, I think killing for someone is a much better way to show your loyalty. This is even true for country as well. Afterall, General Patton said, "The point of war isn't to die for your country, it's to make the other son of a bitch die for his."
If I were to say to someone, 'I would die for you," I'm not sure if that person should be too impressed. I am on record in my book that I do not fear death. In fact, I consider myself on borrowed time already so is it really much to say "I would die for you"? There are many people I can say that about, which makes me believe it's not that strong of a connection.
People also look at dying for somoene as the ultimate act of selflessness. I would argue it's very selfish but I'll give my replacement before getting back to this.
This theory came to me this year when I was with one of my closest friends. She was voluntarily putting herself in a potentially dangerous situation. I followed her knowing that it wasn't too much safer for me either. The moment the journey started I got this rush of feeling come over me that I have never experienced before. For lack of a better description, it was a murderous rage. I followed her with the intent to kill someone. Since I had a knife on me at the time, I kept one hand on the knife ready to draw it and strike at the slightest indication of someone trying to hurt her. As she approached people, I did nothing but stared at them. Despite speaking with her, they all made eye contact with me before pursuing the conversation. I'm glad nobody tried anything because I would have overreacted. When we got back to safety, it hit me what had happened....I was ready to kill for her.
The reason people don't do things is because they fear the consequences. When you're dead, there's no repercussions, you're just dead. No more suffering, no fall out that you have to atone for. Perhaps judgment day is something but hey you just sacrificed your life for someone, must religions look kindly on that in the afterlife so you're good there. This is especially true for people like me who really wouldn't mind if I died. The people you leave behind, however, that's a whole different story. It is quite possible that the person you died for would feel guilty that you did that. That guilt would eat him or her up, especially if you didn't do it because it was your job (Secret service furthering my point that it doesn't mean you love someone if you would die for them). If someone died for me, I'd be extremely upset and most likely would have what psychologists call "Survivor guilt." That term normally is for people who cause the fatal incident but I will generalize it to when someone dies for you. I would admit it's a very noble way to die. Dying for someone close to you is a pretty good way to go out. If I had to choose how I would go out, that may be it. But this is my point, the value serves the deceased, not the protectee. Yes, they get to live and they'll probably be appreciative of that but they live with the guilt that you had to die for them to live. That's not nice.
Killing for someone, you are around for the repercussions. Take my incident, I'm convinced that given how easily I felt I'd be able to be set off, I would not be able to argue defending a friend or self-defense, which legally would allow me to kill. I could very likely end up in jail. Or, the person I killed may have people who want revenge so come and kill me. I would constantly have to live my life thinking that maybe someone that would kill for that person would come and kill me. Thus, even if I wasn't in jail, I wouldn't really be safe. I don't think I'd do well in jail, it's a messed up place. I've talked to inmates and they say, "You can get by in jail, just don't let anyone fuck with you,but don't fuck with anybody and stay out of people's way." How exactly do you balance that out? That's a different topic though.
Since my act of loyalty, killing for someone, doesn't end there because I have to deal with the fall out; and I wouldn't have to if I died for someone, I think killing for someone is a much better way to show your loyalty. This is even true for country as well. Afterall, General Patton said, "The point of war isn't to die for your country, it's to make the other son of a bitch die for his."
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Perception of colors
I often times find myself really upset when men who practice heterosexuality have more feminine characteristics than male. One characteristic that I deem as feminine is being able to recognize, distinguish and identify multiple colors without having formally been trained. I add the training in because if you work for Sherwin Williams or Home Depot, it is your job to be able to distinguish between say "Egg" and "White." My utter helplessness in this matter has made me think about colors because very few creatures on Earth can see the wide variety of colors we do. Shockingly, I have found the following questions brought up to me by other people; interestingly, all of them are my second cousins. When I bring it up with others, they find it interesting yet they never thought of it before. It's possible it's unique to my family but in this public forum I ask if my theory holds.
When I look at a color that I identify as "Red" is it the same thing that you see as "Red"? If, say you learned that what I perceive as blue, you perceive as red, neither of us would ever know because we'd both say "Red" when we saw the color. Some have speculated to have spectrum of different shades of red and see how far the spectrum goes till someone sees a new color, but that doesn't solve the problem that it is quite possible we could be seeing two completely different colors. You couldn't even go to brightness because yes Black is darker than White, but what's darker between Red and Blue? As far as the brightness, it's kind of equal. Same goes for say Green or orange. I only recognize 11 colors, (Black, white, green, yellow, orange, brown, red, blue, grey, pink, purple). From brightness factors I think White, Yellow, pink .... Brown, Black from brightest to darkest. The other six colors seem interchangeable to me.
Now that the basic argument is out of the way, I'll go into why I came up with this. I've looked at colors that I would swear are one color and most people see a different one. So I wonder if we're seeing the same thing. I have never seen anything that I conceive of "Blue" in what people call "Midnight Blue." I only see black. The box of 64 crayons is meaningless to me. I've stared at sheets that everyone kept telling me was brown but all I could see was "black" I tried very hard to see what others were seeing but I just couldn't do it. I guess the spectrum theory is the best test for this, but it's not the most conclusive to answer these questions.
With all this said, I wouldn't advise you to ask me to decorate anything and I'd beg for your patience if my clothes don't match because to me, it looks like the same color, but it may not be the majority opinion (this is always why I try to wear khaki, white and black since it goes with everything...at least I think it does).
When I look at a color that I identify as "Red" is it the same thing that you see as "Red"? If, say you learned that what I perceive as blue, you perceive as red, neither of us would ever know because we'd both say "Red" when we saw the color. Some have speculated to have spectrum of different shades of red and see how far the spectrum goes till someone sees a new color, but that doesn't solve the problem that it is quite possible we could be seeing two completely different colors. You couldn't even go to brightness because yes Black is darker than White, but what's darker between Red and Blue? As far as the brightness, it's kind of equal. Same goes for say Green or orange. I only recognize 11 colors, (Black, white, green, yellow, orange, brown, red, blue, grey, pink, purple). From brightness factors I think White, Yellow, pink .... Brown, Black from brightest to darkest. The other six colors seem interchangeable to me.
