http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36077879/ns/world_news-europe/
Gotta say, though, that my favorite part was
"Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who built much of his political capital by directing a fierce war with Chechen separatists a decade ago, vowed that "terrorists will be destroyed." "
Oh, and this part.
" "This is a direct affront to Vladimir Putin, whose entire rise to power was built on his pledge to crush the enemies of Russia," Eyal added. "
Man, would I not want to be a Chechen separatist right now. I love Putin.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Stop it! Stop it stop it stop it!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/business/26housing.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1269612039-7HXzWiYyyDHWzMauXIs63w
A couple of things that really, really bother me.
"This much was clear, however: the plan, if successful, could put taxpayers at increased risk. If many additional borrowers move into F.H.A. loans, a renewed downturn in the housing market could send that government agency into the red."
Well consider why this was such an issue in the first place! Buyers are trying to acquire houses they can't afford, goaded on by greedy real estate agents (and a lot of scammers, my family new people who actually encouraged people to find ways to appear as though they could afford houses they really couldn't). Now you're creating overly complex laws and refinancing mortgages to help these people? And on top of that, its a plan that could screw over tax payers if the housing market takes a turn for the worst?
"The F.H.A. has already expanded its mortgage-guarantee program substantially in the last three years as the housing crisis deepened. It now insures more than six million borrowers, many of whom made minimal down payments and are now underwater."
Oh, thrilling.
"Another element of the White House’s housing program will require lenders to offer unemployed borrowers a reduction in their payments for a minimum of three months."
Well, its nice to know the size of the gun we'll be using to shoot ourselves in the foot.
"An administration official declined to speak on the record about the new programs but said they would “better assist responsible homeowners who have been affected by the economic crisis through no fault of their own.” "
-This in particular has Omega written all over it. Please, Omega, edit this post and provide your own commentary. If you can't edit it, let me know and I'll figure out what buttons I have to push to give you permission.
Wait, wait wait wait..... "I can't say anything about what these programs are, but trust me. They're going to be totally awesome. It'll save all those poor people who bought a house they can't afford, and there will be cake for everyone."
I'm.... Honestly not sure where I can start here. Sorry Damios, but my mind shut down trying to understand what type of thought process these people had to be going through to consider this a good idea..... Although it probably doesn't help that I'm one of those people whose response to the housing crisis is, "Well, then you shouldn't have been spending money you don't have! That's just common sense! Unless you're in the government!"
....
My god. The recession was caused by the average citizen becoming like our government. That explains a lot more than I would have liked it to.
"The new initiatives would expand the government’s current mortgage modification plan, announced a year ago with great fanfare. It has resulted in fewer than 200,000 people getting permanent new loans. As many as seven million borrowers are seriously delinquent on their loans and at risk of foreclosure."
Ok, so its a VERY big gun.
"While fewer people are beginning default, the number of borrowers who are seriously distressed is rising. In the fourth quarter, the number of households at least 90 days past due on their mortgages swelled by 270,000, according to a report issued Thursday by the comptroller of the currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision."
It's not even a gun anymore. We have taped a brick of C4 to our foot.
A couple of things that really, really bother me.
"This much was clear, however: the plan, if successful, could put taxpayers at increased risk. If many additional borrowers move into F.H.A. loans, a renewed downturn in the housing market could send that government agency into the red."
Well consider why this was such an issue in the first place! Buyers are trying to acquire houses they can't afford, goaded on by greedy real estate agents (and a lot of scammers, my family new people who actually encouraged people to find ways to appear as though they could afford houses they really couldn't). Now you're creating overly complex laws and refinancing mortgages to help these people? And on top of that, its a plan that could screw over tax payers if the housing market takes a turn for the worst?
"The F.H.A. has already expanded its mortgage-guarantee program substantially in the last three years as the housing crisis deepened. It now insures more than six million borrowers, many of whom made minimal down payments and are now underwater."
Oh, thrilling.
"Another element of the White House’s housing program will require lenders to offer unemployed borrowers a reduction in their payments for a minimum of three months."
Well, its nice to know the size of the gun we'll be using to shoot ourselves in the foot.
"An administration official declined to speak on the record about the new programs but said they would “better assist responsible homeowners who have been affected by the economic crisis through no fault of their own.” "
-This in particular has Omega written all over it. Please, Omega, edit this post and provide your own commentary. If you can't edit it, let me know and I'll figure out what buttons I have to push to give you permission.
