I've been a devoted Star Wars fan for quite a while. Recently, I picked up a Star Wars book to read and found it quite satisfying. I picked up another, by a different author, and reached the same conclusion. At the moment, there are about 10 Star Wars books from the library sitting on a table waiting for me to read them.
While trying to sleep, I realized one of the drastic differences between the Sequel and Prequel Trilogy. Nothing to do with the difference in colors, effects, or aliens - no, something much deeper and more important.
The Prequel Trilogy is the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker to the Dark Side, his becoming Darth Vader. It's also the rise of Palpatine to being emperor of the galaxy (the known reaches) and the destruction of the Jedi Order. All three of these ends are more or less a heroic tragedy (from the standard perspective). Note the fact that almost all main characters, except for the villains are dead at the end.
In contrast, the Prequel Trilogy is about the return of the Jedi, the defeat of Darth Vader and Palpatine (Darth Sidious), and the supposed end of the Empire (although in the expanded universe the Empire is still kicking for quite a while). It's a heroic adventure that is not in the least bit tragic.
I also realized that the entire saga can be thought of not only as the story of Anakin Skywalker (and by extension, the Skywalker family) but as the story of Darth Sidious. In fact, Darth Sidious is more key to the story than any character other than Anakin Skywalker himself. He doesn't appear as often as, say, Obi-Wan, but he is the true mover and shaker in galactic events and the true evil that has to be defeated. While Darth Vader, General Grievous, Count Dooku, and others were all quite formidable, none so much as Darth Sidious.
I also noticed that in some old list of top movie villains of all time Darth Vader was only third place. I read about the other characters and they didn't seem nearly as interesting or cool as Darth Vader. I also noticed that on the same list Harrison Ford's characters appeared twice - Indiana Jones was in second place (after Atticus Finch) and Han Solo somewhere down along the lines. The point of this paragraph is that Darth Vader should be considered the epitome of movie villains (in my opinion). Everything about him is simply awesome.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
An Exercise in Futility
Here is something that I absolutely hate. The idea that certain words should not be said simply because they are "swear words". Now some words, in certain contexts, are not appopriate at all - I wouldn't call a woman a "bitch", or call anyone a "faggot" and so forth. Certain slang phrases (suck as "Jungle Bunny") shouldn't be used because of their intention. However, there is nothing wrong with words like "hell", "damn", "shit", and even, really, "fuck". I realize that the last word has acquired a new meaning, but the others really remain the same. Nonetheless, people are uptight about words which mean, respectively, a mythological place from Norse and Christian mythology, the action of sending people to hell or writing them off so that they'll be sent to hell, poop, and sex. None of these are particularly bad things. And yet people act like children shouldn't hear them, or they shouldn't here them. Why is this? The idea is that "they're offensive" but really, they shouldn't be. They're only offensive because people make them offensive. If everyone taught their child that those words were essentially no worse than other words then we wouldn't have problems with them. But many people are too close minded to accept that sort of thing.
Likewise, information about sex and sexual organs are not something that should be hidden from children. If it weren't treated like something totally different from everything else, then people wouldn't be so uptight about discussing it and it wouldn't be such a big deal.
Lastly, I heard someone say a few things which were totally wrong: that "children are less innocent that they used to be" and that "America is in a moral and religious decline". Both of these statements are very untrue.
Children are no less innocent than they used to be. They may actually be more "innocent" (a word used to mean that they don't know words which are considered inappropriate, etc)
The United States may perhaps be in a moral decline but I have no idea about the religious decline. Any country that would elect people from the Tea Party is populated by easily influenced idiots. As for a religious decline, I would disagree. It's in the middle of the theological battles that happened in Europe a while ago where the Christians fought against science and eventually lost. It's bound to happen again here at some point.
Likewise, information about sex and sexual organs are not something that should be hidden from children. If it weren't treated like something totally different from everything else, then people wouldn't be so uptight about discussing it and it wouldn't be such a big deal.
Lastly, I heard someone say a few things which were totally wrong: that "children are less innocent that they used to be" and that "America is in a moral and religious decline". Both of these statements are very untrue.
Children are no less innocent than they used to be. They may actually be more "innocent" (a word used to mean that they don't know words which are considered inappropriate, etc)
The United States may perhaps be in a moral decline but I have no idea about the religious decline. Any country that would elect people from the Tea Party is populated by easily influenced idiots. As for a religious decline, I would disagree. It's in the middle of the theological battles that happened in Europe a while ago where the Christians fought against science and eventually lost. It's bound to happen again here at some point.
Friday, July 27, 2012
The Teleportation Conundrum
Teleportation is a device used in many Science Fiction stories to transport people from one place to another.
However, one aspect of it is overlooked - dematerialization means death. As soon as you dematerialize, you are dead. The person who appears at the other end may be made from the same things as you, but they are different. Their configuration could be exactly the same but they still won't be you. They will think they are, but they won't be. Instead, they'll be a perfect duplicate who believes that they are you.
How do you solve this conundrum?
There are a few ways -
First is wormholes - instead of dematerialization followed by rematerialization, you can simply have a wormhole.
Second is to indoctrinate an entire generation into believing that your mind is carried by the teleportation device. While it wouldn't be true, it would solve the whole problem.
However, one aspect of it is overlooked - dematerialization means death. As soon as you dematerialize, you are dead. The person who appears at the other end may be made from the same things as you, but they are different. Their configuration could be exactly the same but they still won't be you. They will think they are, but they won't be. Instead, they'll be a perfect duplicate who believes that they are you.
How do you solve this conundrum?
There are a few ways -
First is wormholes - instead of dematerialization followed by rematerialization, you can simply have a wormhole.
Second is to indoctrinate an entire generation into believing that your mind is carried by the teleportation device. While it wouldn't be true, it would solve the whole problem.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Third Wheel...
A third wheel is a stabilizer. When you have two wheels it either falls over to the side or falls forward/backward depending on the alignment of the wheels. To avoid this, you have to balance or keep moving. A third wheel will stabilize things. So the "third wheel in the relationship" would be a more appropriate term for a shared reason to stay together, such as a child.
Sorry about not posting much recently, I just haven't had that much to post about.
Sorry about not posting much recently, I just haven't had that much to post about.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Review: Driver: San Francisco
I decided to post this as I feel it's a game worth talking about.
I rarely buy new games which means that I don't have a large number of purchase-able games. Most of the games I play are online, although I often get subscriptions for MMOs. Instead, my cousins purchased this and I played it. I beat it twice while there.
Anyway, to the game.
Driver: San Francisco is a driving game. My first thought was that it would boring. I was quite wrong. Not only were the graphics amazing (something that you should realize as soon as you see it) but it had a very cool mechanic for switching cars - shifting. By pressing "Shift", you could leave the car you were in for an overhead view of the street and by clicking another car you can enter it.
The storyline is quite interesting:
Detective John Tanner is the main character. You play as him the whole game. Recently, he had captured Charles Jericho (I believe he chased him in the second Driver game and he caught him in the third). He's quite obsessive about Jericho, a powerful gangster who killed a large number of policemen. As a result, he watched as the police convoy escorted the prison van containing Jericho was attacked by a mysterious woman (who turns out to be Leila Sharan, an Egyptian-American assassin) from a news copter using a rocket launcher. The prison van drives away, and Tanner notices that Jericho is at the wheel (due to using some liquid to dissolve part of his handcuffs and then his massive strength to take down the guards and driver). He follows him into an alley, where Jericho appears behind him and begins to ram his car with the much tougher prison truck. Tanner drives forward and ends up in a multi car collision in the street, at the end of which he is hit directly by a truck. His partner Tobias Jones is also with him but is not injured.
Tanner then wakes up in his car as if nothing had happened. He shifts without trying to, and ends up in an Ambulance as the driver. You have to drive the ambulance to the hospital. Over time you learn to shift higher and higher, as well as how to accelerate and ram (which you can't do in the real world and in certain more realistic missions). You can also purchase upgrades and cars (the cars are useful for the non-story missions and dares while the upgrades give you a number of things) as well as garages. Cars are unlocked by purchasing garages and completing non-story missions while dares and missions give you money to do so. You also get a small amount of money every 20 minutes, whose quantity can be increased significantly by purchasing upgrades (with the last money upgrade, for 500,000 Willpower, the currency in the game, you get 185,000 Willpower ever 20 minutes, more than making up for it after and hour).
During the story, Tanner is shown in a hospital bed in a comatose state, twitching. This is because, as he realizes later, that he's in a Coma, and that all of the things he's been doing had happened in real life except that he had not been able to stop them.