Now that the basic argument is out of the way, I'll go into why I came up with this. I've looked at colors that I would swear are one color and most people see a different one. So I wonder if we're seeing the same thing. I have never seen anything that I conceive of "Blue" in what people call "Midnight Blue." I only see black. The box of 64 crayons is meaningless to me. I've stared at sheets that everyone kept telling me was brown but all I could see was "black" I tried very hard to see what others were seeing but I just couldn't do it. I guess the spectrum theory is the best test for this, but it's not the most conclusive to answer these questions.
With all this said, I wouldn't advise you to ask me to decorate anything and I'd beg for your patience if my clothes don't match because to me, it looks like the same color, but it may not be the majority opinion (this is always why I try to wear khaki, white and black since it goes with everything...at least I think it does).
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The end of Original thoughts
A lot of times people are criticized for merely spewing out something they read somewhere. One example of this is in Good Will Hunting when Matt Damon shows up a Harvard student by finishing his quotes and telling him which text book he got it from. The problem with this is that in real life, nobody respects original thought. It's so assumed that there is no credibility unless someone else has said it or done it before you. The first time I heard this was from Mark Twain who said something along the lines of it's a shame that everyone's personal mottos and expressions are quotes. I believe my book to be my original thoughts because it asks questions not everyone asks, the problem is, I find the same questions in other sources. This just furthers my point that the world hasn't progressed in 5,000 years.
First with science since most people love science. In the introduction of any scientific study, you must document who else has done this experiment. Yes, you get an opportunity to argue why yours is different but you are forced to find someone who has done what you are testing. Thus proving (use of this word is purposely used as a fuck you to everyone who attacks scientific work by banning this word) that it naturally assumed that it is impossible to have a scientific study that has never been done before because the qualification in order to recieve any recognition or credibility is to find someone who did it before you. This premise holds up in law too. When lawyers present their case to a judge, they have to include other cases that tried the same thing that is at issue here. This naturally assumes that it is impossible to have a court case that has never been tried before.
My last point directly affects me as I am not a lawyer or a scientist but I use logic to come to conclusions. This branches off to using literature to argue points. When you argue a point, immediately someone pulls out their phone and finds a web site that disagrees. The point is who says that website is right? Anything can be posted on the internet. I could say that the Earth is flat and there would be a website for it. Others prove my point. So who's right? People try to justify web-based articles because they're "Peer Reviewed" But since a majority of people are stupid, I'm not impressed. Take one peer review study done by the Woman's Health Organization. They say that Progesterone (natural hormone that everyone on Earth makes) causes cancer because they did an experiment in which they combined natural hormones with synthetic hormones from horse urin and called it "Progestin." The results of this study convinced the world that Progesterone causes cancer because Progestin was seen to cause cancer. Arguments are "well they sound the same and adding urin and synthetic material really should have no effect." This is an example of "Peer Reviewed medical research." And it's so blatantly and obviously bullshit. So, why would you believe anything? I don't. What happens to me is I come up with a theory and someone else backs it up because they read it somewhere. Most people take this as a good thing. Me, I'm pissed, because now it's not original even though I came up with it on my own. Even the name of my book"The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years" someone found an article entitled, "Have we really progressed in 5,000 years?" Not only is the spirit the same, they used the same number I did.
This lack of originality comes in mannerisms and sayings too. I find myself speaking and expressing myself like other people. Some examples are I used to say, "What?" if I didn't hear someone say something and wanted them to repeat it. Then I started hanging out with Dominicans and now I say, "What happened?" I used to make fun of my older brother because he has an obnoxious cackling laugh, now I laugh the same way. My sister will often use this high pitch sarcastic voice to say things especially the word "Okay." Now, I've adopted it. I often times will pull my lips over my teeth and bite on my knuckles. I thought this was original, then I saw a video of my best friend doing it....though I'm not quite sure if I got it from him or he got it from me.
Due to the entire system whether it be from science to law to debates will receive no credibility unless other sources are quoted and identical displays and arguments have been made, and this has yet to be a problem in any field, it appears originality is dead.
First with science since most people love science. In the introduction of any scientific study, you must document who else has done this experiment. Yes, you get an opportunity to argue why yours is different but you are forced to find someone who has done what you are testing. Thus proving (use of this word is purposely used as a fuck you to everyone who attacks scientific work by banning this word) that it naturally assumed that it is impossible to have a scientific study that has never been done before because the qualification in order to recieve any recognition or credibility is to find someone who did it before you. This premise holds up in law too. When lawyers present their case to a judge, they have to include other cases that tried the same thing that is at issue here. This naturally assumes that it is impossible to have a court case that has never been tried before.
My last point directly affects me as I am not a lawyer or a scientist but I use logic to come to conclusions. This branches off to using literature to argue points. When you argue a point, immediately someone pulls out their phone and finds a web site that disagrees. The point is who says that website is right? Anything can be posted on the internet. I could say that the Earth is flat and there would be a website for it. Others prove my point. So who's right? People try to justify web-based articles because they're "Peer Reviewed" But since a majority of people are stupid, I'm not impressed. Take one peer review study done by the Woman's Health Organization. They say that Progesterone (natural hormone that everyone on Earth makes) causes cancer because they did an experiment in which they combined natural hormones with synthetic hormones from horse urin and called it "Progestin." The results of this study convinced the world that Progesterone causes cancer because Progestin was seen to cause cancer. Arguments are "well they sound the same and adding urin and synthetic material really should have no effect." This is an example of "Peer Reviewed medical research." And it's so blatantly and obviously bullshit. So, why would you believe anything? I don't. What happens to me is I come up with a theory and someone else backs it up because they read it somewhere. Most people take this as a good thing. Me, I'm pissed, because now it's not original even though I came up with it on my own. Even the name of my book"The World Hasn't Progressed in 5,000 Years" someone found an article entitled, "Have we really progressed in 5,000 years?" Not only is the spirit the same, they used the same number I did.