Wait, wait wait wait..... "I can't say anything about what these programs are, but trust me. They're going to be totally awesome. It'll save all those poor people who bought a house they can't afford, and there will be cake for everyone."
I'm.... Honestly not sure where I can start here. Sorry Damios, but my mind shut down trying to understand what type of thought process these people had to be going through to consider this a good idea..... Although it probably doesn't help that I'm one of those people whose response to the housing crisis is, "Well, then you shouldn't have been spending money you don't have! That's just common sense! Unless you're in the government!"
....
My god. The recession was caused by the average citizen becoming like our government. That explains a lot more than I would have liked it to.
"The new initiatives would expand the government’s current mortgage modification plan, announced a year ago with great fanfare. It has resulted in fewer than 200,000 people getting permanent new loans. As many as seven million borrowers are seriously delinquent on their loans and at risk of foreclosure."
Ok, so its a VERY big gun.
"While fewer people are beginning default, the number of borrowers who are seriously distressed is rising. In the fourth quarter, the number of households at least 90 days past due on their mortgages swelled by 270,000, according to a report issued Thursday by the comptroller of the currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision."
It's not even a gun anymore. We have taped a brick of C4 to our foot.
A Failure of Statistics
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/7508945/Facebook-linked-to-rise-in-syphilis.html
According to this article, increased use of Facebook is causing an increase of people diagnosed with syphilis in Britain. Because as we all know, STDs have evolved to the point where they can now travel down the Internet's Tubes and reach us.
One of the most important rules of statistics is that correlation does not mean causation. That means that, just because one statistic is rising at the same time as another, they aren't related. It's one of the most basic rules, and yet it seems to be the one most often ignored. And these people are being employed by their government....
According to this article, increased use of Facebook is causing an increase of people diagnosed with syphilis in Britain. Because as we all know, STDs have evolved to the point where they can now travel down the Internet's Tubes and reach us.
One of the most important rules of statistics is that correlation does not mean causation. That means that, just because one statistic is rising at the same time as another, they aren't related. It's one of the most basic rules, and yet it seems to be the one most often ignored. And these people are being employed by their government....
Thursday, March 25, 2010
I feel as though for once, justice was served
Sometimes you just have to acknowledge that even something particularly illegal is just so mind-numbingly awesome, so incredible, so absolutely fantastic, that its perpetrator deserves not only total exemption from punishment, but a pat on the back, a free beer, and your future daughter's virginity. I'm talking about this;
Whoever you are sir...let me just say...it would be an honor for me to make a statue of you.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Homophobia is a disease
Well, I'm certainly enjoying the social justice review webpage my professor posted up. To be fair, he's on the side of gay rights, but he is forced to present all sides of an argument, as retarded as they can be. Some fun little gems I've read so far in the first article.
===================================================
"Hello everyone and welcome to the Vortex, where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed."
Actually your vortex logo was more of a tornado type of vortex, which actually throws things around haphazardly and actually obscures everything that gets sucked up within it because of the massive amounts of detritus it swallows up. And yet, the metaphor is now, probably, more accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"True or false, justice means treating everyone equally? If you answered true, you get the big >.<>Y. The law is "equal" because it is applied to both fairly, so that if the murderer had stolen instead of killed, he would get Y punishment. INEQUALITY is if X penalty is applied to the first person regardless of his crime. It unfairly restricts him and forces him into a punishment mold for something he's not responsible for, judging him as a person rather than judging him for his crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So what is justice? Its giving to each according to his due. It has nothing to do with equality or equal rights."
Ummmm...are you retarded? Equal rights is how we ensure we get what is DUE, as opposed to what is UNDUE. Without equal rights, we can punish and reward anyone for any reason other than what's due to them, or what they deserve. Is punishing someone for being a different race giving them their due? No, but without equal rights, its easy to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Homosexuals CANNOT be married because it is impossible, by nature. There is no such thing as gay marriage. That is why opponents call it 'so-called gay marriage.' "
In terms of "nature," there is no such thing as MARRIAGE. PERIOD. It's an INSTITUTION created BY SOCIETIES. SOCIETIES ARE NOT LIVING ORGANISMS. They are NOT composed of cells and governed by biological CONSTRUCTS. Other animals DO NOT GET MARRIED. Only WE do, when live in GROUPS and have LAWS.
But no, I know exactly where you got this sad line of reasoning. It was a "sacred institution" defined by "God?" And God created "nature?" Those of us that believe not at all in "God" creating "marriage" don't feel the need to be subjected to your spiritual tyranny, please and thanks. I don't believe God created marriage. So there. Next?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And what is it [marriage] about? Sexual union that brings about the next generation."
