Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
This Is Going To Hurt Me More Than It Hurts You.
OK, first, a heads up; I'm going to the UK on the 23rd, and the update schedule is gonna be fucked. I may update, I may not, we'll see. In addition, I'm going to be quite busy on the days leading up to the trip, so in addition to this post, there may be one on Monday, there won't be a Tuesday one. Posts on Monday and maaaaaybe Wednesday are contingent on me getting ideas.
So, I bag out a lot of obvious targets here. Rebecca Black, Creationists, psuedo-hippies, Nickelback... yeah, all easy shots. But it occurs to me, occasionally your team needs a good spanking to remind them they aren't safe. So, a post directed at all you retard atheists out there.
Obviously, not every atheist is stupid, blanket statements are for losers. Just as it is with members of religions, so it is with the irreligious. Now, since there's no unified atheist dealie that isn't just plain silly, I can't really say "you're making us look bad!" because there is no "us." I suppose the closest thing I can say is "You're putting a bad light on a worldview I happen to share with you, and I'd very much like you to stop." Again, I don't claim to have some privileged insight into atheism that no-one else has twigged, but seriously, there's a few things I'm surprised you morons haven't realised yet.
1) Atheist means "doesn't believe in any gods or subscribe to any god claims." That's literally it. The next time someone calls birth control or abortion an "atheist issue," I'm going to flip my lid. What exactly makes them atheist issues? Last time I checked, there weren't any gods flushing out unwanted foetuses on the side of their supernatural business. Just because a specific religious group, or a subset thereof, have decided it's an issue they have to take on, doesn't mean you're obliged, as a non-believer, to take up arms against them. You can be atheist and pro-life. It's very easy.
2) You don't have to make a big stink about everything religious. This idea of calling-to-arms nonbelievers to shut down anything religious groups organise is just fucking retarded. I had an English journalist brag to a whole lecture hall full of students how she organised a protest against the Pope's visit to London. Why? What the fuck does that achieve? He has as much right to tour and preach to his choir as anyone else. I didn't see you picketing The Dalai Lama, you hypocritical bitch. If you want to promote atheism as a worldview on the same page as any other religion, by all means, shut down discussion and picket events that promote ideas other than your own. Me, I like debate and free-thought. Make a stink about religious claims, but don't get in a tizzy because the local church is holding a Catholic bake sale. Fuck.
3) You can believe good things for bad reasons. This is kinda the opposite of the whole "I believe in God as a safety net" thing. If the belief that there's a dude out there who watches over you is a helpful psychological tool to keep you on the straight and narrow and help you cope with life, that's fine, go for your life. If said dude starts telling you that gay people should be killed... yeah, maybe rein that fucker in. Anyway, to the point; you might be an atheist, hey that's great, but if your reason is that "I'm mad at God!" (yeah, it happens) or "I wanna stick it to my Mum and Dad!" you're doing it wrong. If your worldview can be changed that quickly for petty reasons, you're a credulous numbskull, atheist or not. Saying it doesn't make you any smarter just as saying you're a Christian makes you any more moral. If you honestly believe that there isn't a God, you just know it in your heart, you can't explain it but you know... sorry dude, you may have evidence behind you but that doesn't stop you being clueless, and frankly there's nothing to really stop you believing anything that seems remotely appealing, because your worldview has no foundations.
4) You can believe in faeries all you like, but you might be a tad confused. I know a few self-proclaimed atheists that still believe in spirits and reincarnation and all that crap, and frankly, I don't know why you're even atheist. It's probably a "don't like organised religion" or "the church opposes a lifestyle choice/aspect of my personality/my sexuality" style thing. You can be separate from organised religions and still theistic/deistic in your worldview, it is allowed. Thing is, if you subscribe to forms of woo that aren't necessarily "religious" in nature, you're just giving me a different target to tear down. Remember, the logic that shits on god claims pretty emphatically shits on any supernatural, spiritual or deistic claims as well. Think long and hard: if there really is such a thing as faeries/reincarnation/the reptilian Illuminati/the unprovable 9-11 conspiracy, why couldn't there be a god as well? What's stopping it?
5) "Lol I flipped off a priest lol"... yeah, well done shithead. I cannot stress this enough, people: HAVE A POINT! Random acts of douchery aren't suddenly made valiant strikes for "the cause" because it was against a religious institution. Why is PZ Myers' thing about putting a nail through the host different from pissing on a church wall? Because he wasn't just trying to get a rise out of people, he was making a point. Yeah, sure, it was a point that was always gonna piss some people off, but there was still a point there and a demonstration to be made. For the record, I'd piss on a church as soon as I'd piss on any other building, because I see public urination as a victimless crime, provided it's done in a discreet fashion and isn't being done to be offensive or vulgar.