This lack of originality comes in mannerisms and sayings too. I find myself speaking and expressing myself like other people. Some examples are I used to say, "What?" if I didn't hear someone say something and wanted them to repeat it. Then I started hanging out with Dominicans and now I say, "What happened?" I used to make fun of my older brother because he has an obnoxious cackling laugh, now I laugh the same way. My sister will often use this high pitch sarcastic voice to say things especially the word "Okay." Now, I've adopted it. I often times will pull my lips over my teeth and bite on my knuckles. I thought this was original, then I saw a video of my best friend doing it....though I'm not quite sure if I got it from him or he got it from me.
Due to the entire system whether it be from science to law to debates will receive no credibility unless other sources are quoted and identical displays and arguments have been made, and this has yet to be a problem in any field, it appears originality is dead.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Was 9/11 an inside job?
Today, the issue of whether or not Bush planned 9/11 came up because the Iranian Imam Mahmoud Ahmedinijad said it at the United Nations. I heard comments that we shouldn't allow such an obvious American hater on our soil. I'm all for moving the UN out of the city I live in but his commets aren't that controversial because 25% of people living in America believe this so why is it so surprising that leaders of countries who hate us believe it too? This is what people don't realize, anti-American Americans ae listened to intently internationally. I see this in Greece and they're our allies. Michael Moore's books have been translated into Greek and random Greek people I meet in Greece will quote them to me moreso than any American here. The world hates us simply because we're the best so when Americans attack us too, they hang on every word they say and take it as gospel. This is why I don't really blame the Imam for saying this. Pretty much everything else from his mouth is offensive to me and I would celebrate his death but that's another discussion. Since the 9/11 believers (25% of the country) normally spat out obviously ridiculous things, I'll just point out quasi-intellectual points about this retarded belief before giving a pure logical rebuttal and using the same argument of the Truth commission and others against them.
When someone brought this up I was in a cafeteria with four other people besides myself. I said, "25% of people living in America believe that so it doesn't bother me the Iranian leader does too" I looked around and continued "statistically, someone in this room believes Bush planned 9/11" to which a man from Montenegro turned around and proved my point both that yes, one person in the room did believe it and yes citizens of other countries take the word of Anti-Americans as gospel.
First fact pointed out: The fire at the World Trade Center did not get hot enough to melt steal. This is a true statement. What though, makes people believe that steel has to melt in order to not be able to contain the weight of a 111 story building? Is there another reason that the steel support beams would not be able to contain the weight besides melting? How about if it just got hot enough to bend easily? After all, the middle ages they would cook steel to shape swords, armor, shields etc. What if you packed on 20 stories (because as everyone knows, the planes didn't hit the bottom of the WTC.) The fire at the WTC was hot enough to make steel bendable quite easily, so the pressure of the building shoved the steel downward by the use of gravity, the steel bent easily, the floor crashed down onto another floor causing the domino effect as displayed on the PBS special "Why the Towers Fell."
Second fact: The windows of the Pentagon didn't break. For those of you who don't know about how the Pentagon was built. One: most of it is underground. Two: the windows that are above ground are designed to be explosion proof. See, when they built it, they thought someone would bomb the center of our defense. A ground attack is unlikely because we have the greatest standing army in the world, so rather than defend it against hammers or pinpoint jacknives used in cars in case you drive into a body of water, they defended it against explosions and shockwaves. So, the explosion-proof windows didn't shatter when there was an explosion near by....hmmmm so good job engineers? Firefighters and rescue workers report seeing body parts, luggage and seat fragments on the ground around the Pentagon so the "missle"theory is debunked. Yes, We didn't see it, but we also didn't see footage of people jumping out of the towers because they thought it would be a little graphic for Americans....Greece not so much (This is why I know about this footage) It was also seen on BBC. So, when people say, "They never showed the workers picking up body parts at the Pentagon so it wasn't really a plane" I say, "Well, finally the news actually had a shred of humanity and sensitivity for a change." That may be the most shocking development. The evidence suggests that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, it actually hit in front of the Pentagon, broke a wing and then exploded against it. Fine, I still call that a plane into the Pentagon and the windows not breaking doesn't shock me because they were designed to do precisely that. It is true the World Trade Center was designed to handle a plane crash into it, but they prepared it for a plane smaller than the ones that hit. The Pentagon windows were designed to withstand explosions from bombs, missles and other things that explode...yay architects and designers.
Another theory is to point at Tower 7, which caught on fire then collapsed. They showed other building being in bigger fires and not collapsing. What didn't happen in these other buiildings was two 111 story building collapsing shooting debris everywhere. If a building is already weak from fire and shockwaves, debris, etc. go flying into it, it may just collapse.
The other point. "you honestly believe that flying debris can remove fire insulation from steel beams?" Simple answer, yes, I think flying steel, fire, seats, body parts and all sorts of shit that must have been flying through those towers could have scratched away fire insulation. You can call that naive but I think if you spray shreds of steel at 600 miles an hour, it could potenially scratch something, weaken beams, or just destroy them. I'm not sure why people see this as far-fetched.
From a logical point of view. Do you remember George Bush? He's kind of a moron. You really think that guy is capable of the greatest and most elaborate hoax in American history? You think Bush, the man who told us that ticket counters can fly, could figure out that if you blow up the center and symbol of the American economy the WORLD TRADE CENTER, think about what that means, you think that he could figure out that if you blow that up, the economy will take a hit for a week or two, then rebound right away and net effect is not too big a blow on the economy? The finance experts couldn't figure this out. The stock market closed for two days after the event. All the financial geniuses said this was the end of the boom in America and they were all wrong. You're telling me that George Bush and his advisors were smarter than all the finance experts about an issue of finance? I'm sorry, I just really don't think he's that bright.
