Socialism, Obama, TEA, and squirrels

I have a few questions.

If I declare something to be true about you that I cannot prove, isn't this called libel? No really, I don't know.

A TEA party has been formed in my area. They terrify and intrigue me at the same time. Based purely upon their adverts, I can't help but wonder if those who attend aren't actively fomenting rebellion. Oh well, it's not illegal, right?

What would be so bad about a socialist agenda? If taxes become 90%, can't people be satisfied with the 10% of money which can be purely spent on luxuries? I said this to someone, they said I sounded like Marx. Having never read Marx, I dunno. I'd sort of like to be able to receive free health care. On that note, free housing, food, transportation, education, perhaps some minimal entertainment... sounds good to me. Why don't we focus on overcoming the weaknesses within this idea and see if they can't be overcome? Wouldn't these things I've named lessen if not eliminate many of our social problems?

I think the squirrels are right. It's all about the nuts, man. It's all about the nuts.

And now for something completely different...

I posed this question on sciforums.com, a forum I frequent. Is freedom of enough value to justify suffering?

Case in point: waterboarding of suspected terrorists.

I have a right to be free from terrorism within the US(supposedly). My government seeks to protect my rights as a citizen by performing a non-deadly non-permanently damaging torture to evoke answers from recalcitrant detainees who are known to be willing to die to kill me.

But torture is wrong!

Is it? If a man told you someone was going to harm your family, and you thought he knew who, would you refrain from ANY means to get the information you wanted? Or is it more acceptable to allow harm to come to your family, as long as you haven't "stooped to his level"?

I'm sorry, but the government, as it stands, is required to protect its citizens at whatever cost. If a christian group started blowing things up in the US, would you want them treated differently? How about the fact that these people "declared war" on the US, making them enemy combatants? I say they should count themselves lucky to not have faced worse torture. To be honest, had the governemnt never revealed the existence of the detainees, would their fates have mattered to anyone?

I'm not even going to go into the madness of potentially prosecuting the ex-government for things the current government disapproves of. Smacks a bit of delegalizing one's opposition if you asked me.

Fundamentalists are fundamentalists I guess...

Ever talk to a die-hard fundamentalist christian? If you live in the west, or in the US, the answer is probably yes. No matter what you say, no matter how cogent your argument, you are not going to shake them from what they believe.

I have found that such ways of thinking exist in other aspects of life as well. Ask a biologist probing questions about evolution, you will probably be insulted and told to go study. Ask questions about the possibility of non-einsteinian physics occuring inside our universe but outside of our ability to witness them to an astronomer or physicist, more often than not they will ignore you as a fool.

Why is this? Wouldn't it be more effective to cogently answer such questions? Are such questions threatening to the scientific community's beliefs? I know that when I ask a question and I'm told something to the effect of,"because I said so" or,"because that's the way it is" I immediately think back to our friendly fundamentalist christian who is looked down on for being closed-minded.

"Go read your bible" "God said so"
"Go read a textbook" "The evidence all points to..."

How different are these things?

Before you go into "evidence" I'd like to invite you to a game. I call it the evidence game. You tell me what makes a given set of evidence acceptable in all circumstances. Please begin with proving history as true through evidence, and let's start with... I dunno... how about Babylon? Should be easy enough.

Not how "they" know, but how YOU know, would be preferable, but if you only know because you "believe" "them", then how "they" know will have to suffice, won't it?

On a side note, I'm not trying to promote either side, but point out that such closed-mindedness is not only moronic, but somewhat frightening when it comes to scientific pursuits. Shouldn't all sides be considered? If something can't be disproven, should we consider it such because we don't like it?

Irritation

I want to make the blog more space-efficient. Sadly without any skills as far as html or any other acronym I'm stuck with a premade piece. I think that a brown "frame" to suggest a desk and a larger parchment would be nice, as well as a more proper rendering of my favorite artist's work. If I see a collection of machiavellian quotes then dear Ari will be leaving.

If you are reading this, maybe you should become a follower. You know you want to be on the various black lists made by our friends in the government. So join the fun!

been away for awhile...

So many questions... so little time. My Internet time is limited... again. So, if you have something you want me to address, maybe email me. I'll be back on soon. In the meantime, some things to consider:

1: Saw both Religulous and Expelled. Interesting that I agree with both. Do you?

2: Can you name 5 things that don't require some level of belief?

Later!

another test

You Scored as Postmodernist Postmodernism is the belief in complete open interpretation. You see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis. Postmodernist 100% Materialist 63% Cultural Creative 63% Modernist 50% Romanticist 50% Existentialist 44% Fundamentalist 25% Idealist 6%

Interesting test results...

You Scored as Existentialism Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life. “Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.” “It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.” --Jean-Paul Sartre “It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.” --Blaise Pascal More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page... Existentialism 100% Nihilism 80% Kantianism 75% Justice (Fairness) 75% Divine Command 45% Utilitarianism 45% Apathy 10% Strong Egoism 10% Hedonism 10%

Death... Yay?