That about covers it. I could go on a lot longer but I think this touches on all the important bits. If I think of any more they'll be added to the list, but as far as just a quick cover of the bases, it works well. To recap:
1) Atheism refers solely to god claims, not social issues or maths problems or recipes.
2) Don't just make knee-jerk anti-religious ejaculations; respect their right to express their ideas, and critique the ideas.
3) Have a solid, demonstrable explanation for your atheism that isn't just pettiness or emotional assertions.
4) Don't expect atheist leanings to give you an instant pass on other ridiculous beliefs.
5) If you're going to try to make an anti-religious statement, have a point.
P.S. I'd like to state for the record, this isn't me cooling down on my ragging on religious claims. I don't care how many atheists happen to be douchey idiots, every god claim has shaky logical and scientific foundations, and there ain't no two ways about it. Best you silently shut up and get back to reading a fucking science book instead of crowing about how soft I'm getting, lest I tear you a new arsehole (logically, that is).
So, I bag out a lot of obvious targets here. Rebecca Black, Creationists, psuedo-hippies, Nickelback... yeah, all easy shots. But it occurs to me, occasionally your team needs a good spanking to remind them they aren't safe. So, a post directed at all you retard atheists out there.
Obviously, not every atheist is stupid, blanket statements are for losers. Just as it is with members of religions, so it is with the irreligious. Now, since there's no unified atheist dealie that isn't just plain silly, I can't really say "you're making us look bad!" because there is no "us." I suppose the closest thing I can say is "You're putting a bad light on a worldview I happen to share with you, and I'd very much like you to stop." Again, I don't claim to have some privileged insight into atheism that no-one else has twigged, but seriously, there's a few things I'm surprised you morons haven't realised yet.
1) Atheist means "doesn't believe in any gods or subscribe to any god claims." That's literally it. The next time someone calls birth control or abortion an "atheist issue," I'm going to flip my lid. What exactly makes them atheist issues? Last time I checked, there weren't any gods flushing out unwanted foetuses on the side of their supernatural business. Just because a specific religious group, or a subset thereof, have decided it's an issue they have to take on, doesn't mean you're obliged, as a non-believer, to take up arms against them. You can be atheist and pro-life. It's very easy.
2) You don't have to make a big stink about everything religious. This idea of calling-to-arms nonbelievers to shut down anything religious groups organise is just fucking retarded. I had an English journalist brag to a whole lecture hall full of students how she organised a protest against the Pope's visit to London. Why? What the fuck does that achieve? He has as much right to tour and preach to his choir as anyone else. I didn't see you picketing The Dalai Lama, you hypocritical bitch. If you want to promote atheism as a worldview on the same page as any other religion, by all means, shut down discussion and picket events that promote ideas other than your own. Me, I like debate and free-thought. Make a stink about religious claims, but don't get in a tizzy because the local church is holding a Catholic bake sale. Fuck.
3) You can believe good things for bad reasons. This is kinda the opposite of the whole "I believe in God as a safety net" thing. If the belief that there's a dude out there who watches over you is a helpful psychological tool to keep you on the straight and narrow and help you cope with life, that's fine, go for your life. If said dude starts telling you that gay people should be killed... yeah, maybe rein that fucker in. Anyway, to the point; you might be an atheist, hey that's great, but if your reason is that "I'm mad at God!" (yeah, it happens) or "I wanna stick it to my Mum and Dad!" you're doing it wrong. If your worldview can be changed that quickly for petty reasons, you're a credulous numbskull, atheist or not. Saying it doesn't make you any smarter just as saying you're a Christian makes you any more moral. If you honestly believe that there isn't a God, you just know it in your heart, you can't explain it but you know... sorry dude, you may have evidence behind you but that doesn't stop you being clueless, and frankly there's nothing to really stop you believing anything that seems remotely appealing, because your worldview has no foundations.
4) You can believe in faeries all you like, but you might be a tad confused. I know a few self-proclaimed atheists that still believe in spirits and reincarnation and all that crap, and frankly, I don't know why you're even atheist. It's probably a "don't like organised religion" or "the church opposes a lifestyle choice/aspect of my personality/my sexuality" style thing. You can be separate from organised religions and still theistic/deistic in your worldview, it is allowed. Thing is, if you subscribe to forms of woo that aren't necessarily "religious" in nature, you're just giving me a different target to tear down. Remember, the logic that shits on god claims pretty emphatically shits on any supernatural, spiritual or deistic claims as well. Think long and hard: if there really is such a thing as faeries/reincarnation/the reptilian Illuminati/the unprovable 9-11 conspiracy, why couldn't there be a god as well? What's stopping it?