In addition to that, over time, stranger and stranger things happen. The first truly strange occurrence is where, while arguing with Tobias, everything except Tanner's car freezes. Eventually an ambulance shows up and you have to follow it closely to decrease your heart rate in order to allow time to flow again. Later on, it turns out that in Tanner's mind, Jericho can do what he does. Soon after that your final mission is revealed to be saving your own life - by losing to Jericho, Tanner dies, and so he must defeat him at all costs in order to finally wake up (he had woken up for a minute but collapsed onto the floor immediately after). First, you have to drive to a series of locations while avoiding a number of trucks piloted by Jericho. They appear seemingly at random and try to ram you but aren't very persistent. If I'm not mistaken it is at this point that he first awakens, but falls back into a coma. You then have to chase Jericho while he makes cars attack you. His vehicle is a pickup truck in this series of battles and in the final one. At some point, you leave the highway and Tanner and Jericho square off. Jericho taunts him and tells him to try to kill him, but Tanner realizes that it won't help to fight him. Next, you have to chase Jericho along a highway while he zaps cars with lightning, causing them to fly at you. The trick is to stay at around 45 mph (instead of the standard 100+ that you go with most vehicles most of the time) because he throws fewer cars and they're easier to dodge when you can turn and accelerate more effectively. Tanner then appears in a room questioning Jericho about the whole idea of an Hydrogen Cyanide Bomb (as Jericho had abducted an industrial chemist and stolen large quantities of Ammonia and Platinum which are required to make it). He realizes that Jericho isn't a terrorist and that the whole point of the bomb is to divert people's attention and evacuate the city. Now you finally have to beat the mental Jericho - Tanner realizes that if everything is in his head, he should be able to throw cars. You can finally Shift again but this time when you click on a car, it flies at Jericho's Truck. Fortunately, as I discovered, you can do that to the cars that Jericho throws at you while they're in the air, and since you can throw them much more quickly you can beat him rather easily in this one.
Once this happens, and Jericho has been defeated, you reawaken at the hospital. This time you convince Jones to lend you his car as Tanner is the only one who knows what's happening. You drive into the city and watch the explosion, but realize that it's a smokescreen as well as radio interference. When you reach the prison block, you realize that the whole point is that Jericho is creating a prison break. Jericho sees you and flees in his pickup truck, and you have to chase him. Some cars explode (something that happens every so often in the game) along the way. This time, you have to ram him a number of times, until his truck has lost most of its life.You'll then drive into a warehouse, where, in the cars, you square off and charge at each other in an extremely dramatic moment. However, Jones saves you by coming out and ramming Jericho's car in the side, disabling his car. There is a brief discussion and at the end Tanner is shown driving with Jones around San Francisco, ready for new missions. It's a very satisfying end to a cool storyline.
Afterward, you're free to explore the San Francisco of John Tanner's mind (as if he were still in a Coma). Unfortunately, there is no way to replay storyline missions without repeating the storyline and you can only do them in order (where you unlock a few at once, which you must beat to unlock a main storyline mission, and so forth).
The best car in the game is the Lamborghini Murcielago. It's one of the fastest (has a full bar for Speed) and has the most armor and least drift of any car with equal speed (still a lot of drift and low armor, but better than the rest). It costs 500,000, which is less than one other care (the McLaren F1, another car with the same speed but worse drift and armor).
There are essentially three types of missions, as well as a fourth type of challenge, a dare. Dares can be completed once and give you money in exchange for doing something (eg, earning 1500 WP in 60 seconds, 50 meter drift, 100 meter jump, etc). There are many non-story missions - take down the bad guy, protect the police truck from attackers, prevent the school bus from exploding by driving above 60 mph and not hitting lots of cars, etc including many races, some of which you cannot shift in and even accelerate (many of the classic races and chases). Then there are story missions which have little correlation with the main story but which you have to do. A few of these seem to have some correlation (the last two missions where you race using Jun while his brother, Iyamu (not sure how to spell it), criticizes/compliments you, where Iyamu calls you John or John Tanner a few times) but for the most part they are unrelated. Then there are main story missions, each of which you can do after completing some story missions. These are ones directly involved with capturing Jericho.
In my opinion, the story was both too short and just perfect. In some ways, it could have been longer to provide for more missions, but at the same time, it was just the right length (considering that they really didn't have many more possible missions to choose from). All of them were doable with a bit of practice for some.
The graphics are amazing, especially those of the people. They look quite real.
The voice acting is great.
The driving is fun and the shifting makes it worthwhile.
It's a great game, one of the best action games I've played, although I'm still of the opinion that Just Cause 2 is far better than just about any other action game (MMOs are a different sort of game and have to be judged in a different manner).
If you can afford Driver: San Francisco, I suggest purchasing it, because it's very much worth it. It's a fantastic game with a lot going for it and few defects.
I rarely buy new games which means that I don't have a large number of purchase-able games. Most of the games I play are online, although I often get subscriptions for MMOs. Instead, my cousins purchased this and I played it. I beat it twice while there.
Anyway, to the game.
Driver: San Francisco is a driving game. My first thought was that it would boring. I was quite wrong. Not only were the graphics amazing (something that you should realize as soon as you see it) but it had a very cool mechanic for switching cars - shifting. By pressing "Shift", you could leave the car you were in for an overhead view of the street and by clicking another car you can enter it.
The storyline is quite interesting:
Detective John Tanner is the main character. You play as him the whole game. Recently, he had captured Charles Jericho (I believe he chased him in the second Driver game and he caught him in the third). He's quite obsessive about Jericho, a powerful gangster who killed a large number of policemen. As a result, he watched as the police convoy escorted the prison van containing Jericho was attacked by a mysterious woman (who turns out to be Leila Sharan, an Egyptian-American assassin) from a news copter using a rocket launcher. The prison van drives away, and Tanner notices that Jericho is at the wheel (due to using some liquid to dissolve part of his handcuffs and then his massive strength to take down the guards and driver). He follows him into an alley, where Jericho appears behind him and begins to ram his car with the much tougher prison truck. Tanner drives forward and ends up in a multi car collision in the street, at the end of which he is hit directly by a truck. His partner Tobias Jones is also with him but is not injured.
Tanner then wakes up in his car as if nothing had happened. He shifts without trying to, and ends up in an Ambulance as the driver. You have to drive the ambulance to the hospital. Over time you learn to shift higher and higher, as well as how to accelerate and ram (which you can't do in the real world and in certain more realistic missions). You can also purchase upgrades and cars (the cars are useful for the non-story missions and dares while the upgrades give you a number of things) as well as garages. Cars are unlocked by purchasing garages and completing non-story missions while dares and missions give you money to do so. You also get a small amount of money every 20 minutes, whose quantity can be increased significantly by purchasing upgrades (with the last money upgrade, for 500,000 Willpower, the currency in the game, you get 185,000 Willpower ever 20 minutes, more than making up for it after and hour).
During the story, Tanner is shown in a hospital bed in a comatose state, twitching. This is because, as he realizes later, that he's in a Coma, and that all of the things he's been doing had happened in real life except that he had not been able to stop them.
In addition to that, over time, stranger and stranger things happen. The first truly strange occurrence is where, while arguing with Tobias, everything except Tanner's car freezes. Eventually an ambulance shows up and you have to follow it closely to decrease your heart rate in order to allow time to flow again. Later on, it turns out that in Tanner's mind, Jericho can do what he does. Soon after that your final mission is revealed to be saving your own life - by losing to Jericho, Tanner dies, and so he must defeat him at all costs in order to finally wake up (he had woken up for a minute but collapsed onto the floor immediately after). First, you have to drive to a series of locations while avoiding a number of trucks piloted by Jericho. They appear seemingly at random and try to ram you but aren't very persistent. If I'm not mistaken it is at this point that he first awakens, but falls back into a coma. You then have to chase Jericho while he makes cars attack you. His vehicle is a pickup truck in this series of battles and in the final one. At some point, you leave the highway and Tanner and Jericho square off. Jericho taunts him and tells him to try to kill him, but Tanner realizes that it won't help to fight him. Next, you have to chase Jericho along a highway while he zaps cars with lightning, causing them to fly at you. The trick is to stay at around 45 mph (instead of the standard 100+ that you go with most vehicles most of the time) because he throws fewer cars and they're easier to dodge when you can turn and accelerate more effectively. Tanner then appears in a room questioning Jericho about the whole idea of an Hydrogen Cyanide Bomb (as Jericho had abducted an industrial chemist and stolen large quantities of Ammonia and Platinum which are required to make it). He realizes that Jericho isn't a terrorist and that the whole point of the bomb is to divert people's attention and evacuate the city. Now you finally have to beat the mental Jericho - Tanner realizes that if everything is in his head, he should be able to throw cars. You can finally Shift again but this time when you click on a car, it flies at Jericho's Truck. Fortunately, as I discovered, you can do that to the cars that Jericho throws at you while they're in the air, and since you can throw them much more quickly you can beat him rather easily in this one.