Now to use the argument against themselves. I think that the Truth commission, the people that got this conspiracy theory started, was created by the government. Machiavelli said, "It is better to be feared than loved." It scares people to think that our President was so ruthless he was willing to kill 5,000 innocent people, so he could blame it on Afghanistan and then generalize it to Iraq to avenge his father. In the eight years since the war in Iraq started, fewer American soldiers have died in the war than did on 9/11/2001. Bush didn't want to make it seem like he didn't have control of the country, so he created an organization that would put the blame on him. This way, Americans would feel safe from foreign enemies and they would instead fear him, just as Machiavelli said should happen. Leaders need to be feared and his approval ratings were getting too high. Love was never a necessity to the Machiavellian prince so another reason he created the truth commission was to lose that love and voila, his approval ratings dropped to 48%. The government created 9/11 commission worked beautifully This paragraph was blatantly and unabashedly stolen from a Southpark episode. If you believe it, well at least your consistent in believing retarded conspiracy theories because again you think Bush is capable of all this?
When someone brought this up I was in a cafeteria with four other people besides myself. I said, "25% of people living in America believe that so it doesn't bother me the Iranian leader does too" I looked around and continued "statistically, someone in this room believes Bush planned 9/11" to which a man from Montenegro turned around and proved my point both that yes, one person in the room did believe it and yes citizens of other countries take the word of Anti-Americans as gospel.
First fact pointed out: The fire at the World Trade Center did not get hot enough to melt steal. This is a true statement. What though, makes people believe that steel has to melt in order to not be able to contain the weight of a 111 story building? Is there another reason that the steel support beams would not be able to contain the weight besides melting? How about if it just got hot enough to bend easily? After all, the middle ages they would cook steel to shape swords, armor, shields etc. What if you packed on 20 stories (because as everyone knows, the planes didn't hit the bottom of the WTC.) The fire at the WTC was hot enough to make steel bendable quite easily, so the pressure of the building shoved the steel downward by the use of gravity, the steel bent easily, the floor crashed down onto another floor causing the domino effect as displayed on the PBS special "Why the Towers Fell."
Second fact: The windows of the Pentagon didn't break. For those of you who don't know about how the Pentagon was built. One: most of it is underground. Two: the windows that are above ground are designed to be explosion proof. See, when they built it, they thought someone would bomb the center of our defense. A ground attack is unlikely because we have the greatest standing army in the world, so rather than defend it against hammers or pinpoint jacknives used in cars in case you drive into a body of water, they defended it against explosions and shockwaves. So, the explosion-proof windows didn't shatter when there was an explosion near by....hmmmm so good job engineers? Firefighters and rescue workers report seeing body parts, luggage and seat fragments on the ground around the Pentagon so the "missle"theory is debunked. Yes, We didn't see it, but we also didn't see footage of people jumping out of the towers because they thought it would be a little graphic for Americans....Greece not so much (This is why I know about this footage) It was also seen on BBC. So, when people say, "They never showed the workers picking up body parts at the Pentagon so it wasn't really a plane" I say, "Well, finally the news actually had a shred of humanity and sensitivity for a change." That may be the most shocking development. The evidence suggests that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, it actually hit in front of the Pentagon, broke a wing and then exploded against it. Fine, I still call that a plane into the Pentagon and the windows not breaking doesn't shock me because they were designed to do precisely that. It is true the World Trade Center was designed to handle a plane crash into it, but they prepared it for a plane smaller than the ones that hit. The Pentagon windows were designed to withstand explosions from bombs, missles and other things that explode...yay architects and designers.
Another theory is to point at Tower 7, which caught on fire then collapsed. They showed other building being in bigger fires and not collapsing. What didn't happen in these other buiildings was two 111 story building collapsing shooting debris everywhere. If a building is already weak from fire and shockwaves, debris, etc. go flying into it, it may just collapse.
The other point. "you honestly believe that flying debris can remove fire insulation from steel beams?" Simple answer, yes, I think flying steel, fire, seats, body parts and all sorts of shit that must have been flying through those towers could have scratched away fire insulation. You can call that naive but I think if you spray shreds of steel at 600 miles an hour, it could potenially scratch something, weaken beams, or just destroy them. I'm not sure why people see this as far-fetched.
From a logical point of view. Do you remember George Bush? He's kind of a moron. You really think that guy is capable of the greatest and most elaborate hoax in American history? You think Bush, the man who told us that ticket counters can fly, could figure out that if you blow up the center and symbol of the American economy the WORLD TRADE CENTER, think about what that means, you think that he could figure out that if you blow that up, the economy will take a hit for a week or two, then rebound right away and net effect is not too big a blow on the economy? The finance experts couldn't figure this out. The stock market closed for two days after the event. All the financial geniuses said this was the end of the boom in America and they were all wrong. You're telling me that George Bush and his advisors were smarter than all the finance experts about an issue of finance? I'm sorry, I just really don't think he's that bright.
Now to use the argument against themselves. I think that the Truth commission, the people that got this conspiracy theory started, was created by the government. Machiavelli said, "It is better to be feared than loved." It scares people to think that our President was so ruthless he was willing to kill 5,000 innocent people, so he could blame it on Afghanistan and then generalize it to Iraq to avenge his father. In the eight years since the war in Iraq started, fewer American soldiers have died in the war than did on 9/11/2001. Bush didn't want to make it seem like he didn't have control of the country, so he created an organization that would put the blame on him. This way, Americans would feel safe from foreign enemies and they would instead fear him, just as Machiavelli said should happen. Leaders need to be feared and his approval ratings were getting too high. Love was never a necessity to the Machiavellian prince so another reason he created the truth commission was to lose that love and voila, his approval ratings dropped to 48%. The government created 9/11 commission worked beautifully This paragraph was blatantly and unabashedly stolen from a Southpark episode. If you believe it, well at least your consistent in believing retarded conspiracy theories because again you think Bush is capable of all this?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Thai people are telepathic
I don't know about other people who comment on politics, but I find the need to make fun of myself from time to time in order to stop from getting worked up about politics. So, in this blog, I'm going to apply my normal questioning and letting truth and facts guide me to a conclusion to a ridiculous situation. This ridiculous situation is the simple act of ordering Thai food.