5) "Lol I flipped off a priest lol"... yeah, well done shithead. I cannot stress this enough, people: HAVE A POINT! Random acts of douchery aren't suddenly made valiant strikes for "the cause" because it was against a religious institution. Why is PZ Myers' thing about putting a nail through the host different from pissing on a church wall? Because he wasn't just trying to get a rise out of people, he was making a point. Yeah, sure, it was a point that was always gonna piss some people off, but there was still a point there and a demonstration to be made. For the record, I'd piss on a church as soon as I'd piss on any other building, because I see public urination as a victimless crime, provided it's done in a discreet fashion and isn't being done to be offensive or vulgar.
That about covers it. I could go on a lot longer but I think this touches on all the important bits. If I think of any more they'll be added to the list, but as far as just a quick cover of the bases, it works well. To recap:
1) Atheism refers solely to god claims, not social issues or maths problems or recipes.
2) Don't just make knee-jerk anti-religious ejaculations; respect their right to express their ideas, and critique the ideas.
3) Have a solid, demonstrable explanation for your atheism that isn't just pettiness or emotional assertions.
4) Don't expect atheist leanings to give you an instant pass on other ridiculous beliefs.
5) If you're going to try to make an anti-religious statement, have a point.
P.S. I'd like to state for the record, this isn't me cooling down on my ragging on religious claims. I don't care how many atheists happen to be douchey idiots, every god claim has shaky logical and scientific foundations, and there ain't no two ways about it. Best you silently shut up and get back to reading a fucking science book instead of crowing about how soft I'm getting, lest I tear you a new arsehole (logically, that is).
Saturday, June 18, 2011
The Next Step Is Putting My Brain On A Harddrive.
Being 21 in 2011 is the best fucking thing ever. Why? I'm young enough to know how to use the internet, old enough to appreciate it and I'll never, ever be out of touch. Oh sure, there are things that are "in" now that I just don't care about, but I ignore more pop culture than I'm oblivious to. It's truly a happy time.
My prediction? Once the wow-factor of having access to basically all human knowledge almost instantly wears off, people will stop posting cat videos and racist comments and get smart. I know that seems to go against basically everything I've said, and seems to conflict with human nature, but hear me out; the internet is the worst place to spread lies and misinformation. Somewhere out there, there exists a group of people who are going to shit on your harebrained theory, your malicious falsehood. Observe how many blogs, video channels and all around malcontents are floating around tearing down the claims of creationists? Hell, the very fact the Snopes and Mythbusters exist should be a testament to a simple truth: people don't like to be lied to.
Yeah, it's disheartening sometimes. Somehow Pink keeps on breathing and the world just seems a cheaper place, but "it gets better" isn't just for gay kids. It should be for every non-shithead. Don't worry, one day, if we all work together, weed out the bullshit and work towards getting our view of reality in touch with, you know, reality, it'll get better. Education will improve, people will be less gullible and less reactive, and rationality might be the thing we use to solve problems. It could happen...
My prediction? Once the wow-factor of having access to basically all human knowledge almost instantly wears off, people will stop posting cat videos and racist comments and get smart. I know that seems to go against basically everything I've said, and seems to conflict with human nature, but hear me out; the internet is the worst place to spread lies and misinformation. Somewhere out there, there exists a group of people who are going to shit on your harebrained theory, your malicious falsehood. Observe how many blogs, video channels and all around malcontents are floating around tearing down the claims of creationists? Hell, the very fact the Snopes and Mythbusters exist should be a testament to a simple truth: people don't like to be lied to.
Yeah, it's disheartening sometimes. Somehow Pink keeps on breathing and the world just seems a cheaper place, but "it gets better" isn't just for gay kids. It should be for every non-shithead. Don't worry, one day, if we all work together, weed out the bullshit and work towards getting our view of reality in touch with, you know, reality, it'll get better. Education will improve, people will be less gullible and less reactive, and rationality might be the thing we use to solve problems. It could happen...
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Scurrilous Review
And that's a review of Protest the Hero's album "Scurrilous", not a review that happens to be scurrilous. Little behind the game, it's been out for a little while, but it makes for good padding. Anyway, album review:
As a fan of Protest the Hero, there's a risk this might not be entirely helpful. Maybe I'm one of those "oh-em-gee everything PTH does is the best thing ever and I want their babies!!1!" fans, or maybe I'm one of those "I liked them better before they released their first album, they just got shit when they signed a record deal" fans. Personally I think both stances are flat out retarded, so I'm going to try to ride the fine line between being a fan and being a critic.
Is Scurrilous going to convert you to being a Protest the Hero fan if you didn't like anything they've done previously? No way in hell. Are you going to enjoy it if you've enjoyed their previous works? I can safely say, yes. The quintet doesn't really change the formula so much, which is to their strength and their detriment. Sure, there's a few nifty breaks where they explore different genres or ideas, but for the most part? Technical leads, epic and emotional vocals, frantic pace... it's so very Protest the Hero.