This just in. The Catholic church wants to ban weddings between infertile couples. Where does this put single parents?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is why every government in every history of the world, even the most simple tribes, regulate marriage. Free love, pairing up with whomever you want for however long you want for essentially whatever reason you want, destroys societies...eventually. A 'do whatever you want' attitude in sexual matters eventually brings societies to their end. Always has. Always will."
Gonna go with "no" on this one. Greece wasn't destroyed because homosexuality was common. It had more to do with the fact that it was a bunch of decentralized city-states with access to very few natural resources, which made it an easy target for invading forces. And despite this, they produced one of the greatest civilizations of all time. We owe modern science to them, including our understanding of physics, rudimentary biology, geometry, and other wonderful mathematical principles. Hell the way we go about learning things is owed to a society run by men who had sex with women and other men and children. Sex had nothing to do with their downfall, and we use their knowledge to this day. The New Testament was first written in Greek!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the western democracies where individual rights are celebrated as the 'highest good possible,' the idea of the 'common good' is obliterated."
Well, I appreciate you for your honesty and openness in your desire to subjugate me and people who think like me, but this just makes me think you don't actually understand how our country came to be. People don't exist to serve governments, governments exist to serve people. Read John Locke, please. His Two Treatises of Government pretty much explains Western Democratic tradition, as he pretty much developed it as we know it to this day, and his social contract theory pretty much proves you're exceedingly ignorant about the country you live in. Don't want gay marriage? Move. We're not going to undo our glorious history so a religiously-inspired Xtian idiot like you gets to have is way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A simple look around shows what happens once families begin to break down. Emotional suffering of children, financial ruin, on and on..."
Yes. And as we all know, heterosexuals never, EVER create dysfunctional families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When it comes to feeling the consequences of our actions, there's something worth noting, and I call it 'the lag factor.' You know, almost always, if you break a physical law of nature, the consequences are virtually immediate. Jumping off a cliff, consuming poison, sticking your hand in the fire...in each of these cases, a physical law is being violated, and sentence is passed immediately."
Not only is it pretty much impossible to break a law of nature, none of the above-mentioned are laws of nature. The Law of Conservation of Energy is a law of nature. Unless you sticking your hand in a fire creates matter or energy from nothing, you aren't violating anything. You're just an idiot. Jumping off a cliff is not a violation of the laws of nature. Gravity is a law of nature. If you jump off a cliff and get stuck in mid air because gravity stops working, a law is broken. Hitting the ground isn't a "consequence" of breaking "the law." It's the law working itself out. I suddenly understand why your people still think "Intelligent Design" deserves a place in science class.
===================================================
"Likewise, the surgeon general determined that with or without protection, homosexual anal intercourse practice is just too dangerous and therefore not recommended."
But unprotected heterosexual anal intercourse is perfectly safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lesbians generally do not seek conventional healthcare and therefore are a greater health risk."
As do the poor and working class. Deny their rights!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are many other things to consider as well. For example, over one third of homosexuals are substance abusers. "
Yes, the two are directly related, you see. Much like how Harry Potter leads to Satanism. And consequently, higher literacy rates! See children, reading leads you to the thrall of the Devil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Furthermore, they are more likely to suffer from gender identify confusion."
Catholics are more likely to suffer from Acute Grammatical Failure went confronted with uncomfortable topics like sex between two men.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They are also more likely to have mental health conditions such as eating disorders, personality disorders, paranoia, depression and anxiety."
That has nothing to do with the fact that the media bombards them with experts and religionists trying to convince them that their most primitive emotions will condemn them to Hell, lead to AIDS, demolish families, and destroy America and freedom for all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gay relationships are not sexually exclusive, and therefore yield higher chances of being emotionally destructive."
Is that a rule? If you're in a gay relationship, you aren't allowed to be exclusive? Huh. Maybe my understanding of the word "Gay" differs from yours...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Homosexual males and females alternate roles during sexual activity. There are usually no strict ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ roles,” according to research.17 This merely shows that the homosexual identify is confused."
Again? Well at least you're consistent in your messed up grammar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lesbians experience more “fusion” or “embeddedness” within their primary relationships, which occurs more frequent, and in greater intensity the longer the relationship is."
My Gods, do these people not have editors?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The researchers found that each lesbian partner has no solid sense of self."
