I'm a little torn, because it's results against philosophy, isn't it? On the one hand, if people are doing the right thing, who cares what their reasoning is? On the other hand, being right for the wrong reasons is essentially a fluke, and faulty reasoning could see people believe even dumber stuff down the track. I'm talking stuff like being an atheist, subscribing to evolutionary theory then becoming an evolutionary psychologist. It's so close, you were doing so well, then...
I just dropped the needle on that one, let me back it up; is it OK for people to be right for the wrong reasons? Is it alright for people to be on the side of "good" even though they're ultimately driven by motives deemed "bad"? This question upsets me because, well... I don't have an answer. Remember this moment, people. I just don't know.
It's very easy to be an intellectual snob, to say "oh, we don't want your kind in here, bumpkin. No, until you can write a 3000 page dissertation on why you believe that, you aren't welcome into the smart people's club." Obviously it's not so heavy handed, but when it comes to issues like gay marriage, is it OK to agree with the guy saying "oh sure they should be allowed to get married. I mean, they're going to hell anyway, right?" Do you really want your perspective associated with that one? Technically, we're pushing for the same thing, but there's a subtle, fundamental difference at the heart of our reasoning here.
Atheism and skepticism in general is my big pet peeve for this specific issue. There are a lot of people who say they're atheists, and yeah, we probably share opinions on the existence of a god/gods, but I do wish people who think horoscopes are accurate, or that certain different kinds of silicon dioxide can draw out "negative energy" from your body (ps. negative energy? What the hell is "negative energy"? I'd rather keep all my energy, I need it for being alive. I mean, technically, your brain and organs are "negative energy" because they consume it. If your purple stone can draw my pancreas out through my nose, maybe you should stay the fuck away from me) would refrain from calling themselves atheists. It cheapens it. Yes, "atheist" and "skeptic" aren't the same thing, and you're entitled to believe whatever you like, but again, I think we're diverging on some core ideas, here.
It's all pointless anyway, it's not as if there's such a thing as "right" or "wrong" in virtually every issue I'm passionate about. Should gay people be allowed to get married? Fuck yes, why not? They're people too, homosexuality is a natural human behaviour, two people that love each other should be able to enter into such a contract, so what if it's their choice they're consenting adults... fuck, the list goes on. Unfortunately, that doesn't make my view "right" nor any of those reasons. So, ultimately, the question should be "why should I care about what anyone believes at all, ever?" Shit, this post went nowhere. I leave you with the thought of a sobbing tortoise melting. Postmodernism!
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Starting With A Quote Is The Classiest Way To Do Anything.
"You define your existence through misery." - Agent Smith to Morpheus in The Matrix.
Wow, what a downer. Except not really. I had a discussion with someone, quite a while ago now, about how the human frame of reference is comparative. That is to say, we can only describe something in relationship to at least one other thing. My companion at the time was of the opinion that something greater than humans, I believe she went with this thing she kept referring to as "God," which I have never heard of but is apparently quite popular, could observe reality in a non-comparative way, and as such define things like colours and gravity and basically everything without comparing it to anything else, even frames of reference like "metres" or "seconds." Needless to say, I disagreed vociferously. I disagreed, partly because why should I give a shit about how something outside space and time (I don't know how that works, but apparently it does) perceives reality, but mostly because it betrays a fundamental understanding about the way people think.
Why am I bringing up something so old now? Well, because it relates to something happening to me now, and so it's a great way to demonstrate just how dependent we are on previous experience to shape how we view reality as a whole. This entry is meta, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
So, I'm happy. I'm pretty fucking chirpy right now, got all kinds of good feelings brewing in the general chest and stomach area. I'm not gonna say "oh man it's been a while," because what a horrible insult to give the people I share my life with. It paints a picture of drudgery and discontentment, unassisted by friends and family, until this one new stimulus has come in and enlivened my otherwise pointless existence. Truth be told, I'm normally the one stumbling through people's doors, wearing yesterday's clothes and declaring "I am the King of Gin!" Bombay Sapphire should sponsor me.
Truth is though, I was in a bit of a strange place for the past few weeks, due to something ultimately very trivial. People have lost their houses, all their saving and their body parts in the past. All I lost was a girlfriend. And realistically, the friend part can stay on there. So I lost a prefix. Still, was bummed. Beer at 10am bummed. But it becomes an interesting thought experiment to think about the dynamics of emotion. Why did this make me so sad when previous breakups haven't? Maybe it's because the relationship itself made me happier than previous ones, so the emotional displacement still ends up being zero.
Wouldn't you become desensitized to constant happiness? After a while, you'd just stop caring. How many wealthy, comfortable people get depression? Constant happiness is like emotional obesity; it just ends up being bad for your mental health. Obviously you want to be happier more times than you are sad, just as you don't want to starve, but you also don't want to be mentally unable to see your emotional penis over the rolls of your intellectual beer gut. Whoa that metaphor was incredibly stretched.