Once this happens, and Jericho has been defeated, you reawaken at the hospital. This time you convince Jones to lend you his car as Tanner is the only one who knows what's happening. You drive into the city and watch the explosion, but realize that it's a smokescreen as well as radio interference. When you reach the prison block, you realize that the whole point is that Jericho is creating a prison break. Jericho sees you and flees in his pickup truck, and you have to chase him. Some cars explode (something that happens every so often in the game) along the way. This time, you have to ram him a number of times, until his truck has lost most of its life.You'll then drive into a warehouse, where, in the cars, you square off and charge at each other in an extremely dramatic moment. However, Jones saves you by coming out and ramming Jericho's car in the side, disabling his car. There is a brief discussion and at the end Tanner is shown driving with Jones around San Francisco, ready for new missions. It's a very satisfying end to a cool storyline.
Afterward, you're free to explore the San Francisco of John Tanner's mind (as if he were still in a Coma). Unfortunately, there is no way to replay storyline missions without repeating the storyline and you can only do them in order (where you unlock a few at once, which you must beat to unlock a main storyline mission, and so forth).
The best car in the game is the Lamborghini Murcielago. It's one of the fastest (has a full bar for Speed) and has the most armor and least drift of any car with equal speed (still a lot of drift and low armor, but better than the rest). It costs 500,000, which is less than one other care (the McLaren F1, another car with the same speed but worse drift and armor).
There are essentially three types of missions, as well as a fourth type of challenge, a dare. Dares can be completed once and give you money in exchange for doing something (eg, earning 1500 WP in 60 seconds, 50 meter drift, 100 meter jump, etc). There are many non-story missions - take down the bad guy, protect the police truck from attackers, prevent the school bus from exploding by driving above 60 mph and not hitting lots of cars, etc including many races, some of which you cannot shift in and even accelerate (many of the classic races and chases). Then there are story missions which have little correlation with the main story but which you have to do. A few of these seem to have some correlation (the last two missions where you race using Jun while his brother, Iyamu (not sure how to spell it), criticizes/compliments you, where Iyamu calls you John or John Tanner a few times) but for the most part they are unrelated. Then there are main story missions, each of which you can do after completing some story missions. These are ones directly involved with capturing Jericho.
In my opinion, the story was both too short and just perfect. In some ways, it could have been longer to provide for more missions, but at the same time, it was just the right length (considering that they really didn't have many more possible missions to choose from). All of them were doable with a bit of practice for some.
The graphics are amazing, especially those of the people. They look quite real.
The voice acting is great.
The driving is fun and the shifting makes it worthwhile.
It's a great game, one of the best action games I've played, although I'm still of the opinion that Just Cause 2 is far better than just about any other action game (MMOs are a different sort of game and have to be judged in a different manner).
If you can afford Driver: San Francisco, I suggest purchasing it, because it's very much worth it. It's a fantastic game with a lot going for it and few defects.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Hypocrisy
Hipocrisy is inherent in humans. We are all hypocrites. Take a look at your own life, and if you do not see any of your own hypocrisies, you are either unable to see them or not looking hard enough. It's only natural to want an upper hand.
On the Subject of Empathy and Other Important Topics
Empathy is the ability to feel (or imagine that you feel) what others feel. It's the ability to put oneself in another person's shoes. Humans use it all the time, as it's important for a social culture.
However, while people are easily empathetic about "normal" people and people with whose abnormalities they are unaware of, or of people with "acceptable" abnormalities, people often have trouble understanding the perspective of those they discriminate against. They don't stop to consider what life would be like if they were constantly discriminated against.
The problem with this is that where empathy is most needed it is rarely used, and where it's only a passing thought it's often used.
Another related problem which would be very difficult to address is the subject of children and how they treat anyone they decide to pick on. It's quite hard to prevent them from doing it most likely because they lack empathy. Assume that I'm not talking about this subject for the rest of this - young children can pick on you for anything.
There are quite a few groups of people who, because of the way they are or the things they do, are discriminated against or mocked for being that way. Examples include transvestites, homosexuals, transexuals, and to a lesser extent, Jews (search me for a reason, but it's true), and to a lesser extent, people who are not Caucasian. There are other examples which I am either not aware of or do not remember at the moment. Again I'd like to remind any of my (now two) readers that this blog is using the United States as the frame or reference.
I'd like to pause for a moment point out for a moment that Caucasian skin (in general) is more yellow than east Asian skin.
Some/One of you may be asking yourselves/self "what is he getting at?"
The conclusion shouldn't be too hard to reach.
Here's a question: "If I was a currently socially unacceptable/religiously (as in, some major people within your religion are against it, even if the religion in question is not) unacceptable type or person, would my opinion of these people be the same? Is it fair to discriminate against them when I could be in the same situation myself?
Ponder if for a moment, then read on.
If your answer invoked religion, a higher power, or some holy text, then your answer is most likely not what it should be. In that case, I'll add the phrase: "What if I was taught a different religion as a child? Would I still believe in the one which I follow?" Rethink, and if your answer is the same, you aren't thinking about this rationally. If that's the case, then you have a very common and socially acceptable problem which is quite hard to fix.
I've heard/read arguments that some conditions are bad for reproduction or bad for survival and should not be supported because they, if passed on, will be bad for future humans. For example, people with mental retardation have at times been separated from the rest of humanity and even euthanized for being the way they are. The same goes for many different ethnicities.
Yes, standard mental retardation is bad for the gene pool, but it's not as if we select against people with IQs under 80, or 90, or 100, and so forth. Yes, homosexuals and transgenders are less likely to reproduce, but so what? As far as we know, those traits aren't genetic. Yes, some people have darker skin than others, but so what? We (I) have lighter skin than they do, does that make us (me) any better or worse?
If you are willing to argue this for those traits, why not be fair and extend it to every negative trait. For example, how about not producing any corrective lenses for those who benefit from them, and not treating genetic diseases, or using treatments to allow the nearly fertile to reproduce (those with too few sperm to successfully impregnate a woman, etc), and so forth. Wouldn't that drastically improve the gene pool? As a matter of fact, it wouldn't. Almost every single being has traits which are automatically bad for survival, while everyone has traits which are in current contexts bad for survival as well. It's ridiculous to impose sanctions and discriminate against those who possess some traits which don't allow us to reproduce.
Simply put, it's "Treat others the way you want to be treated". Remember that.
However, while people are easily empathetic about "normal" people and people with whose abnormalities they are unaware of, or of people with "acceptable" abnormalities, people often have trouble understanding the perspective of those they discriminate against. They don't stop to consider what life would be like if they were constantly discriminated against.
The problem with this is that where empathy is most needed it is rarely used, and where it's only a passing thought it's often used.
Another related problem which would be very difficult to address is the subject of children and how they treat anyone they decide to pick on. It's quite hard to prevent them from doing it most likely because they lack empathy. Assume that I'm not talking about this subject for the rest of this - young children can pick on you for anything.
There are quite a few groups of people who, because of the way they are or the things they do, are discriminated against or mocked for being that way. Examples include transvestites, homosexuals, transexuals, and to a lesser extent, Jews (search me for a reason, but it's true), and to a lesser extent, people who are not Caucasian. There are other examples which I am either not aware of or do not remember at the moment. Again I'd like to remind any of my (now two) readers that this blog is using the United States as the frame or reference.
I'd like to pause for a moment point out for a moment that Caucasian skin (in general) is more yellow than east Asian skin.
Some/One of you may be asking yourselves/self "what is he getting at?"
The conclusion shouldn't be too hard to reach.
Here's a question: "If I was a currently socially unacceptable/religiously (as in, some major people within your religion are against it, even if the religion in question is not) unacceptable type or person, would my opinion of these people be the same? Is it fair to discriminate against them when I could be in the same situation myself?
Ponder if for a moment, then read on.
If your answer invoked religion, a higher power, or some holy text, then your answer is most likely not what it should be. In that case, I'll add the phrase: "What if I was taught a different religion as a child? Would I still believe in the one which I follow?" Rethink, and if your answer is the same, you aren't thinking about this rationally. If that's the case, then you have a very common and socially acceptable problem which is quite hard to fix.