Lesbians lack sentience! NOOOOOO!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At the same time, there is a problem of competition in the lesbian relationship. The problem occurs when one partner begins to feel that she has become lost in her partner, again a demonstration of “embeddedness.”"
Are you kidding? You've obviously never listened to the Cure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PZcgi4c5XQ
In fact, using those standards, lesbians are downright healthy compared to Cure fans. At least there's an actual person to be lost in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAr_4Fxe6WI
Yeah, the only thing I got out of that is when lesbians do it, it's unhealthy. When straight people do it, it's romantic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Individuals within the relationships are often confused about their personal role within the relationship. Finally, they are indeed unlike heterosexual relationships for many reasons."
No, that's any relationship. Especially in the modern era. Gender roles are being challenged now that women are entering the work force. Turns out they're good for something besides making babies. Who'da thought?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"From these findings and others, it is clear to see that homosexuals are the diametrically opposite of heterosexuals overall."
Oh, good, you've noticed the obvious. At this point, I've given up poking fun at your grammar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For lesbians, domestic violence will be the highlight within the marriage."
I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that lesbians, as a rule, don't look forward to domestic violence, and probably don't consider it a "highlight" of their relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Aggressive behavior is legendary in homosexuality."
Yeah, I remember hearing about that time Perez Hilton punched that huge rapper guy in the face. Wait...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One study compared 75 self-identified heterosexual women with 55 self-identified lesbians who were demographically similar. Twenty-seven percent of heterosexual women reported abuse by their male partners, while 25% of lesbians reported abuse by their female partners. Statistically this is not significant; however, there is a difference between heterosexual women and homosexual women in how frequent their committed partner physically abused them. As the study showed, the level of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships is as high as it is in heterosexual relationships (statistically), but this doesn’t reveal the real factors involved, one being that when it comes to domestic violence, men are overall more violent than women. Therefore, given the gender factor, the statistics should be a lot lower for female dyads compared to heterosexual ones, but as the study showed, they were not. "
Interesting. This might be the closest thing you've raised to a valid point thus far (without having your sources checked out that is). Except...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Another research project found that violence in lesbian dyads appeared to occur at about the same frequency as violence in heterosexual dyads, but the factors that gave rise to the abuse in lesbian dyads was significantly different."
Yay, contradictions!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Given their history, gay men will not stay in monogamous relationships and therefore are not good candidates for marriage. "
Neither do politicians or rockstars. Should we deny them the right to marry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that was fun. I'm not going to waste my time searching through their research, because quite honestly it isn't worth the time or effort. I really don't care all of that is true. Nor will I dignify this by offering any counter-links (besides the Cure, though I already feel bad for including them in this charade). At the end of the day, its still a fundamental right and an attempt by the state to emphasize one religion over another. What will they do if I decide to hold a religious, non-legal ceremony for a homosexual couple? What are they going to do, stop me? Are legal benefits the only thing they care about? Can't the so-called "negative consequences" of "homosexual marriage" occur just with two homosexuals in a relationship? Are we going to ban homosexuality? Hah! Good luck with that.
Part two is an awesome video. I recommend watching it once before reading. It's called "Why Gay Marriage Is Impossible." Which makes me wonder how the countries which do allow gay marriage are doing it...
"Likewise, the surgeon general determined that with or without protection, homosexual anal intercourse practice is just too dangerous and therefore not recommended."
But unprotected heterosexual anal intercourse is perfectly safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lesbians generally do not seek conventional healthcare and therefore are a greater health risk."
As do the poor and working class. Deny their rights!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There are many other things to consider as well. For example, over one third of homosexuals are substance abusers. "
Yes, the two are directly related, you see. Much like how Harry Potter leads to Satanism. And consequently, higher literacy rates! See children, reading leads you to the thrall of the Devil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Furthermore, they are more likely to suffer from gender identify confusion."
Catholics are more likely to suffer from Acute Grammatical Failure went confronted with uncomfortable topics like sex between two men.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They are also more likely to have mental health conditions such as eating disorders, personality disorders, paranoia, depression and anxiety."
That has nothing to do with the fact that the media bombards them with experts and religionists trying to convince them that their most primitive emotions will condemn them to Hell, lead to AIDS, demolish families, and destroy America and freedom for all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gay relationships are not sexually exclusive, and therefore yield higher chances of being emotionally destructive."
Is that a rule? If you're in a gay relationship, you aren't allowed to be exclusive? Huh. Maybe my understanding of the word "Gay" differs from yours...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Homosexual males and females alternate roles during sexual activity. There are usually no strict ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ roles,” according to research.17 This merely shows that the homosexual identify is confused."