You could make the argument that this works against the band. Upon listening, I was reminded of a few sections off of their previous records, with melodies and changes falling somewhere between "inspired by" and "lifted from" some previously recorded ideas. Of course, there's so many different melodies and ideas crammed into each song, and they fly by at such a pace that you don't really feel short changed by it. The technical abilities of each of the members cannot be faulted, and although some sections are, as a guitarist, very frustrating to hear (how do they even do that? Sigh, ten more years of practice...), they're never just wank for the sake of wank. No matter how difficult or flashy the part, they have a melodic core and are often quite catchy. A brilliant mix of technicality and great songwriting.
For all I've said, this could be the band's best record. I'm still in love with 2005's Kezia, and 2008's Fortress is a good listen, but after a few more spins I wouldn't be surprised if Scurrilous becomes my favourite record of theirs. The group has eschewed diversity and instead worked on getting their specific sound exactly perfect, and in this record they may have just done it. For any fans of technical metal, a must listen.
As a fan of Protest the Hero, there's a risk this might not be entirely helpful. Maybe I'm one of those "oh-em-gee everything PTH does is the best thing ever and I want their babies!!1!" fans, or maybe I'm one of those "I liked them better before they released their first album, they just got shit when they signed a record deal" fans. Personally I think both stances are flat out retarded, so I'm going to try to ride the fine line between being a fan and being a critic.
Is Scurrilous going to convert you to being a Protest the Hero fan if you didn't like anything they've done previously? No way in hell. Are you going to enjoy it if you've enjoyed their previous works? I can safely say, yes. The quintet doesn't really change the formula so much, which is to their strength and their detriment. Sure, there's a few nifty breaks where they explore different genres or ideas, but for the most part? Technical leads, epic and emotional vocals, frantic pace... it's so very Protest the Hero.
You could make the argument that this works against the band. Upon listening, I was reminded of a few sections off of their previous records, with melodies and changes falling somewhere between "inspired by" and "lifted from" some previously recorded ideas. Of course, there's so many different melodies and ideas crammed into each song, and they fly by at such a pace that you don't really feel short changed by it. The technical abilities of each of the members cannot be faulted, and although some sections are, as a guitarist, very frustrating to hear (how do they even do that? Sigh, ten more years of practice...), they're never just wank for the sake of wank. No matter how difficult or flashy the part, they have a melodic core and are often quite catchy. A brilliant mix of technicality and great songwriting.
For all I've said, this could be the band's best record. I'm still in love with 2005's Kezia, and 2008's Fortress is a good listen, but after a few more spins I wouldn't be surprised if Scurrilous becomes my favourite record of theirs. The group has eschewed diversity and instead worked on getting their specific sound exactly perfect, and in this record they may have just done it. For any fans of technical metal, a must listen.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
It Might Still be Tuesday Somewhere In The World
Not that anyone cares. Anyway, homeopathy: dumb. Yeah, I know, I've been hammering on the skepticism lately, but it seems like everyone I talk to now fails basic critical thinking. It's upsetting. With that in mind, consider homeopathy. Just think about it... if you're one of those shitheads I don't hate, you'll know just by thinking about it that it makes no sense. At all. Ever. If you're a credulous numbskull who I do hate, then you're probably scratching your head and saying something like "why don't you just open your mind, man?" Here's why I don't; It's already proven wrong, false, stupid. Disregard the whole like-cures-like, chemical memory vibrations of water molecules spiel, it doesn't matter. It's waaaay easier to prove it's bollocks with a few simple observations:
1) It's an alternative to modern, western medicine. OK, we can take this as a given, it's definitely not working in tandem with it. I'd argue it's working against it, but don't let my biases influence you. It's most certainly an independent alternative to modern medicine.
2) "Big Pharma" is driven by money, or truth. The reality is they're probably driven by a little bit of both, and for the purpose of this argument it doesn't matter which way it swings to whichever ratio. If we view the whole pharmaceutical industry as being driven predominantly by money, then the medicine that is cheapest and easiest to produce would be the ones flooding the market. If they're driven predominantly by truth or science, then it would only be medicines that demonstrated effects that find their way onto shelves. There'd certainly be flubs here and there, but completely ineffective medicines wouldn't see the light of day; no effects at all would be a failed experiment.
3) Homeopathy is a process whereby reagents are diluted over and over until virtually nothing is left in the mixture except pure water. For anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of chemistry, diluting stuff over and over again would be a very simple process. As well as this, water is dead cheap, and considering that homeopaths believe that increased effectiveness comes from a larger number of dilutions, costs of the actual "medicinal" (/snort) reagents would be minuscule. The cost of large scale homeopathic remedies being produced, factoring in labour, materials and machinery, wold be vastly smaller than the current costs of producing modern medicine.