I've heard/read arguments that some conditions are bad for reproduction or bad for survival and should not be supported because they, if passed on, will be bad for future humans. For example, people with mental retardation have at times been separated from the rest of humanity and even euthanized for being the way they are. The same goes for many different ethnicities.
Yes, standard mental retardation is bad for the gene pool, but it's not as if we select against people with IQs under 80, or 90, or 100, and so forth. Yes, homosexuals and transgenders are less likely to reproduce, but so what? As far as we know, those traits aren't genetic. Yes, some people have darker skin than others, but so what? We (I) have lighter skin than they do, does that make us (me) any better or worse?
If you are willing to argue this for those traits, why not be fair and extend it to every negative trait. For example, how about not producing any corrective lenses for those who benefit from them, and not treating genetic diseases, or using treatments to allow the nearly fertile to reproduce (those with too few sperm to successfully impregnate a woman, etc), and so forth. Wouldn't that drastically improve the gene pool? As a matter of fact, it wouldn't. Almost every single being has traits which are automatically bad for survival, while everyone has traits which are in current contexts bad for survival as well. It's ridiculous to impose sanctions and discriminate against those who possess some traits which don't allow us to reproduce.
Simply put, it's "Treat others the way you want to be treated". Remember that.
The Meaning of Life
I have yet to post about this subject. This will be a brief post as I have much more important matters to post about.
Meaning is a human (or, perhaps, at some point in the future, we will replace this with "sentient/emotional being") term.
What does this mean?
It means that life has no inherent meaning. It only has meanings which we apply to it.
The result?
While our lives have no inherent meaning, we can apply any meaning we wish to it.
Meaning is a human (or, perhaps, at some point in the future, we will replace this with "sentient/emotional being") term.
What does this mean?
It means that life has no inherent meaning. It only has meanings which we apply to it.
The result?
While our lives have no inherent meaning, we can apply any meaning we wish to it.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Lastly, on Sexuality
I am heterosexual, but I loathe homophobes.
Discrimination, for the most part, is quite bad. In this case it is especially bad. Like religion, a person's views on certain things (politics, sexuality, etc) are largely determined by their parent's views. That doesn't mean that they can't change, it just means that they start off as right wing Christians who don't believe that it's moral to be a homosexual.
People's lives are ruined just because they find they love people of the same gender as themselves and it's the fault of heterosexuals who have no idea that these people are people. It's the fault of the people who think that they are the better ones, and sadly, it's not even surprising that it happens. Humans have to have something below them. Usually, they pick other humans. It's quite sad.
So don't pick other humans to be your punching bag (whether it's physical or simply verbal). Let those people who have no choice in the matter be the way they are. It hurts very few (usually no one, but there's always small cases) and it's not something that really matters.
The same goes for discrimination based on other traits. I'm not saying that it's amoral - I don't believe that morals are sensible or worth anything in the first place. When you discriminate against people, you just show how closed-minded and ridiculous you, as a "person", are.
Discrimination, for the most part, is quite bad. In this case it is especially bad. Like religion, a person's views on certain things (politics, sexuality, etc) are largely determined by their parent's views. That doesn't mean that they can't change, it just means that they start off as right wing Christians who don't believe that it's moral to be a homosexual.
People's lives are ruined just because they find they love people of the same gender as themselves and it's the fault of heterosexuals who have no idea that these people are people. It's the fault of the people who think that they are the better ones, and sadly, it's not even surprising that it happens. Humans have to have something below them. Usually, they pick other humans. It's quite sad.
So don't pick other humans to be your punching bag (whether it's physical or simply verbal). Let those people who have no choice in the matter be the way they are. It hurts very few (usually no one, but there's always small cases) and it's not something that really matters.
The same goes for discrimination based on other traits. I'm not saying that it's amoral - I don't believe that morals are sensible or worth anything in the first place. When you discriminate against people, you just show how closed-minded and ridiculous you, as a "person", are.
It is in no way a Children's Game
If you know about Yugioh, you should know that it has an anime. Unfortunately, this anime was ruined by 4kids. They took out all of the swearing (which is only realistic considering the life or death situations and the age of the characters), removed guns and similar stuff, and they even got rid of the original series, which wasn't even based on the trading card game of today. Because of all this, we get the impression that this is intended for kids, when it was in fact intended for teens.
However, the intention is not really that important.
What is important is the fact that it is an insanely complicated game. There are very few children who can master this (and, of course, an even smaller amount who could afford to build whatever deck they wanted to due to the massive prices of the cards). Not only does the game have subtleties that take years to learn, but it also has rulings - there are so many conflicts and odd situations where the result cannot be determined by common sense that Konami has had to release hundreds to thousands of rulings explaining what happens in these situations. It's surprising how much you need to know to play correctly.
I could say more but the whole idea of a children's game is that it can be played by children. This game can, but those children who can (at a high level) tend to be quite intelligent and in fact it's more a teen/young adult's game. That isn't to say that older people shouldn't play it.
Same goes for Magic the Gathering, although the game is less well known and it's more obvious at a glance who it was intended for. It turns out that the game is actually less complicated than Yugioh.
The point of this post is that the label of something doesn't really matter.
However, the intention is not really that important.
What is important is the fact that it is an insanely complicated game. There are very few children who can master this (and, of course, an even smaller amount who could afford to build whatever deck they wanted to due to the massive prices of the cards). Not only does the game have subtleties that take years to learn, but it also has rulings - there are so many conflicts and odd situations where the result cannot be determined by common sense that Konami has had to release hundreds to thousands of rulings explaining what happens in these situations. It's surprising how much you need to know to play correctly.
I could say more but the whole idea of a children's game is that it can be played by children. This game can, but those children who can (at a high level) tend to be quite intelligent and in fact it's more a teen/young adult's game. That isn't to say that older people shouldn't play it.
Same goes for Magic the Gathering, although the game is less well known and it's more obvious at a glance who it was intended for. It turns out that the game is actually less complicated than Yugioh.
The point of this post is that the label of something doesn't really matter.
As I explain a few things...
As I was reading the fantastic book, The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch, the third book in a special series of Discworld Books (of which there are more than 40) written by the amazing Terry Pratchett with help from Jack Cohen and Ian Stuart, I decided to post this. Every other chapter of the Science of Discworld books explains actual science behind whatever is happening in the storyline.
Onto more interesting stuff:
Schrodinger's cat is nonsense. At least, the way that many people think of it is - they may take the idea quite literally and reject it as nonsense. It's simply a thought experiment demonstrating how quantum physics works. If it was Schrodinger's Electron, it would be a perfect explanation (provided it involved motion and not death) but of course that wouldn't help people understand because most people seem to need comparisons and real world analogs to understand this stuff. It turns out that this was mentioned in the book, although I had come to this conclusion independently. As Stuart and Cohen brilliantly explained, mathematical concepts are just methods of thinking.
A tree falling in the forest when no one is around makes sound, provided it is possible for it to make sound. The whole idea of it is ridiculous - if true, then nothing would happen without an observer, meaning that not only would a tree falling in the forest would not actually exist (for if it didn't make a sound, the only sensible resolution would be that it didn't even exist), and more so, the forest would not exist except where it was being observed, and to extrapolate even further, pre-human history would not exist. QED, it's ridiculous.
One hand cannot clap. Simple as that. A clap requires two hands, or, if you really want to call what a clapper does clapping, then that works as well - but it still requires at least two surfaces in motion.
Anything can catch up to the tortoise. This much is obvious in real life. The idea is that every time the object has caught up, the tortoise has moved forward. However, this distance which the tortoise moves is much smaller than the distance which Achille moves in the same time. Both reality and actual thought renders this "paradox" or null.
Same goes for the one where movement is impossible because you can divide any space up infinitely and thus you have to keep moving forward through a seemingly infinite number of spaces to have moved a finite distance. First, at quantum level, many things are about as small and basic as they get. Second, even with the subdivision of a finite space into infinite spaces the distance remains the same. Lastly, you have to take real life into account - just because the idea of doing this hurts your head, doesn't mean that you don't do this every day - you move through these infinitely subdivided spaces whenever you move in any way, shape or form.
When I hear people talking about "The World", I often get annoyed because I have no idea what they are talking about. Generally, it means this:
* The Earth
* Human Civilization
* The Universe (rarely)
Like some sensible people, I don't like this. It means that I have to make an assumption which could very easily be wrong.
I also hear about "The End of the World" and find it to be a really stupid phrase. It often is used to mean the end of Humans in general, often in religious contexts, which is ridiculous, because the Earth would still exist, as would the Universe. If it were to mean "The End of the Earth", than the Universe would still exist. And the end of the Universe is ridiculous.