Human experience is comparative. We can't describe the length of a swimming pool without referring to the length of a rod in a room in France. True story. We also can't feel happiness without having sadness to compare it with. So if you meet me (you won't, I am a godlike being so far above mere mortals that even glancing upon my stunning visage will induce madness) and I seem a little too perky, just remember, I was probably pretty bummed a while back.
P.S. This is my justification for my overwhelming personal pessimism. If something is going good for me, there must be some storm clouds on the horizon. Nature of reality. Understandably it's frustrating for people trying to compliment me or tell me I've done well at something, because all compliments feel like veiled insults. Insults, on the other hand, seem like a show of affection and approval. Go figure! For these and many more insights into The Last Whiny Man's personal relationships, buy me a pint sometime.
Wow, what a downer. Except not really. I had a discussion with someone, quite a while ago now, about how the human frame of reference is comparative. That is to say, we can only describe something in relationship to at least one other thing. My companion at the time was of the opinion that something greater than humans, I believe she went with this thing she kept referring to as "God," which I have never heard of but is apparently quite popular, could observe reality in a non-comparative way, and as such define things like colours and gravity and basically everything without comparing it to anything else, even frames of reference like "metres" or "seconds." Needless to say, I disagreed vociferously. I disagreed, partly because why should I give a shit about how something outside space and time (I don't know how that works, but apparently it does) perceives reality, but mostly because it betrays a fundamental understanding about the way people think.
Why am I bringing up something so old now? Well, because it relates to something happening to me now, and so it's a great way to demonstrate just how dependent we are on previous experience to shape how we view reality as a whole. This entry is meta, put that in your pipe and smoke it.
So, I'm happy. I'm pretty fucking chirpy right now, got all kinds of good feelings brewing in the general chest and stomach area. I'm not gonna say "oh man it's been a while," because what a horrible insult to give the people I share my life with. It paints a picture of drudgery and discontentment, unassisted by friends and family, until this one new stimulus has come in and enlivened my otherwise pointless existence. Truth be told, I'm normally the one stumbling through people's doors, wearing yesterday's clothes and declaring "I am the King of Gin!" Bombay Sapphire should sponsor me.
Truth is though, I was in a bit of a strange place for the past few weeks, due to something ultimately very trivial. People have lost their houses, all their saving and their body parts in the past. All I lost was a girlfriend. And realistically, the friend part can stay on there. So I lost a prefix. Still, was bummed. Beer at 10am bummed. But it becomes an interesting thought experiment to think about the dynamics of emotion. Why did this make me so sad when previous breakups haven't? Maybe it's because the relationship itself made me happier than previous ones, so the emotional displacement still ends up being zero.
Wouldn't you become desensitized to constant happiness? After a while, you'd just stop caring. How many wealthy, comfortable people get depression? Constant happiness is like emotional obesity; it just ends up being bad for your mental health. Obviously you want to be happier more times than you are sad, just as you don't want to starve, but you also don't want to be mentally unable to see your emotional penis over the rolls of your intellectual beer gut. Whoa that metaphor was incredibly stretched.
Human experience is comparative. We can't describe the length of a swimming pool without referring to the length of a rod in a room in France. True story. We also can't feel happiness without having sadness to compare it with. So if you meet me (you won't, I am a godlike being so far above mere mortals that even glancing upon my stunning visage will induce madness) and I seem a little too perky, just remember, I was probably pretty bummed a while back.
P.S. This is my justification for my overwhelming personal pessimism. If something is going good for me, there must be some storm clouds on the horizon. Nature of reality. Understandably it's frustrating for people trying to compliment me or tell me I've done well at something, because all compliments feel like veiled insults. Insults, on the other hand, seem like a show of affection and approval. Go figure! For these and many more insights into The Last Whiny Man's personal relationships, buy me a pint sometime.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
The New Jane's Addiction Album Is Going To Suck
Well, I mean, probably. It's distinctly possible it's going to suck. It definitely won't be as good as Ritual de lo Habitual, let's all just admit that to ourselves right now. Eric Avery isn't involved, they're all like 40 now and Dave Navarro went from being an awesome guitarist and all around rad guy to being a big joke. This is gonna suck, no one should care. Jane's Addiction lived from 1988 to 1992, never reunited, Strays was a Perry Farrell solo record featuring Dave and Stephen. This is the history I subscribe to.
So, the actual post now. Yeah, fooled you, didn't I? Thought I was going to get all snarky about music? Well, you were wrong, I have a real bitch, again. And it's about socio-political ejaculations. Man, I must hate my readers. All 2 of them.