4) If Big Pharma is driven wholly or predominantly by money, they'd be retarded to the point of brain-death not to discard their current manufacturing rationale for the mass production of homeopathic medicines. They could charge less for these remedies and still make an absolute killing because production costs would be so low. There's literally no reason for them not to switch to homeopathy. However, if they were wholly or predominantly results driven, or even driven in such a way that money and results had equal weighting, they'd have to run tests on the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies to work out if they were actually worth pursuing.
5) Homeopathy remains a fringe interest that modern medicine, by and large, ignores. This means that the manufacturing companies who pass over it are either money driven capitalism machines that, somehow, are managed and run by mongoloid man-children with less business sense than a ferret OR homeopathy has demonstrated no effectiveness in treating maladies. To quote Randall Munroe, "If it worked, wouldn't companies be making a killing in it?"
I have no doubt some retard will have objections to this line of reasoning, so the challenge goes out. Point out the flaws or present a different option. If you just run your mouth about how I'm closed minded, I'm going to laugh at you, because you're an idiot. So enjoy that.
Closing with a joke: A man walks into a bar. He's a catholic. He gets very drunk, then goes home and hits his wife. Because they aren't allowed to use contraception, they have children, who have to see that. They are mentally scarred. Further, since their church does not recognise divorce, she's stuck with an abusive dickhead. The punchline is: God is love.
OK, yeah, that wasn't funny, but seriously, organised religions blow. The moderate ones blow less, until you get to the point where they're so moderate that it's just about the communal recognition of a being that loves you, always has and always will and wants you not to be a dickhead. I can see why it's comforting, and those communal group-hug/safety blanket/death is scary groups seem nice. I just think they're wrong.
1) It's an alternative to modern, western medicine. OK, we can take this as a given, it's definitely not working in tandem with it. I'd argue it's working against it, but don't let my biases influence you. It's most certainly an independent alternative to modern medicine.
2) "Big Pharma" is driven by money, or truth. The reality is they're probably driven by a little bit of both, and for the purpose of this argument it doesn't matter which way it swings to whichever ratio. If we view the whole pharmaceutical industry as being driven predominantly by money, then the medicine that is cheapest and easiest to produce would be the ones flooding the market. If they're driven predominantly by truth or science, then it would only be medicines that demonstrated effects that find their way onto shelves. There'd certainly be flubs here and there, but completely ineffective medicines wouldn't see the light of day; no effects at all would be a failed experiment.
3) Homeopathy is a process whereby reagents are diluted over and over until virtually nothing is left in the mixture except pure water. For anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of chemistry, diluting stuff over and over again would be a very simple process. As well as this, water is dead cheap, and considering that homeopaths believe that increased effectiveness comes from a larger number of dilutions, costs of the actual "medicinal" (/snort) reagents would be minuscule. The cost of large scale homeopathic remedies being produced, factoring in labour, materials and machinery, wold be vastly smaller than the current costs of producing modern medicine.
4) If Big Pharma is driven wholly or predominantly by money, they'd be retarded to the point of brain-death not to discard their current manufacturing rationale for the mass production of homeopathic medicines. They could charge less for these remedies and still make an absolute killing because production costs would be so low. There's literally no reason for them not to switch to homeopathy. However, if they were wholly or predominantly results driven, or even driven in such a way that money and results had equal weighting, they'd have to run tests on the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies to work out if they were actually worth pursuing.
5) Homeopathy remains a fringe interest that modern medicine, by and large, ignores. This means that the manufacturing companies who pass over it are either money driven capitalism machines that, somehow, are managed and run by mongoloid man-children with less business sense than a ferret OR homeopathy has demonstrated no effectiveness in treating maladies. To quote Randall Munroe, "If it worked, wouldn't companies be making a killing in it?"
I have no doubt some retard will have objections to this line of reasoning, so the challenge goes out. Point out the flaws or present a different option. If you just run your mouth about how I'm closed minded, I'm going to laugh at you, because you're an idiot. So enjoy that.
Closing with a joke: A man walks into a bar. He's a catholic. He gets very drunk, then goes home and hits his wife. Because they aren't allowed to use contraception, they have children, who have to see that. They are mentally scarred. Further, since their church does not recognise divorce, she's stuck with an abusive dickhead. The punchline is: God is love.
OK, yeah, that wasn't funny, but seriously, organised religions blow. The moderate ones blow less, until you get to the point where they're so moderate that it's just about the communal recognition of a being that loves you, always has and always will and wants you not to be a dickhead. I can see why it's comforting, and those communal group-hug/safety blanket/death is scary groups seem nice. I just think they're wrong.
I'm so very sorry.
Dictated to burkey: I kicked Jess' arse at bowling, so she stepped on my foot. It hurt. Proper post tomorrow.
Homeopathy is dumb.
Homeopathy is dumb.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Personal Rapport As A Change Of Pace
I seem to talk about a lot of stuff that pisses me off, so I'm just gonna switch it up, just for today, and let you all know about stuff that might surprise you. Some stuff I like.