Again? Well at least you're consistent in your messed up grammar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lesbians experience more “fusion” or “embeddedness” within their primary relationships, which occurs more frequent, and in greater intensity the longer the relationship is."
My Gods, do these people not have editors?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The researchers found that each lesbian partner has no solid sense of self."
Lesbians lack sentience! NOOOOOO!!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"At the same time, there is a problem of competition in the lesbian relationship. The problem occurs when one partner begins to feel that she has become lost in her partner, again a demonstration of “embeddedness.”"
Are you kidding? You've obviously never listened to the Cure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PZcgi4c5XQ
In fact, using those standards, lesbians are downright healthy compared to Cure fans. At least there's an actual person to be lost in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAr_4Fxe6WI
Yeah, the only thing I got out of that is when lesbians do it, it's unhealthy. When straight people do it, it's romantic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Individuals within the relationships are often confused about their personal role within the relationship. Finally, they are indeed unlike heterosexual relationships for many reasons."
No, that's any relationship. Especially in the modern era. Gender roles are being challenged now that women are entering the work force. Turns out they're good for something besides making babies. Who'da thought?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"From these findings and others, it is clear to see that homosexuals are the diametrically opposite of heterosexuals overall."
Oh, good, you've noticed the obvious. At this point, I've given up poking fun at your grammar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For lesbians, domestic violence will be the highlight within the marriage."
I'm gonna go on a limb here and say that lesbians, as a rule, don't look forward to domestic violence, and probably don't consider it a "highlight" of their relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Aggressive behavior is legendary in homosexuality."
Yeah, I remember hearing about that time Perez Hilton punched that huge rapper guy in the face. Wait...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One study compared 75 self-identified heterosexual women with 55 self-identified lesbians who were demographically similar. Twenty-seven percent of heterosexual women reported abuse by their male partners, while 25% of lesbians reported abuse by their female partners. Statistically this is not significant; however, there is a difference between heterosexual women and homosexual women in how frequent their committed partner physically abused them. As the study showed, the level of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships is as high as it is in heterosexual relationships (statistically), but this doesn’t reveal the real factors involved, one being that when it comes to domestic violence, men are overall more violent than women. Therefore, given the gender factor, the statistics should be a lot lower for female dyads compared to heterosexual ones, but as the study showed, they were not. "
Interesting. This might be the closest thing you've raised to a valid point thus far (without having your sources checked out that is). Except...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Another research project found that violence in lesbian dyads appeared to occur at about the same frequency as violence in heterosexual dyads, but the factors that gave rise to the abuse in lesbian dyads was significantly different."
Yay, contradictions!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Given their history, gay men will not stay in monogamous relationships and therefore are not good candidates for marriage. "
Neither do politicians or rockstars. Should we deny them the right to marry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that was fun. I'm not going to waste my time searching through their research, because quite honestly it isn't worth the time or effort. I really don't care all of that is true. Nor will I dignify this by offering any counter-links (besides the Cure, though I already feel bad for including them in this charade). At the end of the day, its still a fundamental right and an attempt by the state to emphasize one religion over another. What will they do if I decide to hold a religious, non-legal ceremony for a homosexual couple? What are they going to do, stop me? Are legal benefits the only thing they care about? Can't the so-called "negative consequences" of "homosexual marriage" occur just with two homosexuals in a relationship? Are we going to ban homosexuality? Hah! Good luck with that.
Part two is an awesome video. I recommend watching it once before reading. It's called "Why Gay Marriage Is Impossible." Which makes me wonder how the countries which do allow gay marriage are doing it...
===================================================
"Hello everyone and welcome to the Vortex, where lies and falsehoods are trapped and exposed."
Actually your vortex logo was more of a tornado type of vortex, which actually throws things around haphazardly and actually obscures everything that gets sucked up within it because of the massive amounts of detritus it swallows up. And yet, the metaphor is now, probably, more accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"True or false, justice means treating everyone equally? If you answered true, you get the big >.<>Y. The law is "equal" because it is applied to both fairly, so that if the murderer had stolen instead of killed, he would get Y punishment. INEQUALITY is if X penalty is applied to the first person regardless of his crime. It unfairly restricts him and forces him into a punishment mold for something he's not responsible for, judging him as a person rather than judging him for his crime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So what is justice? Its giving to each according to his due. It has nothing to do with equality or equal rights."