This whole alternate past/present thing to suit your ideology thing has to stop. It's making discussion impossible. I'm going to say it plain and simple, so no-one misunderstands: There is a certain way stuff happened/is happening. It didn't happen/isn't happening any other way. History is only up for debate if you're a moron. I hope that clears the air.
Oooooooh dear, I can hear some complaints coming from the direction of the whiny retards. "But isn't history written by the winners?" No, retard, history isn't written by anyone. Historical texts referring to past events are written, and they may be accurate or inaccurate, but the events themselves are eternal and unchanging. They happened a certain way and that's just the way it's going to be. Obviously for ancient history, it's difficult to exactly pin down, but for quite a while, western culture has been meticulously documenting everything from both sides such that we have a definitive record of what's fact and what isn't.
Which brings me to Daniel Pipes being a fucking moron. On Q&A on the 22nd of August, 2011, he said that "Israel is an economic powerhouse" and that the nation is "beset on all sides by foreign powers trying to annihilate them." But... and to quote the smarmy yankee dipshit, "maybe you should do some research." You've presented a warped view of reality that completely misrepresents Israel's actions on a global scale, then proceeded to be the most condescending wanker you possibly could be about it. Go on, justify Israel's gradual encroachment into Palestine, or their bombing of mosques and schools, driving Palestine into further economic unrest, making it more unstable and less able to combat the terrorist groups inside it that attack Israel in the first place. FUCK.
Liberals do this too, but it's generally in a much more banal, "it wasn't all that bad" kinda way. But at any rate, it's frustrating, because it makes any kind of objective debate impossible. Do you call the USA "a failed experiment in classical liberal economic policies" or "a prime example of why the market should be completely free"? I know what I'd call it, but you could just as easily go the other way. Of course, my solution to this is to just hand history, politics and basically the running of everything that isn't the arts over to scientists and mathematicians. They work exclusively with cold, hard facts and numbers, and nothing gets by them. Conservative commentators blow, scientists rule. It's the 3rd law of thermodynamics or something.
So, the actual post now. Yeah, fooled you, didn't I? Thought I was going to get all snarky about music? Well, you were wrong, I have a real bitch, again. And it's about socio-political ejaculations. Man, I must hate my readers. All 2 of them.
This whole alternate past/present thing to suit your ideology thing has to stop. It's making discussion impossible. I'm going to say it plain and simple, so no-one misunderstands: There is a certain way stuff happened/is happening. It didn't happen/isn't happening any other way. History is only up for debate if you're a moron. I hope that clears the air.
Oooooooh dear, I can hear some complaints coming from the direction of the whiny retards. "But isn't history written by the winners?" No, retard, history isn't written by anyone. Historical texts referring to past events are written, and they may be accurate or inaccurate, but the events themselves are eternal and unchanging. They happened a certain way and that's just the way it's going to be. Obviously for ancient history, it's difficult to exactly pin down, but for quite a while, western culture has been meticulously documenting everything from both sides such that we have a definitive record of what's fact and what isn't.
Which brings me to Daniel Pipes being a fucking moron. On Q&A on the 22nd of August, 2011, he said that "Israel is an economic powerhouse" and that the nation is "beset on all sides by foreign powers trying to annihilate them." But... and to quote the smarmy yankee dipshit, "maybe you should do some research." You've presented a warped view of reality that completely misrepresents Israel's actions on a global scale, then proceeded to be the most condescending wanker you possibly could be about it. Go on, justify Israel's gradual encroachment into Palestine, or their bombing of mosques and schools, driving Palestine into further economic unrest, making it more unstable and less able to combat the terrorist groups inside it that attack Israel in the first place. FUCK.
Liberals do this too, but it's generally in a much more banal, "it wasn't all that bad" kinda way. But at any rate, it's frustrating, because it makes any kind of objective debate impossible. Do you call the USA "a failed experiment in classical liberal economic policies" or "a prime example of why the market should be completely free"? I know what I'd call it, but you could just as easily go the other way. Of course, my solution to this is to just hand history, politics and basically the running of everything that isn't the arts over to scientists and mathematicians. They work exclusively with cold, hard facts and numbers, and nothing gets by them. Conservative commentators blow, scientists rule. It's the 3rd law of thermodynamics or something.
Friday, August 19, 2011
I'm Studying Communications Episode 1: Wicked
Had the pleasure of seeing Wicked last night, and had a great time. It's a great play (and that comes from someone who doesn't like musicals that much) and worth the cash if you have it. What was really great about it is that the characters had great depth to them, each one represented a certain kind of personality struggling for positive change in an unjust world. And that's not me being pretentious, it touches on political and social issues in a clear way that, at the same time, isn't heavy handed. The one character I really related to was Fiyero, but my (smart-arsed) companion had a very simplistic view of him by the end of the play. Try as I might to explain how I related to him on a few levels, I couldn't convince her. So, here's my breakdown of why Fiyero's character is far deeper than he appears. Warning, this will be long and will contain spoilers.