1) Nice suits. I've never owned a nice, custom tailored suit, and it's truly something I want to own at some point. One that fits me nice around the shoulders, and the waist, that fits the natural shape of my body. I think suits are endlessly classy, there isn't an occasion where you can't wear one and not look snappy. Suits are the shit.
2) Drives down long roads. Not just any roads, the slightly curvy ones, with huge trees on either side, blocking out all the sun. They're slightly colder because of all the shade and green and peaceful. I normally have the music blasting, but through those roads I turn it down and just mellow in the ambiance.
3) Haircuts. I quite like getting my hair cut by someone who knows what they're doing. If said hairdresser has a steady hand, uses a cutthroat razor for the sideburns and pays attention to the little details, it's one of my little joys. It's not that I'm super finicky about how my hair looks, I just like it being fussed over.
4) I've run out of ideas.
5) This was stupid anyway.
6) Actually, you know what does shit me? Those beauty products they sell on the infomercial channel with snake venom in them. Seriously, I didn't think it was possible, but they've managed to convince people they're ugly enough to smear neurotoxins on their skin. That's mind boggling.
7) Science also makes me happy. I don't know much beyond first year stuff, but the application of science to solve problems gives me a warm fuzzy.
This was dumb, I don't know why I ever decided to do this. Also, University gave me a timetable that can't help but clash with my work next semester, whereas this semester I couldn't get a morning class to save my life. Fuck you, ECU.
1) Nice suits. I've never owned a nice, custom tailored suit, and it's truly something I want to own at some point. One that fits me nice around the shoulders, and the waist, that fits the natural shape of my body. I think suits are endlessly classy, there isn't an occasion where you can't wear one and not look snappy. Suits are the shit.
2) Drives down long roads. Not just any roads, the slightly curvy ones, with huge trees on either side, blocking out all the sun. They're slightly colder because of all the shade and green and peaceful. I normally have the music blasting, but through those roads I turn it down and just mellow in the ambiance.
3) Haircuts. I quite like getting my hair cut by someone who knows what they're doing. If said hairdresser has a steady hand, uses a cutthroat razor for the sideburns and pays attention to the little details, it's one of my little joys. It's not that I'm super finicky about how my hair looks, I just like it being fussed over.
4) I've run out of ideas.
5) This was stupid anyway.
6) Actually, you know what does shit me? Those beauty products they sell on the infomercial channel with snake venom in them. Seriously, I didn't think it was possible, but they've managed to convince people they're ugly enough to smear neurotoxins on their skin. That's mind boggling.
7) Science also makes me happy. I don't know much beyond first year stuff, but the application of science to solve problems gives me a warm fuzzy.
This was dumb, I don't know why I ever decided to do this. Also, University gave me a timetable that can't help but clash with my work next semester, whereas this semester I couldn't get a morning class to save my life. Fuck you, ECU.
Monday, June 6, 2011
You'd Think I'd Get Sick Of Explaining This.
Luckily, I never do. It's an endless source of enjoyment for me. What is it, you ask? Why, it's the best subject of all: SCIENCE! Ain't nothing it can't do, give or take 100 years.
Now, I'm not a scientist. Of any kind. I did Physics 101 and Organic Chemistry 101 at university (and passed both) and that's really the extent of my practical science knowledge. However, I do know something that everybody should know, although a very small amount actually seem to. How science actually works.
You see, there's this thing called the scientific method. The way it works, in a nutshell, is this; every scientist hates every other scientist. They're perpetually in competition. If ever one scientist proposes a new theory or idea, every other scientist bands together to try and prove him wrong. Thing is, you have to be honest. If you're dishonest trying to prove or disprove something, they cut off your science dick. Ipso facto, if something does become accepted as the best theory for explaining anything, it's because, for the currently available data, it's really, really the way the world is. It stood up despite hordes of people smarter than you trying to disprove it.
This doesn't mean science is never wrong, but that's kinda the wrong way to look at it. People tend to view things as binaries, so ideas and theories get tacked as "right" or "wrong". Niels Bohr was "wrong", Einstein was "right" etc. Except, it's not really how it goes. Bohr's model accurately described the workings of the hydrogen atom, it's just inaccurate for every other element. Einstein's theory of relativity is accurate... over certain length scales. It falls apart when you talk about the very small or the very large. In terms of scientific theories, you can only really talk in terms of degrees of accuracy. As such, you can't really call the Intelligent Design movement "wrong" in a scientifically honest way. They've just made claims that very inaccurately reflect the nature of the world.
