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.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
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)