When we first meet Fiyero, he arrives at Shiz University asleep in a carriage, showing disdain for the serious Elphaba and declaring that it must be his job to "once again corrupt the students at this academy." He quickly takes to the popular and attractive Galinda/Glinda, and in the song "The Unexamined Life," endorses a shallow, carefree life free of too much meaning or insight. His character is, at least on the surface, established as the silver tongued larrakin with very little depth. From the outset it appears that he and Galinda/Glinda are made for each other, both attractive, popular and a little on the dense side. It is only after Glinda (I cannot be arsed referring to her by both names) warms to Elphaba and trying to make her popular (pop! yew-lerr) that Fiyero begins to show a new side to his character.
After Dr. Dillamond is taken away and the students of Shiz are shown how to use a cage and "contain" an animal, Elphaba has an outburst causing all those in the class except Fiyero to become distracted. Confused, the two liberate the young lion cub and escape with the intention of setting it free. This offers a strange insight into Fiyero's mind; why would someone so obviously carefree care about something as incidental as a lion cub? Although, given his self awareness regarding his self-proclaimed shallowness, this action is not really surprising. He is not an airheaded socialite, rather an insightful and intelligent person putting on a front. While releasing the cub, Elphaba and Fiyero share a moment of closeness where Fiyero realises that he is not content just to coast through life, and wants something more.
Despite Elphaba's obliviousness to the situation, Fiyero grows more distant from Glinda, dissatisfied with her, for want of a better word, simplicity, while pining for the interesting and misunderstood Elphaba. Although he cannot bring himself to admit how he feels in front of Glinda as Elphaba heads to the Emerald City, he also cannot keep up his charade with Glinda, driving them further apart. Glinda refuses to accept the obvious and goes further into denial.
Later in the play, with Elphaba a fugitive, Fiyero finds himself unhappily engaged to a deeply-in-deinal Glinda. Despite this, he searches constantly for Elphaba, ostensibly as the captain of the guard searching for her, although his refusal to buy into all the negative propaganda about Elphaba betrays his true feelings. Fiyero's reactions to the situation at hand offer yet another insight into the workings of his mind; although he very clearly knows what he wants, he is too fixated on keeping everybody else happy to do it. Unlike Glinda, who wants everyone to love her to fulfill her need for attention, Fiyero feels the need to keep everyone happy, even at the cost of his own happiness. His shallowness and popularity, previously shown as a sign of apathy, now reveals a deep seated sense of empathy.
Further in the play, as Fiyero abandons Glinda for Elphaba, leaving his position in the guard and effectively becoming a fugitive with her, he begins to see the world through "different eyes" and finally has who he really wants. Although this drives a temporary wedge between Elphaba and Glinda, it also marks the first time Fiyero goes against the consensus of what is "cool" or accepted, marking a turning point in his character. Captured for liberating Elphaba from the clutches of the guard, he sacrifices himself to save her, showing yet more depth of character. Inadvertently turned into The Scarecrow by Elphaba to spare him the pain of their beatings, we do not see him again until the final scene, where he and Elphaba decide to escape from Oz so they can finally live in peace together. However, as anyone who has seen The Wizard of Oz knows, this is after he visits the "Mighty Wizard of Oz" to receive his brain, only to be informed that he "already has one." However, by this point in the story, we already know that.
Fiyero's character is complex and multilayered. Desperate to keep everyone he meets happy and carefree, he adopts a persona that does not reflect the person he is. Only after meeting Elphaba does he realise there is an alternative, and as he struggles with his sense of self versus his sense of empathy, he is revealed to be a smart, sensitive and dedicated person. Fiyero represents any person who hides their true self, their true personality, under a crowd-pleasing veneer in order to keep the peace.
When we first meet Fiyero, he arrives at Shiz University asleep in a carriage, showing disdain for the serious Elphaba and declaring that it must be his job to "once again corrupt the students at this academy." He quickly takes to the popular and attractive Galinda/Glinda, and in the song "The Unexamined Life," endorses a shallow, carefree life free of too much meaning or insight. His character is, at least on the surface, established as the silver tongued larrakin with very little depth. From the outset it appears that he and Galinda/Glinda are made for each other, both attractive, popular and a little on the dense side. It is only after Glinda (I cannot be arsed referring to her by both names) warms to Elphaba and trying to make her popular (pop! yew-lerr) that Fiyero begins to show a new side to his character.