Sidenote: Truth isn't democratic, you retards. The next time someone tells me that something "may be true for you, but it's not for me" I might kill myself. This came up during a discussion on the Roman Empire; the tutor stated that new evidence indicated that the Roman Empire never fell, it just moved east and became the Byzantine Empire. This, she claimed, meant that history can change. Now, it was at this point, I chimed in, saying that history itself didn't change, just our understanding of it. My point was that the physical actions that constitute what happened at that point in time and space are the same now as they were before this new evidence came to light. Apparently this confused some people, who in turn insisted that, because our understanding has changed, so has history. To clear it up; history, defined as what was described on paper, has changed. History as what literally happened at that point in space and time did not. It never will. It's not a case of different truths for different people, it is the way it is and you can't change it.
I could go on for days about this, but it's getting ranty, so I'll just wrap up; the world is the way it is. Nothing you ever do, or say, or think, or believe, can ever change the physical laws and fundamental nature of reality. Science as a whole isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive. Two plus two doesn't equal four because we said so, we said so because it equals four. So before you preach to me about how science gets it wrong sometimes, stop and think; do you really think that changes the universe at all, ever? Less discussion, more investigation.
Now, I'm not a scientist. Of any kind. I did Physics 101 and Organic Chemistry 101 at university (and passed both) and that's really the extent of my practical science knowledge. However, I do know something that everybody should know, although a very small amount actually seem to. How science actually works.
You see, there's this thing called the scientific method. The way it works, in a nutshell, is this; every scientist hates every other scientist. They're perpetually in competition. If ever one scientist proposes a new theory or idea, every other scientist bands together to try and prove him wrong. Thing is, you have to be honest. If you're dishonest trying to prove or disprove something, they cut off your science dick. Ipso facto, if something does become accepted as the best theory for explaining anything, it's because, for the currently available data, it's really, really the way the world is. It stood up despite hordes of people smarter than you trying to disprove it.
This doesn't mean science is never wrong, but that's kinda the wrong way to look at it. People tend to view things as binaries, so ideas and theories get tacked as "right" or "wrong". Niels Bohr was "wrong", Einstein was "right" etc. Except, it's not really how it goes. Bohr's model accurately described the workings of the hydrogen atom, it's just inaccurate for every other element. Einstein's theory of relativity is accurate... over certain length scales. It falls apart when you talk about the very small or the very large. In terms of scientific theories, you can only really talk in terms of degrees of accuracy. As such, you can't really call the Intelligent Design movement "wrong" in a scientifically honest way. They've just made claims that very inaccurately reflect the nature of the world.
Sidenote: Truth isn't democratic, you retards. The next time someone tells me that something "may be true for you, but it's not for me" I might kill myself. This came up during a discussion on the Roman Empire; the tutor stated that new evidence indicated that the Roman Empire never fell, it just moved east and became the Byzantine Empire. This, she claimed, meant that history can change. Now, it was at this point, I chimed in, saying that history itself didn't change, just our understanding of it. My point was that the physical actions that constitute what happened at that point in time and space are the same now as they were before this new evidence came to light. Apparently this confused some people, who in turn insisted that, because our understanding has changed, so has history. To clear it up; history, defined as what was described on paper, has changed. History as what literally happened at that point in space and time did not. It never will. It's not a case of different truths for different people, it is the way it is and you can't change it.
I could go on for days about this, but it's getting ranty, so I'll just wrap up; the world is the way it is. Nothing you ever do, or say, or think, or believe, can ever change the physical laws and fundamental nature of reality. Science as a whole isn't prescriptive, it's descriptive. Two plus two doesn't equal four because we said so, we said so because it equals four. So before you preach to me about how science gets it wrong sometimes, stop and think; do you really think that changes the universe at all, ever? Less discussion, more investigation.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Insight? That's Unpossible!
In a flash, I suddenly get it. I suddenly understand why un-Australian, un-American, un-Christian and basically un-(add your team of choice here) are considered insults. All it took was reading some creationist dreck, but I get it now. Oh, it's still as stupid as I first thought, but now I understand it, at least on the personal level. I've been promoted from courtier, it seems.
Humans are social species, I get it. Lamentably, that entails spending an extended period of time in society (/shudder) if you feel like enjoying creature comforts of any kind. I hear it's hard for swamp-bound hermits to get good 'net. But more than the availability of electric guitars and porn (the cornerstones of civilisation), society offers something more primal to humans; social interaction and safety. It's up there on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, nestled somewhere between shelter and self-actualisation if memory serves. Psychologically, we need acceptance and security, just as we need food, water, air and shelter.
And this is why un-(place/belief) is a horrible insult if you mean it, and a stupid thing to hear if you're smart. If you really, truly believe what you said, what you're essentially saying is "your behaviour should disqualify you from the safety and acceptance this community provides." Of course, this only works if the person is thick enough to be devout and/or patriotic. You notice no-one ever says that something is "un-Swedish" or "un-atheist" or "un-liberal"? Why would they? It makes no sense. Inherently conservative groups like fundamental religion and nations like Australia and the US work on an "if you want to be a part of this group, then you have to think like us!" basis, whereas inherently liberal groups like atheists, swedes, liberals and even religious moderates work on an "if you think like us, I guess you're part of the group" basis. The difference is, conservative groups threaten dissidents with expulsion, whereas other groups, by and large, don't give two shits.