I was hungry so I decided to order some Thai food for my roommate and I. I called the Thai place that I've ordered from a number of times before. On one particular occassion, when they arrived at my door, I had the following conversation with the delivery man:
me: Do you know what I'm going to order before I call you?
Delivery guy: Yes
me: so you read my mind? What do you do? Prepare the food and the wait for me to call?
Delievery guy: Yes we do
Me: Really, so before I call you, the food is prepared and you wait for me to call and then come deliver it?
Delivery guy "Yes"
Now, it is quite possible that he didn't know English and just decided to say "Yes" to everything I said and one time decided to add "we do" to it. Or perhaps he realized I was joking so he decided to play along. Or maybe, just maybe, he was telling me the truth.
On this particular occassion I looked at my watch and made the phone call to the Thai place. I ordered the food and gave my credit card, which is always a feat because their English is not too good. I hung up the phone and went about my life until the doorbell rang. When the doorbell rang, I was shocked. I thought it was my landlord or some other person for upon looking at my watch, it had only been 12 minutes since I called. This Thai place is a seven minute walk away. Granted, he probably had a bike but still there is commuting time. So, I called, told them my order, had to repeat my credit card information, hung up, they started making the food (I'm guessing), finished preparing it, gave it to a delivery man, who then packed up his bike and brought it to my door in 12 minutes? I just don't think that's possible. The only logical conclusion is that these Thai people, with their Tai Chi or whatever they practice, has given them a capacity that they can read minds. They know when someone is going to call, what they're going to order, so have the food prepared before the phone call takes place.
The average human uses 10% of his brain. Thai people tap into the other 90% in order to achieve telepathic power, and they utilize it to deliver food very quickly to your door step. I'm sure they decide to win the lottery every now and then never going for big jack pots because then you have to publicize that you won. That's why they can afford to have low prices for their food. So, when around Thai people, don't think ill of them...they'll know.
I was hungry so I decided to order some Thai food for my roommate and I. I called the Thai place that I've ordered from a number of times before. On one particular occassion, when they arrived at my door, I had the following conversation with the delivery man:
me: Do you know what I'm going to order before I call you?
Delivery guy: Yes
me: so you read my mind? What do you do? Prepare the food and the wait for me to call?
Delievery guy: Yes we do
Me: Really, so before I call you, the food is prepared and you wait for me to call and then come deliver it?
Delivery guy "Yes"
Now, it is quite possible that he didn't know English and just decided to say "Yes" to everything I said and one time decided to add "we do" to it. Or perhaps he realized I was joking so he decided to play along. Or maybe, just maybe, he was telling me the truth.
On this particular occassion I looked at my watch and made the phone call to the Thai place. I ordered the food and gave my credit card, which is always a feat because their English is not too good. I hung up the phone and went about my life until the doorbell rang. When the doorbell rang, I was shocked. I thought it was my landlord or some other person for upon looking at my watch, it had only been 12 minutes since I called. This Thai place is a seven minute walk away. Granted, he probably had a bike but still there is commuting time. So, I called, told them my order, had to repeat my credit card information, hung up, they started making the food (I'm guessing), finished preparing it, gave it to a delivery man, who then packed up his bike and brought it to my door in 12 minutes? I just don't think that's possible. The only logical conclusion is that these Thai people, with their Tai Chi or whatever they practice, has given them a capacity that they can read minds. They know when someone is going to call, what they're going to order, so have the food prepared before the phone call takes place.
The average human uses 10% of his brain. Thai people tap into the other 90% in order to achieve telepathic power, and they utilize it to deliver food very quickly to your door step. I'm sure they decide to win the lottery every now and then never going for big jack pots because then you have to publicize that you won. That's why they can afford to have low prices for their food. So, when around Thai people, don't think ill of them...they'll know.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Women in Religion
It appears that throughout history most religions feel the need to keep women down. I'm told that hinduism does not do this but I am unsure about that as I have only spoken to one Hindi on this subject. Before getting into why this is the case, I'm going to support this theory using three different religions, the Greek gods, Christianity, and Islam.
In ancient Greece, Medusa was seen to be a beautiful woman. Medusa was so beautiful in fact, that Aphrodite, the goddess of love, became insanely jealous and convinced the gods of Olympus (first Athena, who passed it along to Zeus) to turn her into a creature so hideous that if men look at her, they'll turn to stone. The message was clear to the women of Greece, don't think you're too beautiful or be vain about your beauty because you wouldn't want Aphrodite turning you into a hideous beast. Also, the three offspring of Cronos that would overthrow their father (Poseidon, Zeus and Hades) were all men. It is true that Athena defeated Poseidon in a contest for who the capital would be named after but Poseidon was always seen as the more powerful god. Christianity also incorporated the idea that it was bad to be vain by making it one of the seven deadly sins. As a point of order, I am aware that some forms of Protestantism and Lutheranism allow women to be pastors but these religions don't really count to me because any time a religion changes it's canons based on society, I feel it to be too watered down for my respect. This is an important note because I am not claiming that religions should discontinue their anti-feminine ways but merely to point out the reasoning behind it. In Christianity, women cannot enter the alter or be priests. They are taught to be fruitful and multiply, which can easily be extended to the "bare foot and pregnant" image. Mormons have the belief that God tells them who they take as their wife, and if the woman refuses, she gets beaten by the would-be suitor, the male members of her family and raped for violating God. Also, men can have multiple wives but a woman who has more than one husband is seen to be committing adultery. The point is also seen in Islam. Women must walk behind their husbands, they cannot prey in the same area and must keep themselves covered up so they don't distract the men who make the society run. The types of degradation goes to the lengths that they must use their hair to wash their husband's feet. These three religions are among the most popular in the ancient and modern world and all have one underlying theme....keeping women down; so why are women religious?