After Dr. Dillamond is taken away and the students of Shiz are shown how to use a cage and "contain" an animal, Elphaba has an outburst causing all those in the class except Fiyero to become distracted. Confused, the two liberate the young lion cub and escape with the intention of setting it free. This offers a strange insight into Fiyero's mind; why would someone so obviously carefree care about something as incidental as a lion cub? Although, given his self awareness regarding his self-proclaimed shallowness, this action is not really surprising. He is not an airheaded socialite, rather an insightful and intelligent person putting on a front. While releasing the cub, Elphaba and Fiyero share a moment of closeness where Fiyero realises that he is not content just to coast through life, and wants something more.
Despite Elphaba's obliviousness to the situation, Fiyero grows more distant from Glinda, dissatisfied with her, for want of a better word, simplicity, while pining for the interesting and misunderstood Elphaba. Although he cannot bring himself to admit how he feels in front of Glinda as Elphaba heads to the Emerald City, he also cannot keep up his charade with Glinda, driving them further apart. Glinda refuses to accept the obvious and goes further into denial.
Later in the play, with Elphaba a fugitive, Fiyero finds himself unhappily engaged to a deeply-in-deinal Glinda. Despite this, he searches constantly for Elphaba, ostensibly as the captain of the guard searching for her, although his refusal to buy into all the negative propaganda about Elphaba betrays his true feelings. Fiyero's reactions to the situation at hand offer yet another insight into the workings of his mind; although he very clearly knows what he wants, he is too fixated on keeping everybody else happy to do it. Unlike Glinda, who wants everyone to love her to fulfill her need for attention, Fiyero feels the need to keep everyone happy, even at the cost of his own happiness. His shallowness and popularity, previously shown as a sign of apathy, now reveals a deep seated sense of empathy.
Further in the play, as Fiyero abandons Glinda for Elphaba, leaving his position in the guard and effectively becoming a fugitive with her, he begins to see the world through "different eyes" and finally has who he really wants. Although this drives a temporary wedge between Elphaba and Glinda, it also marks the first time Fiyero goes against the consensus of what is "cool" or accepted, marking a turning point in his character. Captured for liberating Elphaba from the clutches of the guard, he sacrifices himself to save her, showing yet more depth of character. Inadvertently turned into The Scarecrow by Elphaba to spare him the pain of their beatings, we do not see him again until the final scene, where he and Elphaba decide to escape from Oz so they can finally live in peace together. However, as anyone who has seen The Wizard of Oz knows, this is after he visits the "Mighty Wizard of Oz" to receive his brain, only to be informed that he "already has one." However, by this point in the story, we already know that.
Fiyero's character is complex and multilayered. Desperate to keep everyone he meets happy and carefree, he adopts a persona that does not reflect the person he is. Only after meeting Elphaba does he realise there is an alternative, and as he struggles with his sense of self versus his sense of empathy, he is revealed to be a smart, sensitive and dedicated person. Fiyero represents any person who hides their true self, their true personality, under a crowd-pleasing veneer in order to keep the peace.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
I Personally Don't Think I Deserve It...
Had an interesting back-and-forth the other day with a christian friend of mine who offered to answer any question about Christianity or The Bible on facebook. I asked my question, he answered, I rebutted, he addressed those and now I'm currently waiting on the response for my third comment. The content of the discussion isn't necessarily that important, but there's one phrase he used that has stuck in my head, and not in a good way. Apparently I'd do well to "think of the implications if Jesus' story was true."
So, let's muse on this, shall we? If Jesus' story is true, well, let's see... first of all, physics is broken. Turning water into wine? Where, pray tell, did the extra atoms come from? Assuming the hydrogen and oxygen molecules could break down into composite protons, neutrons and electrons and recombine into the compounds that constitute wine, and assuming that we weren't all obliterated by the energy released from the atoms breaking apart, wouldn't there be considerably less wine than there was water, due to the different molecular weights? If there was the same amount of wine as water, extra molecules were created, increasing the net amount of matter (and therefore energy) in the universe, which has some pretty bizarre implications. Maybe the energy released by breaking apart the molecules was magically converted into protons, neutrons and electrons, thereby conserving the current state of the universe. Maybe it's just a story that isn't meant to be taken literally. Hey, maybe he managed to trade the water for an equal amount of wine, which is a fucking miracle in a country populated entirely by jews. I hate myself for writing that and hope I get the punishment I deserve.
Of course, this isn't the "implications" my friend was talking about. No, the "implications" are a well worn trope, and it's basically a veiled threat. The implications of Jesus' story being true are that the non-believers are gonna get hella raped. By Hell. What my friend is saying, in a very roundabout, psuedo-friendly way that has been used by both fundamentalists and moderates for quite a long time, is that I should be believing in his particular doctrine, because if I'm wrong, well I'm just plain fucked. It's Pascals Wager all over again. And it's just as silly.