As for the Universe, I would like to point out that it means the sum of all matter and space. Note the "uni"-one. One world. On one hand, it could mean one world of many, but the way I see it, it's ridiculous that the term multiverse could exist - simply because the term Universe can't possibly capture everything doesn't mean that when a new group of matter is discovered/postulated/hypothesized, we have to describe them as a multiverse, when in fact they are still part of the sum of all matter and space. It's all one universe.
Artificial means man-made, but so does natural. Humans are still part of nature. Building is not some sort of abomination or unnatural thing, and we do what we do because of the way we are. It's all natural. Nuclear reactors are quite natural. So are video games. You can distinguish between the two but there's no reason to say that humans are no longer constrained by nature.
The term American means people living in both Americas, North and South. Mexicans are as American as United States Citizens. So are Cubans. And Venezuelans. I don't call myself an American Citizen, because the term is so flawed, I call myself a Citizen of the United States of America. Note the of. I talk about this in a previous post.
United States Politics is ridiculous. It is based on brainwashing the ignorant masses with propaganda. There's a reason they're called masses - it's the largest voter base. They tend to vote for whatever appeals to them superficially, without understanding the consequences. That's why poor people will vote against a Democrat, a party whose ideology is to help the poor, in favor of a Republican, whose party ideology is that of extremely limited support and unfair taxation, simply because their church leader told them to. In addition, the ability to deny any group rights is, in fact, unconstitutional.
Religion is so inherently ridiculous that an outside viewer should laugh at it. It's mass belief in some unproved principles which make no sense in real life and don't hold up to any tests. However, most people lack the intelligence to reconsider what they believe or to even consider why they believe in the first place. Hint: The answer is: "Because their parents taught them to". I've also talked about this at length. In addition, the farce that is "Intelligent Design" is a bunch of bullshit - it's all based on proving that we don't know enough and then assuming that because of that, "God" is real, which is a ridiculous assumption that only works if you actually believe.
Onto more interesting stuff:
Schrodinger's cat is nonsense. At least, the way that many people think of it is - they may take the idea quite literally and reject it as nonsense. It's simply a thought experiment demonstrating how quantum physics works. If it was Schrodinger's Electron, it would be a perfect explanation (provided it involved motion and not death) but of course that wouldn't help people understand because most people seem to need comparisons and real world analogs to understand this stuff. It turns out that this was mentioned in the book, although I had come to this conclusion independently. As Stuart and Cohen brilliantly explained, mathematical concepts are just methods of thinking.
A tree falling in the forest when no one is around makes sound, provided it is possible for it to make sound. The whole idea of it is ridiculous - if true, then nothing would happen without an observer, meaning that not only would a tree falling in the forest would not actually exist (for if it didn't make a sound, the only sensible resolution would be that it didn't even exist), and more so, the forest would not exist except where it was being observed, and to extrapolate even further, pre-human history would not exist. QED, it's ridiculous.
One hand cannot clap. Simple as that. A clap requires two hands, or, if you really want to call what a clapper does clapping, then that works as well - but it still requires at least two surfaces in motion.
Anything can catch up to the tortoise. This much is obvious in real life. The idea is that every time the object has caught up, the tortoise has moved forward. However, this distance which the tortoise moves is much smaller than the distance which Achille moves in the same time. Both reality and actual thought renders this "paradox" or null.
Same goes for the one where movement is impossible because you can divide any space up infinitely and thus you have to keep moving forward through a seemingly infinite number of spaces to have moved a finite distance. First, at quantum level, many things are about as small and basic as they get. Second, even with the subdivision of a finite space into infinite spaces the distance remains the same. Lastly, you have to take real life into account - just because the idea of doing this hurts your head, doesn't mean that you don't do this every day - you move through these infinitely subdivided spaces whenever you move in any way, shape or form.
When I hear people talking about "The World", I often get annoyed because I have no idea what they are talking about. Generally, it means this:
* The Earth
* Human Civilization
* The Universe (rarely)
Like some sensible people, I don't like this. It means that I have to make an assumption which could very easily be wrong.
I also hear about "The End of the World" and find it to be a really stupid phrase. It often is used to mean the end of Humans in general, often in religious contexts, which is ridiculous, because the Earth would still exist, as would the Universe. If it were to mean "The End of the Earth", than the Universe would still exist. And the end of the Universe is ridiculous.
As for the Universe, I would like to point out that it means the sum of all matter and space. Note the "uni"-one. One world. On one hand, it could mean one world of many, but the way I see it, it's ridiculous that the term multiverse could exist - simply because the term Universe can't possibly capture everything doesn't mean that when a new group of matter is discovered/postulated/hypothesized, we have to describe them as a multiverse, when in fact they are still part of the sum of all matter and space. It's all one universe.
Artificial means man-made, but so does natural. Humans are still part of nature. Building is not some sort of abomination or unnatural thing, and we do what we do because of the way we are. It's all natural. Nuclear reactors are quite natural. So are video games. You can distinguish between the two but there's no reason to say that humans are no longer constrained by nature.
The term American means people living in both Americas, North and South. Mexicans are as American as United States Citizens. So are Cubans. And Venezuelans. I don't call myself an American Citizen, because the term is so flawed, I call myself a Citizen of the United States of America. Note the of. I talk about this in a previous post.
United States Politics is ridiculous. It is based on brainwashing the ignorant masses with propaganda. There's a reason they're called masses - it's the largest voter base. They tend to vote for whatever appeals to them superficially, without understanding the consequences. That's why poor people will vote against a Democrat, a party whose ideology is to help the poor, in favor of a Republican, whose party ideology is that of extremely limited support and unfair taxation, simply because their church leader told them to. In addition, the ability to deny any group rights is, in fact, unconstitutional.
Religion is so inherently ridiculous that an outside viewer should laugh at it. It's mass belief in some unproved principles which make no sense in real life and don't hold up to any tests. However, most people lack the intelligence to reconsider what they believe or to even consider why they believe in the first place. Hint: The answer is: "Because their parents taught them to". I've also talked about this at length. In addition, the farce that is "Intelligent Design" is a bunch of bullshit - it's all based on proving that we don't know enough and then assuming that because of that, "God" is real, which is a ridiculous assumption that only works if you actually believe.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
The Meaning of Words
Any language, given time, will change. Slang words come up, words acquire different meanings, and so forth. However, there are some things which are simply wrong and should be treated as such, yet are more frequently misused than the just about anything else.
The word in question, for those of you who have not guessed it, is "like". If you did guess or you do think you know what I'm talking about, then you're probably wrong. This word is misused most often and by the largest number of people not as a placeholder, which is quite annoying, but as a substitute for "said" and "thought".
Interestingly enough, I don't think I've met a single person who doesn't use that word as a substitute for those two words.
Multiple problems arise at this point. First is the ambiguity - a thought during a conversation might be perceived as a comment, and vice-versa. Second is the fact that it is just plain wrong. The word means "Similar To" - a person does not become similar to a phrase, they say it or think it. Yet people perpetuate this mistake throughout their lives without ever wondering about it. It's as ingrained in our culture as soda.
This is something ridiculous that needs to stop. Unfortunately, there are very few people who realize this, and most people would have trouble admitting that they have a problem and need to change. As a result, this won't stop until some new, more trendy word comes along to replace it entirely.
Because of the subject of this post, I'll also mention that yes, using "Like" as a placeholder makes your sentence or phrase one of uncertainty. Using it whenever you pause is an incorrect usage of the word which should not be done, and when you do use it, use it properly.
The word in question, for those of you who have not guessed it, is "like". If you did guess or you do think you know what I'm talking about, then you're probably wrong. This word is misused most often and by the largest number of people not as a placeholder, which is quite annoying, but as a substitute for "said" and "thought".
Interestingly enough, I don't think I've met a single person who doesn't use that word as a substitute for those two words.
Multiple problems arise at this point. First is the ambiguity - a thought during a conversation might be perceived as a comment, and vice-versa. Second is the fact that it is just plain wrong. The word means "Similar To" - a person does not become similar to a phrase, they say it or think it. Yet people perpetuate this mistake throughout their lives without ever wondering about it. It's as ingrained in our culture as soda.
This is something ridiculous that needs to stop. Unfortunately, there are very few people who realize this, and most people would have trouble admitting that they have a problem and need to change. As a result, this won't stop until some new, more trendy word comes along to replace it entirely.
