Not exactly, but...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjJiMDE5Y2M1OWNmNDFhMDIwNWMxYTA1Mzk5ZDkxMTk=
Hey, anybody remember that old joke where the Indian man says he wants to see America before he dies because he wants to see a country where the poor people are fat?
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Shall I Call Out God?
Can't sleep, download for homework from Mudd servers is taking forever, so let's talk religion.
Involuntarily, I'm some unusual combination of Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism practiced by my mother (who drags me to her temple for prayer whenever she can). None of those have the same practice as Judaism, where the mother's religion automatically is considered the child's. Which is great, because after 5 years of getting dragged to temple, I figure the whole damn theology's a bunch of hooey anyway.
So what do I call myself? NOT Christian, even though my views tend towards the conservative and I did go to a Christian private elementary for a few years. Only thing I remember is how biblical stories got integrated into pretty much everything, and going to the principal frequently later in the year due to some mental issues.
I call myself "agnostic anti-theistic". I don't know and don't particularly care whether or not there is a god, gods, heavenly host, or whatever, but if any of the above have some sort of "divine plan" for how the world should go or end, kindly leave me out of it. I'm not prepared to stake my horse to someone or something who's full willing to unironically invoke the Omniscient Morality License (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OmniscientMoralityLicense), thank you very much.
Involuntarily, I'm some unusual combination of Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism practiced by my mother (who drags me to her temple for prayer whenever she can). None of those have the same practice as Judaism, where the mother's religion automatically is considered the child's. Which is great, because after 5 years of getting dragged to temple, I figure the whole damn theology's a bunch of hooey anyway.
So what do I call myself? NOT Christian, even though my views tend towards the conservative and I did go to a Christian private elementary for a few years. Only thing I remember is how biblical stories got integrated into pretty much everything, and going to the principal frequently later in the year due to some mental issues.
I call myself "agnostic anti-theistic". I don't know and don't particularly care whether or not there is a god, gods, heavenly host, or whatever, but if any of the above have some sort of "divine plan" for how the world should go or end, kindly leave me out of it. I'm not prepared to stake my horse to someone or something who's full willing to unironically invoke the Omniscient Morality License (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OmniscientMoralityLicense), thank you very much.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Random Thoughts #6
I recently went shopping for clothing (not by choice, mind you), and noticed that a significant portion of clothing marketed for men and a significant portion marketed for women are borderline indistinguishable, at least to my untrained eyes. So if I end up going out in public with a button-down shirt and jeans marketed towards women, am I cross-dressing?
Obama's School Speech
Nordlinger pretty much speaks for me here.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmMxZDQyNTFhNTQ5OWIyYjE5YTQ4NmRhY2RjMjUyYWI=
Odds are the speech will contain all sorts of fluffy, innocuous crap like "love your fellow students" and "study well" and "embrace the differences of others" that would probably be expected of a school speech with no immediately discernable topic. There is a sense, though, that Obama really has better things to do (if you're a rightist, tort reform, finishing the job in Afghanistan; if you're a leftist, health care/medical/Medicare reform, environmental issues) than give a speech to schoolkids, and that this speechifying all the way down to grade school is a little...odd.
Update 9/7/09: I WAS RIGHT.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmMxZDQyNTFhNTQ5OWIyYjE5YTQ4NmRhY2RjMjUyYWI=
Odds are the speech will contain all sorts of fluffy, innocuous crap like "love your fellow students" and "study well" and "embrace the differences of others" that would probably be expected of a school speech with no immediately discernable topic. There is a sense, though, that Obama really has better things to do (if you're a rightist, tort reform, finishing the job in Afghanistan; if you're a leftist, health care/medical/Medicare reform, environmental issues) than give a speech to schoolkids, and that this speechifying all the way down to grade school is a little...odd.
Update 9/7/09: I WAS RIGHT.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/
Friday, September 4, 2009
Why Adalore Can't Find a Job?
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjZjZGQ0YTEwNmI1NTU2YWUzNjFjMWFjMGJiNzZlZmY=
I suppose it could be worse--from what I understand, 18-25 unemployment in France hovers somewhere around 25%--but, hey, for those of us who want jobs (like Adalore), this might be interesting reading.
EDIT: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YThjODk3MmUxNDE0NThlZDQ2YWI0ZDI3NjBjZGRlNWQ=
Okay, scratch the "France" part; teenage unemployment here in the U.S. is at 25%. This sucks on ice.
I suppose it could be worse--from what I understand, 18-25 unemployment in France hovers somewhere around 25%--but, hey, for those of us who want jobs (like Adalore), this might be interesting reading.
EDIT: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YThjODk3MmUxNDE0NThlZDQ2YWI0ZDI3NjBjZGRlNWQ=
Okay, scratch the "France" part; teenage unemployment here in the U.S. is at 25%. This sucks on ice.
No Elves!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLwUjyP-dkQ
This actually fits in VERY well with my personal fantasies.
I have a few complaints though; the headshot must've been done with a really low power weapon or something--no pink mist. The recon takes stupid long to actually pull the trigger, and when he addresses the cameraman you can see his finger is on the trigger at all times. But other than that...POP, haha!
This actually fits in VERY well with my personal fantasies.
I have a few complaints though; the headshot must've been done with a really low power weapon or something--no pink mist. The recon takes stupid long to actually pull the trigger, and when he addresses the cameraman you can see his finger is on the trigger at all times. But other than that...POP, haha!