First of all, I don't see him contemplating the consequences of his beliefs being wrong. "Oh, coz if he's wrong, he loses nothing!" Loses nothing my hairy arse, if the Islamic faith is correct he'd be even worse off. If you wanted to take Pascal's Wager seriously, you'd believe the faith which had the worst penalty for non-belief, because hey, why risk it? Of course, if you're of the mental standing to take Pascal's Wager seriously, you probably aren't a rocket scientist. In fact, I wouldn't trust you around sharp objects or small children, either. Secondly, if this is your belief, you actually believe I deserve burning endless torment forever. You could say that you personally don't believe that, but you're still subscribing to an ideology that does. So it's basically the same.
And it's not as if I have a choice in the issue! I mean, think about it, just for a moment:
"All you have to do is believe!"
"OK, but do I have to legitimately believe or can I just say I do?"
"No, you have to legitimately believe."
"I can't legitimately believe everything you've said, it contradicts prior knowledge I have."
"You have to reject that prior knowledge!"
"Wow, that's a big call... on what grounds should I do that?"
"Because if you don't, you'll burn in hell forever."
"Shit, that sounds bad... but how do you know?"
"You just have to believe!"
So yeah, pretty much that. You have to believe that you'll burn forever if you don't believe you'll burn forever for not believing that you'll burn forever. I have no idea why you'd sign up for punishment, especially not hypothetical punishment that isn't supported (and is, in a lot of cases, refuted) by modern science, logic or reason. I guess you really have to believe... oh, wait...
Thinking about the implications of Jesus' story being true leads me to the inevitable conclusion that any believer in the literal truth of the Bible, or even the context-sensitive version that's OK with the Big Bang but still thinks I'll burn for my heresy, thinks I deserve eternal endless punishment. Regardless of what I do, who I love or any of my acts, I'm an awful sinner who's getting what's coming to them. You can sugar coat it any way you like, but long story short: You think that little of me just because I don't buy what you're selling. So, my tip to anyone trying to get me onto the Jesus boat? How about making an argument that isn't just yelling "Hallelujah!" over and over again before telling me I deserve endless torture. You might earn a bit more respect from me than you're currently getting.
So, let's muse on this, shall we? If Jesus' story is true, well, let's see... first of all, physics is broken. Turning water into wine? Where, pray tell, did the extra atoms come from? Assuming the hydrogen and oxygen molecules could break down into composite protons, neutrons and electrons and recombine into the compounds that constitute wine, and assuming that we weren't all obliterated by the energy released from the atoms breaking apart, wouldn't there be considerably less wine than there was water, due to the different molecular weights? If there was the same amount of wine as water, extra molecules were created, increasing the net amount of matter (and therefore energy) in the universe, which has some pretty bizarre implications. Maybe the energy released by breaking apart the molecules was magically converted into protons, neutrons and electrons, thereby conserving the current state of the universe. Maybe it's just a story that isn't meant to be taken literally. Hey, maybe he managed to trade the water for an equal amount of wine, which is a fucking miracle in a country populated entirely by jews. I hate myself for writing that and hope I get the punishment I deserve.
Of course, this isn't the "implications" my friend was talking about. No, the "implications" are a well worn trope, and it's basically a veiled threat. The implications of Jesus' story being true are that the non-believers are gonna get hella raped. By Hell. What my friend is saying, in a very roundabout, psuedo-friendly way that has been used by both fundamentalists and moderates for quite a long time, is that I should be believing in his particular doctrine, because if I'm wrong, well I'm just plain fucked. It's Pascals Wager all over again. And it's just as silly.
First of all, I don't see him contemplating the consequences of his beliefs being wrong. "Oh, coz if he's wrong, he loses nothing!" Loses nothing my hairy arse, if the Islamic faith is correct he'd be even worse off. If you wanted to take Pascal's Wager seriously, you'd believe the faith which had the worst penalty for non-belief, because hey, why risk it? Of course, if you're of the mental standing to take Pascal's Wager seriously, you probably aren't a rocket scientist. In fact, I wouldn't trust you around sharp objects or small children, either. Secondly, if this is your belief, you actually believe I deserve burning endless torment forever. You could say that you personally don't believe that, but you're still subscribing to an ideology that does. So it's basically the same.
And it's not as if I have a choice in the issue! I mean, think about it, just for a moment:
"All you have to do is believe!"
"OK, but do I have to legitimately believe or can I just say I do?"
"No, you have to legitimately believe."
"I can't legitimately believe everything you've said, it contradicts prior knowledge I have."
"You have to reject that prior knowledge!"
"Wow, that's a big call... on what grounds should I do that?"
"Because if you don't, you'll burn in hell forever."
"Shit, that sounds bad... but how do you know?"
"You just have to believe!"