My Grandmother's funeral was yesterday. She was 94, and a christian, and therefore my family and I have an apparently unusual outlook on death. There were no tears, and while unsaid, perhaps there was almost a hint of jealousy at her escaping the mortal coil.

It makes me a bit reflective. Everyone seems to have different views of death and what it means. Some believe in a heaven/hell afterlife. Some believe in reincarnation. Some believe you simply cease to be.

Perhaps it's the allure of the idea of immortality which draws so many in to the idea that there is an "afterlife". I know it's irrational, but I choose to believe in the concept. 70-120 years at best just doesn't seem like enough somehow. The less rational atheists that I have discussed this with all think that you "move on". As my own belief in such things is irrational I don't step on this idea of theirs, but it does seem interesting that many believe that a "soul" exists but a "God" does not.

Logically? I'm not sure. There is a law of logic I am well known for failing to use, involving the idea that there is no reason to believe in that which cannot be proven, or something like that. I see no solid reason to believe that anything we experience extends past that last electro-chemical reaction in the brain. Yet, I want there to be an afterlife. I want an "immortal soul". If for no other reason than to get to see what happens after I am gone from here.

Fun with relativism

I don't understand, really. I don't hold that relativism is necessarily the "correct" way of doing things, but I admit that I disagree with sending out our "humanitarian" missionaries to other countries with other cultures, and then complaining when they do something illegal is the wisest of ideas.

Consider: You travel to a distant planet. You get there and are thrown into prison because skeletons are banned and considered weapons. You knew this law existed on that planet. Who is wrong?

They must explain this stuff in college or something. To me the idea of "live and let live" is relativism. Is there something objective, something logical, that gives a sense that a is always wrong and b is always right? If not, then on what does anyone base any of their ideas on anything morally?

Or was the Holocaust and American Slavery justified? To Nazi Germany and the Plantation slave owners it was...

Marriage and law.

Why are these things combined? Marriage is a religious rite. "Before God" and whatnot. To me, the legal binding of two people into one unit should be an "incorporation of individuals" ruled by contract law. Marriage should be kept as a ritual, one out of the jurisdiction of law.

Oh look. Homosexual and Heterosexual unions are suddenly equal. Was that too easy?

Objective reasoning?

Maybe I should face these seperately.

Objectivity. Someone show me something that is objectively true that does not require a subjective identification as objective. "A triangle has three sides." Who defines what triangle is? You? Me? Who? How are they objective?

Reasoning. How many methods of reasoning are there? Who decides which ones are "proper" and which are not? Where is the precision to logic or anything else that is required to formulate a "truth"? Or is this the best we can do: All dogs have four legs, All dogs bark, A mammal with no ability to bark with any other number than four legs is not a dog?

I know, that was weak, but meant purely as an example. Of course there are non-barking dogs and dogs with fewer than four legs. We are reduced to uncertainty about this and everything else.

Logic?

Consider Schrodinger's Cat. A complex thought experiment meant to show how ridiculous our concept of electrons' behavior is. I love this thought experiment, because in truth it really pokes alot of existentialism in the eye. What would ole Descartes do with the concept that things exist and don't exist at the same time until observed?

Stephen Law

I have started hanging out on his blog of late. It appears I may be a sociopath so far. I simply don't think or cannot see any sign of an objective morality. I can't see a good reason to not believe in God, although I acknowledge that my belief is irrational and unjustified. Then again, I believe I may not exist as well, so go figure.

What is history?

Is history an ancient writing? Is history fact? Is it just something we choose to believe is true?

I wonder. I suppose some kind of evidence is necessary, but then what is evidence? Can we define "facts"?

A political moment...

Our president is so impressive. He brings to mind all the racist thought regarding what would happen if an african-american was elected president. He is partying, alienating old friends, befriending mortal enemies, and generally not leading at all. Can we give Biden a try?

I voted Nader, because I figured if weed was legal I could get high and not care without getting in trouble. McCain was a liberal republican, or trying to be. Now we have a great orator... no wait... he doesn't orate, he reads. A great reader as president.

I feel like I need to go to 10 Downing St and apologize profusely in person. Maybe request asylum from stupidity.

I pray he doesn't get assassinated, however. That's a can of worms nobody wants opened.

God, Atheism, and all the various versions of name that tune...

I'm with Pascal-If God exists and I do not believe I lose far more than if God does not exist and I do believe.

"Theism isn't rational, though"

Ha! Rationalism is circular and unprovable. What is rational after all?

"But God does X, Y, and Z that aren't 'good'"

Let me address this two ways. First, your definition of good is different from mine, different from everybody else's. God's definition as an omniscient, omnipotent being that created time itself, is probably even more different from yours.

Second, God labels things as good and they are. Go read the creation story. God defines things God does as good and your opinion is beside the point.