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
A View on Gay Marriage
Derived from the conversation I posted with Winter, below.
(Also, I've noted biromantic tendencies in myself, so don't shoot me.)
1) For all the bluster on all sides of the aisle on "the definition of marriage", the definition is theoretically a very simple one: "a legal contract [traditionally considered between a man and a women, but that's subject to change] acknowledging the existence of a relationship, and restricting the terms of said relationship for the benefit of a third party", that third party being the government, the tribe, the future children, etc.. There's a metric butt-ton of detritus over tax breaks and visitation rights that have accumulated around this definition by various laws, but the essential core of marriage is the part I just put in quotes.
2) Having said THAT, the very term "gay marriage" suddenly becomes something of a contradiction. Implicit in the "gay" part is an EXPANSION of legally recognized relationships, expanding the choice of who can be in a consenting relationship with whom. Implicit in the "marriage" part is a RESTRICTION on the terms of such a consenting relationship; in a religious society, this may include absolute monogamy or certain divisions of care of house and home, and in more legal societies this includes splitting property ownership rights and debt obligations in a certain manner BY LAW. Thus, while I can support "gay marriage" viscerally, as an expansion of freedom, I cannot support it "intellectually", or speculate how it could be implemented, because the very term simultaneously implies an EXPANSION AND A RESTRICTION on the nature of relationships!
(It's possible that a significant number of gay couples feel the same way, as this study suggests:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf
It notes that, in all those countries and states where gay marriage is legal, very few couples actually take up the offer; perhaps the rest see marriage as an unwanted restriction on their relationship?)
Update, 9/2: After much conversation with Winter, again, it's noted that there is no contradiction if what is being discussed is the CHOICE of marriage, rather than the actual marrying, such that the couples can decide for themselves whether they like the chains or not. Fair enough, but once those advocates shift to suggesting the actual CONTRACT is a great win for their freedoms...see above.
She also said, and I quote: "clear definitions are luxuries ^_^" and that engies and scientists, in particular, need to dodge this. One, look who's talking, sound techie! Two...eh, another post.
(Also, I've noted biromantic tendencies in myself, so don't shoot me.)
1) For all the bluster on all sides of the aisle on "the definition of marriage", the definition is theoretically a very simple one: "a legal contract [traditionally considered between a man and a women, but that's subject to change] acknowledging the existence of a relationship, and restricting the terms of said relationship for the benefit of a third party", that third party being the government, the tribe, the future children, etc.. There's a metric butt-ton of detritus over tax breaks and visitation rights that have accumulated around this definition by various laws, but the essential core of marriage is the part I just put in quotes.
2) Having said THAT, the very term "gay marriage" suddenly becomes something of a contradiction. Implicit in the "gay" part is an EXPANSION of legally recognized relationships, expanding the choice of who can be in a consenting relationship with whom. Implicit in the "marriage" part is a RESTRICTION on the terms of such a consenting relationship; in a religious society, this may include absolute monogamy or certain divisions of care of house and home, and in more legal societies this includes splitting property ownership rights and debt obligations in a certain manner BY LAW. Thus, while I can support "gay marriage" viscerally, as an expansion of freedom, I cannot support it "intellectually", or speculate how it could be implemented, because the very term simultaneously implies an EXPANSION AND A RESTRICTION on the nature of relationships!
(It's possible that a significant number of gay couples feel the same way, as this study suggests:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf
It notes that, in all those countries and states where gay marriage is legal, very few couples actually take up the offer; perhaps the rest see marriage as an unwanted restriction on their relationship?)
Update, 9/2: After much conversation with Winter, again, it's noted that there is no contradiction if what is being discussed is the CHOICE of marriage, rather than the actual marrying, such that the couples can decide for themselves whether they like the chains or not. Fair enough, but once those advocates shift to suggesting the actual CONTRACT is a great win for their freedoms...see above.
She also said, and I quote: "clear definitions are luxuries ^_^" and that engies and scientists, in particular, need to dodge this. One, look who's talking, sound techie! Two...eh, another post.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Laugh or Cry? I'm Laughing.
It looks like those hybrid cars that claim to conserve limited resources of oil merely swap out one limiting resource for another.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQyMjgyOTY0YmU2ZGMzN2ZhODc5ZWVkMjM2NzhmY2M=
Of course, odds are, by the time the rare earth thing becomes an immediate problem we'll have a substitute. But couldn't we say the same thing about oil?
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQyMjgyOTY0YmU2ZGMzN2ZhODc5ZWVkMjM2NzhmY2M=
Of course, odds are, by the time the rare earth thing becomes an immediate problem we'll have a substitute. But couldn't we say the same thing about oil?
Yeah, That Looks About Right
Add this to the "my political opinions" post I made earlier. Notably, the compass site thing (www.politicalcompass.com) suggested that that point is pretty darn close to Milton Friedman
(which is about as close to a Gordon Freeman joke as you're gonna get!) so yay!
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Any Sufficiently Analysed Magic...
...is indistinguishable from SCIENCE!
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205
New favorite quote. I'll use it on any pseudoscientists who allege we can't see "beyond" or "into" their special tricks.
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205
New favorite quote. I'll use it on any pseudoscientists who allege we can't see "beyond" or "into" their special tricks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