So yeah, pretty much that. You have to believe that you'll burn forever if you don't believe you'll burn forever for not believing that you'll burn forever. I have no idea why you'd sign up for punishment, especially not hypothetical punishment that isn't supported (and is, in a lot of cases, refuted) by modern science, logic or reason. I guess you really have to believe... oh, wait...
Thinking about the implications of Jesus' story being true leads me to the inevitable conclusion that any believer in the literal truth of the Bible, or even the context-sensitive version that's OK with the Big Bang but still thinks I'll burn for my heresy, thinks I deserve eternal endless punishment. Regardless of what I do, who I love or any of my acts, I'm an awful sinner who's getting what's coming to them. You can sugar coat it any way you like, but long story short: You think that little of me just because I don't buy what you're selling. So, my tip to anyone trying to get me onto the Jesus boat? How about making an argument that isn't just yelling "Hallelujah!" over and over again before telling me I deserve endless torture. You might earn a bit more respect from me than you're currently getting.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Holy Shit, My Last Post Was Number 100!
In the interest of objectivity, I once again present The Last Whiny Man Plays Devil's Advocate: London Riots Edition.
Let me set the record straight; as it stands, with the United Kingdom going mental, burning all their shit and basically descending into the stone age, it's nothing but nonsensical destruction perpetuated by people who don't even know what they're angry about. They're certainly angry about SOMETHING, but it's lost on them as much as it is lost on everyone else. So no defending them there, it's all neanderthal level violence and hatred.
Thing is, this didn't spring forth from the aether and and overtake the hearts and souls of otherwise peaceful, calm people. There is a root cause here. Yes, the riots were sparked following the verdict handed down from a case originating from a shooting pertaining to the UK's new stop-and-search laws. Now, in this sense, I'm a little sympathetic; stop-and-search laws are a tremendous infringement on the rights of citizens and, frankly, shouldn't exist. They shouldn't even be thought about. Any government that cares about the personal liberties and rights to privacy of their citizens would realize that stopping random people on the street and searching them without any warrants or reasoning is about as oppressive as it's possible for a government to be. Factor in the fact that it was white cops and black victims and you have a whole messy barrel of worms. The series of events lined up in such a way that an outcry was inevitable.
Then, you've got the economic crisis. Government spending cut, students getting less benefits, young people all over the country feeling disenchanted and unrepresented by their government. All it really needed was a spark for a full fledged riot, a spark like this shooting case. Yes, there would be a percentage (maybe a depressingly large percentage) of people participating in the riots who aren't fighting for better representation and respect from their government, rather just being violent douchebags, but there would still be a percentage who are fighting against a system that has repeatedly wronged them.
What's that, I hear you cry? "Why can't they protest non-violently?" Well, the world isn't such a simple place. Maybe rational discussion doesn't work every time. Yes, violence is abhorrent, but when you feel like every avenue is closed off to you, like your voice isn't heard, maybe you would resort to violence too. People have such nostalgia for the peace and love of the sixties, but lest we forget; you had the Black Panthers, the Vietnam War, riots on university campuses... no period of social upheaval has ever been completely violence free. False nostalgia is bullshit, not everyone is enlightened to "the cause" and change is always resisted. Could these riots be violent, scummy people acting out their sick desires because they finally have a stage to do so? Maybe. Could it be the first indicator of the oh-so-overdue alteration in thinking that society needs to move into a more progressive, humanistic and equal future for everyone, not just the rich, heterosexual and married? In my view, the second one is equally, if not more, likely.
Let me set the record straight; as it stands, with the United Kingdom going mental, burning all their shit and basically descending into the stone age, it's nothing but nonsensical destruction perpetuated by people who don't even know what they're angry about. They're certainly angry about SOMETHING, but it's lost on them as much as it is lost on everyone else. So no defending them there, it's all neanderthal level violence and hatred.
Thing is, this didn't spring forth from the aether and and overtake the hearts and souls of otherwise peaceful, calm people. There is a root cause here. Yes, the riots were sparked following the verdict handed down from a case originating from a shooting pertaining to the UK's new stop-and-search laws. Now, in this sense, I'm a little sympathetic; stop-and-search laws are a tremendous infringement on the rights of citizens and, frankly, shouldn't exist. They shouldn't even be thought about. Any government that cares about the personal liberties and rights to privacy of their citizens would realize that stopping random people on the street and searching them without any warrants or reasoning is about as oppressive as it's possible for a government to be. Factor in the fact that it was white cops and black victims and you have a whole messy barrel of worms. The series of events lined up in such a way that an outcry was inevitable.
Then, you've got the economic crisis. Government spending cut, students getting less benefits, young people all over the country feeling disenchanted and unrepresented by their government. All it really needed was a spark for a full fledged riot, a spark like this shooting case. Yes, there would be a percentage (maybe a depressingly large percentage) of people participating in the riots who aren't fighting for better representation and respect from their government, rather just being violent douchebags, but there would still be a percentage who are fighting against a system that has repeatedly wronged them.