If a feminist were to read this, they would jump on the church for being sexist and the like. At the risk of soudning like someone who "blames the victim," I will say that women don't seem to put up much a fight. I truly believe that the Creator did indeed create women second. I believe this because when I look at a man, I believe he was the first shot and woman was the improvement on the original model. I go into this in my book so will end it with that. Despite women being much better looking, they also control men with their beauty. It's not as extreme as Muslim nations state in that buses and cars crash because some women show some skin. Any non-Muslim state is proof of this, but beautiful woman do catch men's eye. So much so, that I beleive men got together and decided they needed to counteract women's power by creating a power larger than women to convince them to be subservient. This is how organized religion may have gotten its start, but why has it stayed strong for thousands of years? There must be something about women that despite the hold they have over men, they subject themselves to rules of organized religion that obviously are biased toward males. Here are those reasons.
The common theme among heterosexual women is they want to be taken care of. They like feeling secure with the man they are with. This is why by far the most important feature a man can have to attract a woman is confidence. They want to be sure they are secure and they want a man that is so secure with himself that it will rub off on her. Religion empowers men so that they are given a confidence that they can combat women's power. This makes it easier for them to approach them and not be shy. Deep down women know that despite taking the husband's last name and naming him the head of the house, they are in control. Women don't want the control so they latch on to anything that will give men more confidence and the most obvious source is religion.
One problem I see with this theory is that if I was correct, then you should see a positive correlation between the rise of masculinity and religious women. Instead, with the recent pussification of the American male, you see a drop in religious people male or female. One explanation for this is simply women are giving up, which is why you see a recent increase in lesbianism. I will never pretend to understand women, but ever since I've moved to New York, the people I've befriended are almost always women, so I do spend a lot of time around them. Most of the women I know are very strong but they look for stronger males than they are. They say, "I want a guy with a stronger personality than mine" unfortunately, this mentality normally leads to abusive men who have little to no respect for women.
In ancient Greece, Medusa was seen to be a beautiful woman. Medusa was so beautiful in fact, that Aphrodite, the goddess of love, became insanely jealous and convinced the gods of Olympus (first Athena, who passed it along to Zeus) to turn her into a creature so hideous that if men look at her, they'll turn to stone. The message was clear to the women of Greece, don't think you're too beautiful or be vain about your beauty because you wouldn't want Aphrodite turning you into a hideous beast. Also, the three offspring of Cronos that would overthrow their father (Poseidon, Zeus and Hades) were all men. It is true that Athena defeated Poseidon in a contest for who the capital would be named after but Poseidon was always seen as the more powerful god. Christianity also incorporated the idea that it was bad to be vain by making it one of the seven deadly sins. As a point of order, I am aware that some forms of Protestantism and Lutheranism allow women to be pastors but these religions don't really count to me because any time a religion changes it's canons based on society, I feel it to be too watered down for my respect. This is an important note because I am not claiming that religions should discontinue their anti-feminine ways but merely to point out the reasoning behind it. In Christianity, women cannot enter the alter or be priests. They are taught to be fruitful and multiply, which can easily be extended to the "bare foot and pregnant" image. Mormons have the belief that God tells them who they take as their wife, and if the woman refuses, she gets beaten by the would-be suitor, the male members of her family and raped for violating God. Also, men can have multiple wives but a woman who has more than one husband is seen to be committing adultery. The point is also seen in Islam. Women must walk behind their husbands, they cannot prey in the same area and must keep themselves covered up so they don't distract the men who make the society run. The types of degradation goes to the lengths that they must use their hair to wash their husband's feet. These three religions are among the most popular in the ancient and modern world and all have one underlying theme....keeping women down; so why are women religious?
If a feminist were to read this, they would jump on the church for being sexist and the like. At the risk of soudning like someone who "blames the victim," I will say that women don't seem to put up much a fight. I truly believe that the Creator did indeed create women second. I believe this because when I look at a man, I believe he was the first shot and woman was the improvement on the original model. I go into this in my book so will end it with that. Despite women being much better looking, they also control men with their beauty. It's not as extreme as Muslim nations state in that buses and cars crash because some women show some skin. Any non-Muslim state is proof of this, but beautiful woman do catch men's eye. So much so, that I beleive men got together and decided they needed to counteract women's power by creating a power larger than women to convince them to be subservient. This is how organized religion may have gotten its start, but why has it stayed strong for thousands of years? There must be something about women that despite the hold they have over men, they subject themselves to rules of organized religion that obviously are biased toward males. Here are those reasons.
The common theme among heterosexual women is they want to be taken care of. They like feeling secure with the man they are with. This is why by far the most important feature a man can have to attract a woman is confidence. They want to be sure they are secure and they want a man that is so secure with himself that it will rub off on her. Religion empowers men so that they are given a confidence that they can combat women's power. This makes it easier for them to approach them and not be shy. Deep down women know that despite taking the husband's last name and naming him the head of the house, they are in control. Women don't want the control so they latch on to anything that will give men more confidence and the most obvious source is religion.