"But wait, I don't believe in the bible's accuracy."

Well, it's a collection of writings and stories across Jewish history. I'd say that it wasn't intended to explain how the universe works. It's an instruction manual on relating to God. If you choose to not believe in God and then go and read the bible, it will have as much meaning for you as using TV remote constructions to figure out how to operate your microwave oven.

"But so many bad things happen. Natural disasters to murders to pedophilia to slavery to genocide... Why doesn't God fix this?"

Ask him. If John was right, God is going to fix everything one day.

"I am an atheist, but just because I'm rational. Is God going to punish me?"

According to the bible, yes. God can do what he wants, so maybe not. I'm just hoping it doesn't turn out the Norse were right all along myself.

"But you're a christian! You can't say that!"

Doubt is not a sin. I doubt you exist, am I hurting you? I doubt everything, but I choose what I am going to act on. God never said we're not allowed to think.

"You are not a normal christian"

I know. Kind of sad. However, I don't fault other christians for not being like me. I am who I am, and maybe it will be a thought provoking experience for both of us.

"What about muslims?"

I have a hard time with Islam, but it doesn't make it wrong.

"Aha! So it could be any religion is correct!"

Yep. Free will means you can choose to believe whatever you want. Doesn't mean you will be right, of course.

"I'm unconvinced. You can't falsify any of this."

Sure you can. If Jesus never comes back you win. If Vishnu shows up, then the Hindus win. And so on.

"Well, religion is bad."

Yep. Religion takes a faith as a label, then turns it to it's own devices. Take christianity-It was fine until Rome took it as a state religion... it's been trying to recover ever since.

"****"

Yep. I've put alot of thought into this. Imagine me talking to a fellow christian about this stuff.

Madness.

No, not another social commentary for now. This one is a bit more personal. I'm crazy.

No really. I'm diagnosed bipolar 2 and borderline. This means crazy. The VCU gunman? Yep, bipolar.

So. I'm nuts, on medications. I am also going through a divorce, a custody settlement about my 5 kids, living in a new place, all but disowned by my parents, in a new relationship, and trying to figure out what the hell is going on.

Overwhelming to many. I look at attempting to move on any of it and I am crippled. My brain literally shuts down. I couldn't fill out some simple paperwork earlier, so literally my brain shuts down. Cognition ceases. The desperate feeling of doing things which are drastic arises.

Who do you tell, if anyone? I don't have time to go to some kind of incarceration... too much to do. I don't really want to face all this either, though.

I hate myself for being unable to cope. I hate myself for allowing this situation to exist. I hate myself for saying I hate myself.

The spiral is where I am, but I can't seem to escape. I'm alive, which seems to be what is most required.

To drool or not to drool...

Really.

Do people value thought anymore? I am awestruck at all of the public figures who act like fools.

Consider: Entertainment

It's all about sexuality. Reality TV is the most contrived foolishness possible. Game shows are the exception, but then it's about greed. How tiring.

Music tries to be different. Many a band/singer begins by writing soulful things. But a few years into it... 95 percent of them are pandering to the mindless masses yearning for the newest,"Mmmbop".

Yawn.

Luckily, some few are not doing this. But they are, of course, starving.

"Sell out with me tonight" By somegroup... It's true. Maybe it's human nature. There's nothing to be irritated about, it's just genetics at work...

Ever hear of overcoming yourself? I know... too much work.

Offer me a few million and depraved sexual pleasures on demand... I'll give in too, I'm sure... Perhaps not, though.

If I offered Kurt Cobain a lifetime with his child and a slowly declining musical career... perhaps he'd be here today. I have found a love recently, and it transcends simple sexuality. Maybe this means there really is something more to be had.

May you have the opportunity to make these choices... and may you choose well.

Oh the humanity!

What the hell does that mean anyway?

Humans are vile, unpleasant, unintelligent creatures. They dislike others of their own species for random reasons like color of skin, method of speech, or simply choice of outer covering.

Humanity indeed.

I suppose they must be tolerated as the major parasitic beings on this planet, capable of destroying their home and themselves, if for no other reason than the fact that they can be fun to watch, and occasionally act out of character.

"What are you on about?"

Simply this. Let the humans stop the infighting for philosophical reasons. Throw away all the ancient disagreements. I know how we can all finally get along.

Let us keep our hatred, but let it be hatred of our species as a whole. The term "waterbag" was coined as a racial epithet in a novel, and just think, it fits. 70% water, and basically incompetent, we are little more than waterbags.

"But wait," you say,"we must have equality!"

True. We shall labor to be allowed life, not possessions. Without anything, we are all equal.

"You propose an Orwellian dystopia!"

Is that not what is desired? To be controlled in all things and given things we do not earn? To have our lives micromanaged to such a point that we have no time to wonder about silly things like joy and sadness. We can all be parts of the machine, grinding onward toward destruction.

How very nice.