It's always funny when I get called un-blank. I've been called un-Australian, and I couldn't care less. I'm here as an accident of birth, and at this point I possess neither the means nor the desire to leave. As a nation, it has a lot of faults and a lot of things I find undesirable, but it also has a lot of good aspects. If it's un-Australian to point out obvious flaws and suggest improvements, then hell, call me un-Australian all you fucking like, I don't care. But it seems to me the "un-Australian" ones are trying to improve the country, while the true 'straaahlyans are busy being racist shits with very little invested in the future of the nation. Just sayin'.
I'm pretty left leaning, but I'd say I'm still a centrist in that I think a heavily regulated but still essentially free market would probably work better in the long term than a full on, government controlled market, and I'm sure a lot of full-on socialists would call me un-socialist (if there is such a thing) for this view, and again, I don't care. Thing is, if I talk to politically savvy folks that do not choose to align themselves with one party or another, the discussion is normally much more satisfying, there tends to be much more agreement, and at the end, we tend to be friends even if we do disagree. Inadvertently, a small (sometimes only two people, but they grow), another community is formed. A community with the meme "you're here for personality, not beliefs." The discussion can be about anything, the only thing you need to do is not be a shithead. An education helps too. And that, children, is why it doesn't bum me out when I get kicked out of your little cult.
Bringing it all around, it's a nasty thing to say and to hear if you're a clingy sheep that desperately needs some superficial community to sustain you, as you seem to be unable to form your own network of friends and supporters without a healthy dose of indoctrination. To someone who doesn't fit that descrition, it's about as lame as referring to someone as a godless liberal as an insult; if someone really is a godless liberal, why would they give a shit?
Humans are social species, I get it. Lamentably, that entails spending an extended period of time in society (/shudder) if you feel like enjoying creature comforts of any kind. I hear it's hard for swamp-bound hermits to get good 'net. But more than the availability of electric guitars and porn (the cornerstones of civilisation), society offers something more primal to humans; social interaction and safety. It's up there on Maslow's hierarchy of needs, nestled somewhere between shelter and self-actualisation if memory serves. Psychologically, we need acceptance and security, just as we need food, water, air and shelter.
And this is why un-(place/belief) is a horrible insult if you mean it, and a stupid thing to hear if you're smart. If you really, truly believe what you said, what you're essentially saying is "your behaviour should disqualify you from the safety and acceptance this community provides." Of course, this only works if the person is thick enough to be devout and/or patriotic. You notice no-one ever says that something is "un-Swedish" or "un-atheist" or "un-liberal"? Why would they? It makes no sense. Inherently conservative groups like fundamental religion and nations like Australia and the US work on an "if you want to be a part of this group, then you have to think like us!" basis, whereas inherently liberal groups like atheists, swedes, liberals and even religious moderates work on an "if you think like us, I guess you're part of the group" basis. The difference is, conservative groups threaten dissidents with expulsion, whereas other groups, by and large, don't give two shits.
It's always funny when I get called un-blank. I've been called un-Australian, and I couldn't care less. I'm here as an accident of birth, and at this point I possess neither the means nor the desire to leave. As a nation, it has a lot of faults and a lot of things I find undesirable, but it also has a lot of good aspects. If it's un-Australian to point out obvious flaws and suggest improvements, then hell, call me un-Australian all you fucking like, I don't care. But it seems to me the "un-Australian" ones are trying to improve the country, while the true 'straaahlyans are busy being racist shits with very little invested in the future of the nation. Just sayin'.
I'm pretty left leaning, but I'd say I'm still a centrist in that I think a heavily regulated but still essentially free market would probably work better in the long term than a full on, government controlled market, and I'm sure a lot of full-on socialists would call me un-socialist (if there is such a thing) for this view, and again, I don't care. Thing is, if I talk to politically savvy folks that do not choose to align themselves with one party or another, the discussion is normally much more satisfying, there tends to be much more agreement, and at the end, we tend to be friends even if we do disagree. Inadvertently, a small (sometimes only two people, but they grow), another community is formed. A community with the meme "you're here for personality, not beliefs." The discussion can be about anything, the only thing you need to do is not be a shithead. An education helps too. And that, children, is why it doesn't bum me out when I get kicked out of your little cult.
Bringing it all around, it's a nasty thing to say and to hear if you're a clingy sheep that desperately needs some superficial community to sustain you, as you seem to be unable to form your own network of friends and supporters without a healthy dose of indoctrination. To someone who doesn't fit that descrition, it's about as lame as referring to someone as a godless liberal as an insult; if someone really is a godless liberal, why would they give a shit?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)