One problem I see with this theory is that if I was correct, then you should see a positive correlation between the rise of masculinity and religious women. Instead, with the recent pussification of the American male, you see a drop in religious people male or female. One explanation for this is simply women are giving up, which is why you see a recent increase in lesbianism. I will never pretend to understand women, but ever since I've moved to New York, the people I've befriended are almost always women, so I do spend a lot of time around them. Most of the women I know are very strong but they look for stronger males than they are. They say, "I want a guy with a stronger personality than mine" unfortunately, this mentality normally leads to abusive men who have little to no respect for women.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Answering fan question about Globalization
You know, what I like about what you are doing is that you are positioning yourself as somebody with answers. I don't have answers. So maybe what we should do is structure things so that people can e-mail you to get answers or to take issue with what is in your book. I guess that is what you are doing right now.
So, for example, I want to know something. Who is responsible for the exportation of so many jobs to the Asian world.? How did that happen? I think they changed the laws that allowed companies to import to theUnited States America
So, for example, I want to know something. Who is responsible for the exportation of so many jobs to the Asian world.? How did that happen? I think they changed the laws that allowed companies to import to the
My Response:
The outsourcing of jobs has a little bit to do with trade alliances like NAFTA though that would more be the outsourcing to Mexico Asia
We are much better at skilled labor than Asia China India America America Tokyo America Toyota Kentucky North Carolina United States Flint Michigan Mexico
It is interesting when enough time passes we see a reverse in trade. Japanamations (Japanese cartoons) in the 80s were written by Americans and sent to Japan Japan US
With that said, some things, like weapons and defense, logically need to stay in house but clothing, toys, etc. etc. there is no problem with outsourcing, because companies outsource to us too, and it allows us to focus on the things where the gap of our ability with the outsourced country is greatest.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Objectivist vs. Republican
Since Objectivism was founded by a woman who escaped communist Russia, they almost always support the Republican side of the ticket. Despite this, they are not one and the same. It has been said that "A Conservative government is an organized hypocrisy" This is misleading. Republicans or Conservatives believe in less power to the federal government and more power to the state. Now, many elected Republicans stray very far from what its supposed to represent so this discussion is about what Republicans claim to represent not what their representatives actually represent. Republicans are supposed to lower taxes, and promote the federal government to only focus on our national defense and leave everything else up to state governments.
Objectivists, on the other hand, don't want the government, state or federal, to interfere with individuals unalienable rights to do what they want on their own private property. Also, it means not disallowing people from doing things in public so long as they're not infringing on other people's rights. The whole point of being in public is you have to deal with other people's habits.
Here are some examples Republicans support but Objectivists do not:
Objectivists are against the indoor smoking laws because second-hand smoke will not kill you if you're only subjected to it in a restaurant, bar, or club. If it's in your house, then it's unfortunate that you're killing those in your house but it's not the government's responsibility to teach you how to parent.
Objectivists are against pets being automatically listed as dangerous and only deem it necessary to take or kill your pet from you if it harms a person off your property. Republicans are in favor of Animal Control doing this.
Objectivists are against having to pay a fee to register your car to the state, they believe in private property Republicans don't.
Objectivists are against laws for what age you need to wear a helmet, how old your kids need to be to stay home alone, and other laws telling you how to parents...this is not the state's job. Republicans are in favor of these laws.
Objectivists would dissolve organizations like animal control, repot men, FDA and other government organizations that inhibit entrereneurs from entering the marketplace or people who try to tell you what to do on your property.
Why do Objectivists vote Republican then? It is better and easier to destroy the insitution of big government by joining government than from the outside. If an Objectivist ever took control of this country, the country would reach success and world dominance that we could only dream about now.
Objectivists, on the other hand, don't want the government, state or federal, to interfere with individuals unalienable rights to do what they want on their own private property. Also, it means not disallowing people from doing things in public so long as they're not infringing on other people's rights. The whole point of being in public is you have to deal with other people's habits.
Here are some examples Republicans support but Objectivists do not:
Objectivists are against the indoor smoking laws because second-hand smoke will not kill you if you're only subjected to it in a restaurant, bar, or club. If it's in your house, then it's unfortunate that you're killing those in your house but it's not the government's responsibility to teach you how to parent.
Objectivists are against pets being automatically listed as dangerous and only deem it necessary to take or kill your pet from you if it harms a person off your property. Republicans are in favor of Animal Control doing this.
Objectivists are against having to pay a fee to register your car to the state, they believe in private property Republicans don't.
Objectivists are against laws for what age you need to wear a helmet, how old your kids need to be to stay home alone, and other laws telling you how to parents...this is not the state's job. Republicans are in favor of these laws.
Objectivists would dissolve organizations like animal control, repot men, FDA and other government organizations that inhibit entrereneurs from entering the marketplace or people who try to tell you what to do on your property.
Why do Objectivists vote Republican then? It is better and easier to destroy the insitution of big government by joining government than from the outside. If an Objectivist ever took control of this country, the country would reach success and world dominance that we could only dream about now.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Why do humans hate being the best?
Throughout mankind there has always been a lure for something greater than ouselves. Most of the time, it is found in religion, but even athesits bring about this need too. I will explore more the people who reject God or gods to try to provide a case for humans hating to be the best.
Many believe that life exists on other planets...some go as far to say that they built the pyramids or the "Contact"theory "given the infinite size of the universe, it appears that if Earth was the only one to sustain life, it seems like an awful waste of space. The thing that is intriguing is that no matter what kind of aliens that people have professed exist, there's always one underlying fact...the aliens are more advanced than us. Why is this the case? Can't micoorganisms exist on other planets and in 4.5 billion years, when our sun dies, another planet will take our place, but that's still 4.5 billion years away? Why can't trilobites exist on other planets and the reason they won't communicate with us is they don't have the technology yet? This conclusion seems preposterous to those who believe in aliens because although people argue on what these aliens look like, the undeniable fact is that they're more advanced than us. We send signals into space looking for someone to answer back but never assume that maybe they can't recieve or transmit radio messages at light speed. Dolphins and Chimpanzees are supposed to rival humans in the intelligence department but if we sent radio wave messages to them, they wouldn't be able to send them back. What if other planets have this same problem?