Because of the subject of this post, I'll also mention that yes, using "Like" as a placeholder makes your sentence or phrase one of uncertainty. Using it whenever you pause is an incorrect usage of the word which should not be done, and when you do use it, use it properly.
A Little About Me
Some background that may or may not be relevant to the blog in the future:
* I love Star Wars
* I'm almost as big a fan of Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings
* I like most music, provided it feels whole and isn't just random notes. I also hate autotune and dislike most pop music in general. My favorite genres are Classic Rock, Rag Time (Scott Joplin), and Classical.
* I listen to Stairway to Heaven by Led Zepellin twice a day. I wonder why everyone else doesn't.
* I also make sure to listen to Paradise and Viva la Vida by Coldplay, Let it Be by the Beatles, Livin' on a Prayer by Bon Jovi, and more, every few days.
* I absolutely loathe horror movies.
* I enjoy building things with LEGO Bricks.
* I enjoy playing Yugioh with friends.
* I enjoy reading Manga. I also enjoy reading standard books, particularly the writings of the amazing Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Orson Scott Card, and most of all, Patrick Rothfuss, whose two novels, The Name of the Wind and The Wise Man's Fear are without a doubt the best books I have ever read.
* I hate tight schedules and not being free to do what I want to when I want to. As a result, the school year is not fun for me.
* I dislike being misunderstood.
* I love Star Wars
* I'm almost as big a fan of Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings
* I like most music, provided it feels whole and isn't just random notes. I also hate autotune and dislike most pop music in general. My favorite genres are Classic Rock, Rag Time (Scott Joplin), and Classical.
* I listen to Stairway to Heaven by Led Zepellin twice a day. I wonder why everyone else doesn't.
* I also make sure to listen to Paradise and Viva la Vida by Coldplay, Let it Be by the Beatles, Livin' on a Prayer by Bon Jovi, and more, every few days.
* I absolutely loathe horror movies.
* I enjoy building things with LEGO Bricks.
* I enjoy playing Yugioh with friends.
* I enjoy reading Manga. I also enjoy reading standard books, particularly the writings of the amazing Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Orson Scott Card, and most of all, Patrick Rothfuss, whose two novels, The Name of the Wind and The Wise Man's Fear are without a doubt the best books I have ever read.
* I hate tight schedules and not being free to do what I want to when I want to. As a result, the school year is not fun for me.
* I dislike being misunderstood.
Monday, June 18, 2012
This is what my Parents Taught Me, and this is what I Believe
This post can also be titled: "Teach your children to think for themselves".
From tender ages, children are taught things which aren't true. Most of the time, this is because people believe that it is true - political viewpoints, religious viewpoints, religion in general, and urban myths and legends are some of the many examples of this.
First, I'll address a common myth that really annoys me - you don't catch a cold by being cold. It should be obvious to anyone who knows that there's a cold virus, but it's not. You don't catch it by being cold. You may get a runny nose, but that's not a cold in itself. The common cold is caused by a virus. Enough said on that topic.
From this point on this is about religion. The feeble minded may leave the room if they so choose.
From young ages, people teach their children what to believe. The #1 falsehood that they are brought up to believe is their religion. Somehow, very few people seem to have this revelation and then draw the correct conclusions: "If I was born to different parents, they would believe something different". The correct conclusion is: "Why should I be believing what my parents taught me about religion when any other parents would have a different set of beliefs? What makes their any better than all the others?" From there you can extrapolate: "How is their religion valid just because they were taught it? Why should I believe in any religion if it all depends on how I was raised?"
If you still haven't gotten the point through your head, it's this: people believe these things because they are raised to believe them. There is no reason to believe in them. Some people switch between religions. The whole idea of switching religions is practically an invalidation of religion in itself - the idea should lead you to these conclusions: "If people are supposed to change what they believe, how come the old one is suddenly wrong and the new beliefs are right? How can any of it be true if beliefs about the nature of the world are so malleable?"
This all applies to beliefs. You might argue that it can also apply to science, but it does not. Science is based on logical explanations, proofs, and disproving as much as you possibly can so that the tip of the golden kernel of truth sticks out. Or in cruder language "You have to dig through a huge pile of shit just to find the chocolate". Yes, it's a quite disgusting, but it's a pretty good analogy for experimental science. There's also mathematical science, which is even more reliable. Science is not, and should never be, a belief system or religion. You should believe that the scientific method unveils truths in our world
simply because it's true, not because you are told to by something which makes no attempt to prove its worth and which instead does nothing but justify itself over and over.
Unfortunately, the large majority of people will stick firmly by their religion even in the face of all evidence which points to it being little more than hokum.
I leave you (assuming that one reader visits this blog again) with this thought:
There is no animal more deluded than a human. Only one animal continually fools itself in each generation into believing what the last generation believed with undue ferocity.
From tender ages, children are taught things which aren't true. Most of the time, this is because people believe that it is true - political viewpoints, religious viewpoints, religion in general, and urban myths and legends are some of the many examples of this.
First, I'll address a common myth that really annoys me - you don't catch a cold by being cold. It should be obvious to anyone who knows that there's a cold virus, but it's not. You don't catch it by being cold. You may get a runny nose, but that's not a cold in itself. The common cold is caused by a virus. Enough said on that topic.
From this point on this is about religion. The feeble minded may leave the room if they so choose.
From young ages, people teach their children what to believe. The #1 falsehood that they are brought up to believe is their religion. Somehow, very few people seem to have this revelation and then draw the correct conclusions: "If I was born to different parents, they would believe something different". The correct conclusion is: "Why should I be believing what my parents taught me about religion when any other parents would have a different set of beliefs? What makes their any better than all the others?" From there you can extrapolate: "How is their religion valid just because they were taught it? Why should I believe in any religion if it all depends on how I was raised?"
If you still haven't gotten the point through your head, it's this: people believe these things because they are raised to believe them. There is no reason to believe in them. Some people switch between religions. The whole idea of switching religions is practically an invalidation of religion in itself - the idea should lead you to these conclusions: "If people are supposed to change what they believe, how come the old one is suddenly wrong and the new beliefs are right? How can any of it be true if beliefs about the nature of the world are so malleable?"
This all applies to beliefs. You might argue that it can also apply to science, but it does not. Science is based on logical explanations, proofs, and disproving as much as you possibly can so that the tip of the golden kernel of truth sticks out. Or in cruder language "You have to dig through a huge pile of shit just to find the chocolate". Yes, it's a quite disgusting, but it's a pretty good analogy for experimental science. There's also mathematical science, which is even more reliable. Science is not, and should never be, a belief system or religion. You should believe that the scientific method unveils truths in our world
simply because it's true, not because you are told to by something which makes no attempt to prove its worth and which instead does nothing but justify itself over and over.
Unfortunately, the large majority of people will stick firmly by their religion even in the face of all evidence which points to it being little more than hokum.
I leave you (assuming that one reader visits this blog again) with this thought:
There is no animal more deluded than a human. Only one animal continually fools itself in each generation into believing what the last generation believed with undue ferocity.
Arguments, Discussions, and Negativity
This will be a "rant" on negativity and why it's not a dreadful monster that eats people alive.
In my day to day life online, I often find things I do not like. I try to point these out - and then get shot down because I was being negative. Or arguing. Or whatever excuse they decide to use.
In one example, I nominate an article I had written on Brickipedia for Good Status (Class 1). Someone voted against it, and when I asked for clarification, they gave me reasons which weren't really sensical. In response, I went online and explained to him why in a chat room. I was told first, by a different person, to stop arguing - a statement hilarious, pathetic, and that makes me very angry, all at once. Then I was told that I was being rude by multiple people. As far as I could see, all I had done was list my reasons. It turns out that it was rude to say this in a chat room. However, this was a chat room on a Wikia intended for the use of the Wiki. It only made sense to use it for that purpose. In addition to that, it was just as likely for people, in this case people who actually mattered, to visit his talk page and see the responses, if not more so. All in all, the chat was actually more private. Yet somehow I had violated an unspoken rule. I tried to engage in civilized discussion with two people - first, the person who told me to stop arguing and the other people who joined in. However, they kept saying "Stop arguing!" over and over, so I simply left after a while. Fortunately, these people were people who I do not really respect, so I don't care if I'm going to lose their respect. The other was the person who opposed the nomination. I explained to him why I left him the message and he told me that I didn't have to reply, as if he didn't even understand what an oppose vote was - something which would entirely nullify the chance of it being given a higher status. Because of this, I had little choice but to fix it (which it did not need) or explain my opposition to his opposition.