What's that, I hear you cry? "Why can't they protest non-violently?" Well, the world isn't such a simple place. Maybe rational discussion doesn't work every time. Yes, violence is abhorrent, but when you feel like every avenue is closed off to you, like your voice isn't heard, maybe you would resort to violence too. People have such nostalgia for the peace and love of the sixties, but lest we forget; you had the Black Panthers, the Vietnam War, riots on university campuses... no period of social upheaval has ever been completely violence free. False nostalgia is bullshit, not everyone is enlightened to "the cause" and change is always resisted. Could these riots be violent, scummy people acting out their sick desires because they finally have a stage to do so? Maybe. Could it be the first indicator of the oh-so-overdue alteration in thinking that society needs to move into a more progressive, humanistic and equal future for everyone, not just the rich, heterosexual and married? In my view, the second one is equally, if not more, likely.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
An Exercise In Circular Logic
This is a topic I've covered before, but there's a particular aspect of it that just boggles my mind and I really, really need to vent it out before I lose my mind. Just because the phrase "circular logic" features the word "logic," doesn't mean it's good. It's awful, hearing it makes me want to vomit in rage.
Circular logic is when premises in an argument are used to verify themselves. "Billy is healthy because he eats vegetables and he eats vegetables because he's healthy" is a pretty shitty example, but you get the point. It starts nowhere, ends nowhere and proves nothing. Unfortunately, this particular kind of fallacious reasoning gets used all the time in discussions about a certain touchy subject, so here I am, standing before the tanks, screaming "No! No more shitty logic! This is my last stand!"
Marijuana is illegal because it's bad for us.
How do you know it's bad for us?
Well, it must be! It's illegal after all!
I'm not joking, friends. This is a line I've heard before. More than once. Frankly, once would have been enough to melt my brain, but I'm slowly coming to respect the overwhelming stupidity of people in my old age, so it took this aural diarrhea a few attempts to thoroughly make me want to kill people. Obviously I'm betraying my stance on the whole issue here, but there is a point here that isn't just "weed should be legal," and that is:
The legality/illegality of something has no bearing on how moral, how correct or how healthy something is. I mean, let's stop and think for a second. Cigarettes and alcohol remain legal, even though their effects on the individual and, in alcohol's case, society, are demonstrably worse than the effects of marijuana. A consensual polygamous relationship is illegal, while adultery isn't punishable by law. Obviously, I don't think the law has any place in telling us what we can or cannot ingest/imbibe/otherwise take into our bodies, and in the case of (consensual) sexual relationships, it's really an issue to be solved between people, but if your argument is really that the government is keeping us safe and healthy... it's flawed.
And that leaves me where? Well, right now, not really caring. There's no reason for me to actually worry about this issue in general, but I do worry about people's poor grasp of logic. The world would be an infinitely better place if people actually made sense when they argue something, rather than just spewing the first biased idea that springs to their mind.
Circular logic is when premises in an argument are used to verify themselves. "Billy is healthy because he eats vegetables and he eats vegetables because he's healthy" is a pretty shitty example, but you get the point. It starts nowhere, ends nowhere and proves nothing. Unfortunately, this particular kind of fallacious reasoning gets used all the time in discussions about a certain touchy subject, so here I am, standing before the tanks, screaming "No! No more shitty logic! This is my last stand!"
Marijuana is illegal because it's bad for us.
How do you know it's bad for us?
Well, it must be! It's illegal after all!
I'm not joking, friends. This is a line I've heard before. More than once. Frankly, once would have been enough to melt my brain, but I'm slowly coming to respect the overwhelming stupidity of people in my old age, so it took this aural diarrhea a few attempts to thoroughly make me want to kill people. Obviously I'm betraying my stance on the whole issue here, but there is a point here that isn't just "weed should be legal," and that is:
The legality/illegality of something has no bearing on how moral, how correct or how healthy something is. I mean, let's stop and think for a second. Cigarettes and alcohol remain legal, even though their effects on the individual and, in alcohol's case, society, are demonstrably worse than the effects of marijuana. A consensual polygamous relationship is illegal, while adultery isn't punishable by law. Obviously, I don't think the law has any place in telling us what we can or cannot ingest/imbibe/otherwise take into our bodies, and in the case of (consensual) sexual relationships, it's really an issue to be solved between people, but if your argument is really that the government is keeping us safe and healthy... it's flawed.
And that leaves me where? Well, right now, not really caring. There's no reason for me to actually worry about this issue in general, but I do worry about people's poor grasp of logic. The world would be an infinitely better place if people actually made sense when they argue something, rather than just spewing the first biased idea that springs to their mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)