The other common theme is werewolves and vampires. Werewolves and vampires have all the features of humans plus more. They are much stronger than us. It takes a tremendous human to defeat them and almost all fail. Many vampire movies document ancient texts professing vampires and werewolves amongst us. This can also be said about witches and wizards. A lot of times it's routed in theology. Twilight is written by mormons, who are devout Christians. JK Rowlings the first author to achieve billionaire status, is deeply religious and has that as an undertone in the Harry Potter series. This is fascinating to me because I believe it can be argued that God or gods is just another example of humans trying to find something greater than themselves. Vapires, werewolves, witches and wizards seem to be competition on this level.
The Renaissance gave birth the humanists. People who believed that humans were # 1. What if they are? What if we're the greatest thing in this universe? Why is that so bad? Maybe because if this were true, then we make the rules and we battle ourselves for who is correct without an arbitrary judge. If we are the best, then morality and truth doesn't exist. Science helps with this because we can't break scientific laws. I was raised on the notion that either God is the laws of science or he created them and let it take its course. Science, though, is neutral on morality. It can't tell you if what you're doing is right or wrong. There needs to be a greater source to determine right and wrong. Some will say, "it is right if you're acting in accordance with nature" but why is it physically possible to go against nature? Where did this free will to do things that are against our nature like drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, performing sexual acts that make it impossible to procreate come from? Why are these same anti-nature; anti-science behavior found amongst the animal kingdom as well?
If we truly aren't # 1, then why do these problems that I proclaimed with being # 1 not exist amongst gods? It doesn't seem possible unless there was one God. if there is only one God, then there's nobody to fight with, nobody else to make the rules, nobody to answer to. We see on the human level that totalitarian rule by despots or kings does not work. So then how can I say it is good for there to be one God that judges right and wrong. I call this god "Objective Truth." It's easier to think of it as an entity. I'm convinced it's not but let's take as an argument that it is. It can't be the way organized religion describe Him as omnipotent and able to do whatever he wills or "His will be done." The greatest thing in the universe is not someone whose "will be done." The creater of the universe needs to be someone that has no will. He is a slave to never stray from the right path, a path made of princple, integrity, objective truths.
I don't think many people think about these things...yet, it appears that most everybody subconsciously believes it. Do we understand at a subconscious level the need to not be the best as I described in the above paragraph? Do you have another reason why we hate being the best? Or do you disagree entirely with the assumption this question takes as a given?
Many believe that life exists on other planets...some go as far to say that they built the pyramids or the "Contact"theory "given the infinite size of the universe, it appears that if Earth was the only one to sustain life, it seems like an awful waste of space. The thing that is intriguing is that no matter what kind of aliens that people have professed exist, there's always one underlying fact...the aliens are more advanced than us. Why is this the case? Can't micoorganisms exist on other planets and in 4.5 billion years, when our sun dies, another planet will take our place, but that's still 4.5 billion years away? Why can't trilobites exist on other planets and the reason they won't communicate with us is they don't have the technology yet? This conclusion seems preposterous to those who believe in aliens because although people argue on what these aliens look like, the undeniable fact is that they're more advanced than us. We send signals into space looking for someone to answer back but never assume that maybe they can't recieve or transmit radio messages at light speed. Dolphins and Chimpanzees are supposed to rival humans in the intelligence department but if we sent radio wave messages to them, they wouldn't be able to send them back. What if other planets have this same problem?
The other common theme is werewolves and vampires. Werewolves and vampires have all the features of humans plus more. They are much stronger than us. It takes a tremendous human to defeat them and almost all fail. Many vampire movies document ancient texts professing vampires and werewolves amongst us. This can also be said about witches and wizards. A lot of times it's routed in theology. Twilight is written by mormons, who are devout Christians. JK Rowlings the first author to achieve billionaire status, is deeply religious and has that as an undertone in the Harry Potter series. This is fascinating to me because I believe it can be argued that God or gods is just another example of humans trying to find something greater than themselves. Vapires, werewolves, witches and wizards seem to be competition on this level.
The Renaissance gave birth the humanists. People who believed that humans were # 1. What if they are? What if we're the greatest thing in this universe? Why is that so bad? Maybe because if this were true, then we make the rules and we battle ourselves for who is correct without an arbitrary judge. If we are the best, then morality and truth doesn't exist. Science helps with this because we can't break scientific laws. I was raised on the notion that either God is the laws of science or he created them and let it take its course. Science, though, is neutral on morality. It can't tell you if what you're doing is right or wrong. There needs to be a greater source to determine right and wrong. Some will say, "it is right if you're acting in accordance with nature" but why is it physically possible to go against nature? Where did this free will to do things that are against our nature like drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, performing sexual acts that make it impossible to procreate come from? Why are these same anti-nature; anti-science behavior found amongst the animal kingdom as well?
If we truly aren't # 1, then why do these problems that I proclaimed with being # 1 not exist amongst gods? It doesn't seem possible unless there was one God. if there is only one God, then there's nobody to fight with, nobody else to make the rules, nobody to answer to. We see on the human level that totalitarian rule by despots or kings does not work. So then how can I say it is good for there to be one God that judges right and wrong. I call this god "Objective Truth." It's easier to think of it as an entity. I'm convinced it's not but let's take as an argument that it is. It can't be the way organized religion describe Him as omnipotent and able to do whatever he wills or "His will be done." The greatest thing in the universe is not someone whose "will be done." The creater of the universe needs to be someone that has no will. He is a slave to never stray from the right path, a path made of princple, integrity, objective truths.
I don't think many people think about these things...yet, it appears that most everybody subconsciously believes it. Do we understand at a subconscious level the need to not be the best as I described in the above paragraph? Do you have another reason why we hate being the best? Or do you disagree entirely with the assumption this question takes as a given?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)