In another example, on the same site, the builders, in general, are not very good. They generally amount to as much as the kids who post their creations on sites like MOCpages and FlickR. Recently, they created this "MOC of the Month" and "Builder of the Month" nomination system. After opposing a builder and a creation, I was told by someone that they were "tired of my negativity" - and yet there was an oppose field right there! On the site, opposes are supposed to be explained, which I did, and my following the rules and making reasonable opposes resulted in my alienation.
Onto what is really important: I'm here to explain why arguments and negativity aren't a bad thing.
I've had many, many people tell me to "stop arguing". It's interesting how the very concept of an argument is treated on some of the sites I've been on: it's as if it's one of the worst things I can do. Somehow, democracy is a bad thing online. Because that's what arguing is. It's a part of democracy. However, it is vilified beyond belief even though you can just ignore it if it bothers you. It's not your place to stop someone else's argument. I've tried labeling my arguments as discussions, and conducting them in a reasonable manner, but to no avail - I receive the same reaction.
As for negativity - I've seen in quite a few places how negativity is a "bad thing". Like arguing, it has its purpose. If you can't say "no", "I don't like this", "I disagree with this", and other such simple phrases, then you do not have a democracy. If your only options are "yes" and to abstain, then it's not a democracy.
That isn't to say that all arguing and negativity is a good thing. However, for the most part, they allow people to exchange ideas and opinions.
I don't use Facebook, Twitter, or other popular networking sites so I have no idea if this applies there. This is all in the rather limited social context of a LEGO Wiki and perhaps a few other related sites.
In my day to day life online, I often find things I do not like. I try to point these out - and then get shot down because I was being negative. Or arguing. Or whatever excuse they decide to use.
In one example, I nominate an article I had written on Brickipedia for Good Status (Class 1). Someone voted against it, and when I asked for clarification, they gave me reasons which weren't really sensical. In response, I went online and explained to him why in a chat room. I was told first, by a different person, to stop arguing - a statement hilarious, pathetic, and that makes me very angry, all at once. Then I was told that I was being rude by multiple people. As far as I could see, all I had done was list my reasons. It turns out that it was rude to say this in a chat room. However, this was a chat room on a Wikia intended for the use of the Wiki. It only made sense to use it for that purpose. In addition to that, it was just as likely for people, in this case people who actually mattered, to visit his talk page and see the responses, if not more so. All in all, the chat was actually more private. Yet somehow I had violated an unspoken rule. I tried to engage in civilized discussion with two people - first, the person who told me to stop arguing and the other people who joined in. However, they kept saying "Stop arguing!" over and over, so I simply left after a while. Fortunately, these people were people who I do not really respect, so I don't care if I'm going to lose their respect. The other was the person who opposed the nomination. I explained to him why I left him the message and he told me that I didn't have to reply, as if he didn't even understand what an oppose vote was - something which would entirely nullify the chance of it being given a higher status. Because of this, I had little choice but to fix it (which it did not need) or explain my opposition to his opposition.
In another example, on the same site, the builders, in general, are not very good. They generally amount to as much as the kids who post their creations on sites like MOCpages and FlickR. Recently, they created this "MOC of the Month" and "Builder of the Month" nomination system. After opposing a builder and a creation, I was told by someone that they were "tired of my negativity" - and yet there was an oppose field right there! On the site, opposes are supposed to be explained, which I did, and my following the rules and making reasonable opposes resulted in my alienation.
Onto what is really important: I'm here to explain why arguments and negativity aren't a bad thing.
I've had many, many people tell me to "stop arguing". It's interesting how the very concept of an argument is treated on some of the sites I've been on: it's as if it's one of the worst things I can do. Somehow, democracy is a bad thing online. Because that's what arguing is. It's a part of democracy. However, it is vilified beyond belief even though you can just ignore it if it bothers you. It's not your place to stop someone else's argument. I've tried labeling my arguments as discussions, and conducting them in a reasonable manner, but to no avail - I receive the same reaction.
As for negativity - I've seen in quite a few places how negativity is a "bad thing". Like arguing, it has its purpose. If you can't say "no", "I don't like this", "I disagree with this", and other such simple phrases, then you do not have a democracy. If your only options are "yes" and to abstain, then it's not a democracy.
That isn't to say that all arguing and negativity is a good thing. However, for the most part, they allow people to exchange ideas and opinions.
I don't use Facebook, Twitter, or other popular networking sites so I have no idea if this applies there. This is all in the rather limited social context of a LEGO Wiki and perhaps a few other related sites.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Arguments about Religion
I've had many discussions with religious people where they tried to get me to believe. There are many seemingly valid arguments for religions, and there are many which are obviously invalid.
One that I heard is the idea that the universe had to come from somewhere - using science to prove religion. First off, while the science isn't necessarily incorrect, the assumption is completely bogus: that because we do not know/understand something, it must have supernatural elements. This is known as "God of the gaps", the idea that anything we don't understand can and should be explained using God. These arguments only work if you are inclined to believe in a higher power in the first place.
This same person also spent quite a while trying to get me to make some decisive statements about Jesus. Some of the things he said had little relevance to the conversation - he spent a large time asking me what I thought about Jesus, and how I could explain the "resurrection". I proposed some possible explanations, and he spent a while trying to find fault in them, claiming that I was relying on the irrationality of humans, which I was, when the underlying problem was, again, that the argument was essentially: I do not know how this happened, therefore it must be supernatural. It is a flawed argument that should not be used. It's like me saying that everything I can't see must be red. Obviously this isn't true to a rational, outside, and unbiased (so in this case, a religious person would be biased for a statement about religion) but as long as I hold that belief you can't prove otherwise - there is no way to show me that stuff I can't see isn't red, because I cannot see it, just like you can't ever disprove religion through mathematics or science - you can only prove how things actually happened.
Also, I heard an argument not only using this ideology but that was also flawed in another way - we were discussing the creation of the universe (I'm using this to refer not to what we call the universe, but what we call the multiverse, as universe means everything), and he stated that it must have come into being at some point. This is not necessarily true. It is possible that this universe has existed forever, and that our own particular reality simply came into being - it does not require a creator. Humans naturally want to put things into points - they need to have a beginning and end, with points in between - we have trouble with spectra and continuous change. This need to impose "order" results in irrational ideas such as this - the universe needs no beginning, and it is wholly possible that it has always existed. In fact, it is nonsensical to believe that at some point, nothing existed.
One that I heard is the idea that the universe had to come from somewhere - using science to prove religion. First off, while the science isn't necessarily incorrect, the assumption is completely bogus: that because we do not know/understand something, it must have supernatural elements. This is known as "God of the gaps", the idea that anything we don't understand can and should be explained using God. These arguments only work if you are inclined to believe in a higher power in the first place.
This same person also spent quite a while trying to get me to make some decisive statements about Jesus. Some of the things he said had little relevance to the conversation - he spent a large time asking me what I thought about Jesus, and how I could explain the "resurrection". I proposed some possible explanations, and he spent a while trying to find fault in them, claiming that I was relying on the irrationality of humans, which I was, when the underlying problem was, again, that the argument was essentially: I do not know how this happened, therefore it must be supernatural. It is a flawed argument that should not be used. It's like me saying that everything I can't see must be red. Obviously this isn't true to a rational, outside, and unbiased (so in this case, a religious person would be biased for a statement about religion) but as long as I hold that belief you can't prove otherwise - there is no way to show me that stuff I can't see isn't red, because I cannot see it, just like you can't ever disprove religion through mathematics or science - you can only prove how things actually happened.
Also, I heard an argument not only using this ideology but that was also flawed in another way - we were discussing the creation of the universe (I'm using this to refer not to what we call the universe, but what we call the multiverse, as universe means everything), and he stated that it must have come into being at some point. This is not necessarily true. It is possible that this universe has existed forever, and that our own particular reality simply came into being - it does not require a creator. Humans naturally want to put things into points - they need to have a beginning and end, with points in between - we have trouble with spectra and continuous change. This need to impose "order" results in irrational ideas such as this - the universe needs no beginning, and it is wholly possible that it has always existed. In fact, it is nonsensical to believe that at some point, nothing existed.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Multiverse, Universes, and what Infinity means
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist. What I say here is based on the assumption that certain theories are correct. I have in no way definitive proof (if such a thing could exist) that this is true. It's more of a thought process unraveling.
First, I'd like to point out that universe is essentially everything that exists. Because that, "multiverse" is really one big "universe" and there is only one "universe", hence the "uni".
If we assume that there is a number of universes so large that it is seemingly infinite, with different constants and/or different results of different actions, with more being created you read this, then it is only reasonable to expect that nearly anything is possible within these universes.
For example:
First, I'd like to point out that universe is essentially everything that exists. Because that, "multiverse" is really one big "universe" and there is only one "universe", hence the "uni".
If we assume that there is a number of universes so large that it is seemingly infinite, with different constants and/or different results of different actions, with more being created you read this, then it is only reasonable to expect that nearly anything is possible within these universes.
For example:
- A universe in which everything is the same as ours up until a certain point where something different happens, creating a "divergence" is extremely likely according to this model.
- A universe in which Earth was the same as it is today, except without the existence of humanity, is also equally plausible.
- A universe in which what we define as "magic" could, in theory, exist, provided there are physical principles that would allow such magic to exist. However, it is rather unlikely.
- Because of the oddness of quantum theory and wave functions, it is entirely possible that a universe exists in which "magic" happens not as a result of anything but simply because of random chance. This means that the entire story of "The Name of the Wind" or some other fantasy, magic-based novel could be real within that universe, not for any logical or physical reason, but simply because some highly unlikely things happened at highly unlikely times resulting in the seemingly impossible happening. With the large number of universes out there, it is possible.
- A universe in which everything was made out of LEGO bricks could, in theory exist, provided it had the physical principles which allowed ABS to come to live. It seems ridiculous, but it's a possibility.
Social Stigma (and other beliefs/ideas), Survival, and Explanations
First, for those of you who don't know it:
Social Stigma (from Wikipedia): "Social stigma is the severe disapproval of, or discontent with, a person on the grounds of characteristics that distinguish them from other members of a society."
This is the point of this post: Social Stigma exist and are not good for modern society. In ancient society, they helped us survive. But today, they are simply things that drag people down and punish those who don't conform to certain rule sets.
These are my ideas on the roots of specific stigmas. Keep in mind that these are not scientifically based - they are ideas based upon my knowledge of humanity and its history. In addition to that, this is not a complete list, not by far. These are just some more obvious ones with more real world importance.
* Stigma against murder: This is a no-brainer. Homicide is not a survival skill.
* Stigma against suicide: Same as murder. Dead people can't have sex and can't reproduce. Unless you reproduce via spores which are released upon death.
* Stigma against homosexuality: Because it doesn't help the group increase its numbers. There's a number of other reasons, political, religious, and so-forth, but I suspect that a large portion of this stems from that idea.
* Stigma against transgenderism or whatever it's called: Humans who attempt to mimic people of the opposite gender will have trouble reproducing if they don't attract the same gender they are mimicking. And if it involves cutting off/out genitalia, then it seriously limits reproductive ability.
* Stigma against transvestism: Same as transgenderism.
* Stigma against people the disabled (mentally or physically): If it's an inherited trait, it's bad for the gene pool.
* Stigma against secular individuals and people from other religions: Religion is a unifying trait, and in general helps the group survive.
* Stigma against other so-called "races": Same as against other religions - unity is good for survival.
I could go on.
The first two things here I have no problem with. Few people would enjoy living in a modern society where murder was allowed, or at its extreme, commonplace. As for suicide, there are usually solutions.
The rest of this group I believe are very flawed, outdated, and unnecessary.
First, sexuality in all of its forms (other than heterosexuality): While in the past, being something other than heterosexual was bad for reproduction, today it really doesn't matter. People who are inherently something other than the norm (sexually) are what they are, and they don't need to be "fixed".
Next, disabilities: I'm certain these stigma still exist, although I rarely see them. They are pointless and if someone is born with a disability, you can't blame them for it. If they acquired it, most of the time, it was not their because they're stupid or deserved it. Most of the time.
Religion/Secularism/Race: Definitely a hot topic today. It used to be that you could be killed openly and legally for this sort of thing in the United States and much of the civilized world. Nowadays, it's not so common, but these stigmas still exist. Religion, as I will talk about in another post, is no longer necessary. In fact, it never truly was. Secularism is not the opposite of religion or a division of religion, but there is an ingrained belief that you have to have a "purpose in life" - take it from me, your purpose does not have to be religion. It can be whatever you want it to be. As for race, it no longer is as pressing an issue as it used to be, at least in the United States and Europe, but there are still many problems. In another post I'll talk about how racial issues could be resolved.
Social Stigma (from Wikipedia): "Social stigma is the severe disapproval of, or discontent with, a person on the grounds of characteristics that distinguish them from other members of a society."
This is the point of this post: Social Stigma exist and are not good for modern society. In ancient society, they helped us survive. But today, they are simply things that drag people down and punish those who don't conform to certain rule sets.
These are my ideas on the roots of specific stigmas. Keep in mind that these are not scientifically based - they are ideas based upon my knowledge of humanity and its history. In addition to that, this is not a complete list, not by far. These are just some more obvious ones with more real world importance.
* Stigma against murder: This is a no-brainer. Homicide is not a survival skill.
* Stigma against suicide: Same as murder. Dead people can't have sex and can't reproduce. Unless you reproduce via spores which are released upon death.
* Stigma against homosexuality: Because it doesn't help the group increase its numbers. There's a number of other reasons, political, religious, and so-forth, but I suspect that a large portion of this stems from that idea.
* Stigma against transgenderism or whatever it's called: Humans who attempt to mimic people of the opposite gender will have trouble reproducing if they don't attract the same gender they are mimicking. And if it involves cutting off/out genitalia, then it seriously limits reproductive ability.
* Stigma against transvestism: Same as transgenderism.
* Stigma against people the disabled (mentally or physically): If it's an inherited trait, it's bad for the gene pool.
* Stigma against secular individuals and people from other religions: Religion is a unifying trait, and in general helps the group survive.
* Stigma against other so-called "races": Same as against other religions - unity is good for survival.
I could go on.
The first two things here I have no problem with. Few people would enjoy living in a modern society where murder was allowed, or at its extreme, commonplace. As for suicide, there are usually solutions.
The rest of this group I believe are very flawed, outdated, and unnecessary.
First, sexuality in all of its forms (other than heterosexuality): While in the past, being something other than heterosexual was bad for reproduction, today it really doesn't matter. People who are inherently something other than the norm (sexually) are what they are, and they don't need to be "fixed".
Next, disabilities: I'm certain these stigma still exist, although I rarely see them. They are pointless and if someone is born with a disability, you can't blame them for it. If they acquired it, most of the time, it was not their because they're stupid or deserved it. Most of the time.
Religion/Secularism/Race: Definitely a hot topic today. It used to be that you could be killed openly and legally for this sort of thing in the United States and much of the civilized world. Nowadays, it's not so common, but these stigmas still exist. Religion, as I will talk about in another post, is no longer necessary. In fact, it never truly was. Secularism is not the opposite of religion or a division of religion, but there is an ingrained belief that you have to have a "purpose in life" - take it from me, your purpose does not have to be religion. It can be whatever you want it to be. As for race, it no longer is as pressing an issue as it used to be, at least in the United States and Europe, but there are still many problems. In another post I'll talk about how racial issues could be resolved.
About this Blog
This Blog is not theme or topic specific. I have many interests, but I can't focus on all of them at once. As a result, I have blogs for my hobbies that I've only posted on a few times. This blog will be about my ideas, philosophical musings, and more. I post these things because I feel that people should be able to read them. I'm not going to directly insult people (at least, I most likely will not, due to the laws of probability) and if I say something that offends you, you are free to reply (politely, please) or to leave. I'm not forcing these ideas upon anyone.
If I'm wrong about something scientific/mathematic/otherwise, tell me. I don't like basing my ideas on things that aren't real.
This blog will include thoughts on religion that many may find offensive.
This blog will include radical ideas on social stigmas that people may find offensive or perhaps even disgusting.
This blog will not most likely not include anything related to current and recent politics (at least, not directly - it may talk about political systems but I have no intention of arguing with people with differing political views).
Normally I don't like making absolute statements because they are never true - there's always a small chance, due to the laws of physics, that something will happen outside of the norm, and with people, there's a much greater chance that they'll do something they said they won't. I'm only human - I make mistakes.
If I'm wrong about something scientific/mathematic/otherwise, tell me. I don't like basing my ideas on things that aren't real.
This blog will include thoughts on religion that many may find offensive.
This blog will include radical ideas on social stigmas that people may find offensive or perhaps even disgusting.
This blog will not most likely not include anything related to current and recent politics (at least, not directly - it may talk about political systems but I have no intention of arguing with people with differing political views).
Normally I don't like making absolute statements because they are never true - there's always a small chance, due to the laws of physics, that something will happen outside of the norm, and with people, there's a much greater chance that they'll do something they said they won't. I'm only human - I make mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)