Ummmm...are you retarded? Equal rights is how we ensure we get what is DUE, as opposed to what is UNDUE. Without equal rights, we can punish and reward anyone for any reason other than what's due to them, or what they deserve. Is punishing someone for being a different race giving them their due? No, but without equal rights, its easy to do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Homosexuals CANNOT be married because it is impossible, by nature. There is no such thing as gay marriage. That is why opponents call it 'so-called gay marriage.' "
In terms of "nature," there is no such thing as MARRIAGE. PERIOD. It's an INSTITUTION created BY SOCIETIES. SOCIETIES ARE NOT LIVING ORGANISMS. They are NOT composed of cells and governed by biological CONSTRUCTS. Other animals DO NOT GET MARRIED. Only WE do, when live in GROUPS and have LAWS.
But no, I know exactly where you got this sad line of reasoning. It was a "sacred institution" defined by "God?" And God created "nature?" Those of us that believe not at all in "God" creating "marriage" don't feel the need to be subjected to your spiritual tyranny, please and thanks. I don't believe God created marriage. So there. Next?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And what is it [marriage] about? Sexual union that brings about the next generation."
This just in. The Catholic church wants to ban weddings between infertile couples. Where does this put single parents?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is why every government in every history of the world, even the most simple tribes, regulate marriage. Free love, pairing up with whomever you want for however long you want for essentially whatever reason you want, destroys societies...eventually. A 'do whatever you want' attitude in sexual matters eventually brings societies to their end. Always has. Always will."
Gonna go with "no" on this one. Greece wasn't destroyed because homosexuality was common. It had more to do with the fact that it was a bunch of decentralized city-states with access to very few natural resources, which made it an easy target for invading forces. And despite this, they produced one of the greatest civilizations of all time. We owe modern science to them, including our understanding of physics, rudimentary biology, geometry, and other wonderful mathematical principles. Hell the way we go about learning things is owed to a society run by men who had sex with women and other men and children. Sex had nothing to do with their downfall, and we use their knowledge to this day. The New Testament was first written in Greek!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the western democracies where individual rights are celebrated as the 'highest good possible,' the idea of the 'common good' is obliterated."
Well, I appreciate you for your honesty and openness in your desire to subjugate me and people who think like me, but this just makes me think you don't actually understand how our country came to be. People don't exist to serve governments, governments exist to serve people. Read John Locke, please. His Two Treatises of Government pretty much explains Western Democratic tradition, as he pretty much developed it as we know it to this day, and his social contract theory pretty much proves you're exceedingly ignorant about the country you live in. Don't want gay marriage? Move. We're not going to undo our glorious history so a religiously-inspired Xtian idiot like you gets to have is way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A simple look around shows what happens once families begin to break down. Emotional suffering of children, financial ruin, on and on..."
Yes. And as we all know, heterosexuals never, EVER create dysfunctional families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When it comes to feeling the consequences of our actions, there's something worth noting, and I call it 'the lag factor.' You know, almost always, if you break a physical law of nature, the consequences are virtually immediate. Jumping off a cliff, consuming poison, sticking your hand in the fire...in each of these cases, a physical law is being violated, and sentence is passed immediately."
Not only is it pretty much impossible to break a law of nature, none of the above-mentioned are laws of nature. The Law of Conservation of Energy is a law of nature. Unless you sticking your hand in a fire creates matter or energy from nothing, you aren't violating anything. You're just an idiot. Jumping off a cliff is not a violation of the laws of nature. Gravity is a law of nature. If you jump off a cliff and get stuck in mid air because gravity stops working, a law is broken. Hitting the ground isn't a "consequence" of breaking "the law." It's the law working itself out. I suddenly understand why your people still think "Intelligent Design" deserves a place in science class.
I also like how you said "almost always." I guess every now and then, laws of nature are actually breakable. Fancy that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But when a moral law..."
Moral law? If you mean this as a natural law, there's no such thing as "natural moral law." Morals are also created by societies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...is violated, there is often a lag between crime and punishment. The adulturer, for example,is rarely caught in the act. The murderer often escapes justice for a prolonged period. And so it is with societies when we collectively make immoral choices there is often a time down the road when its too late, that the consequences finally exact their toll."
*sigh*
I was hoping you didn't actually think morality was something "nature" enforced. But you do. Morals are made by people. In the above-mentioned examples, "justice" is distributed by governments. Murderers don't escape because of some imaginary "lag factor" in nature. Murderers escape because they plan to not get caught, and because humans are human and prone to making mistakes, and because investigation takes time. If you really wanna play this game, I'd like to point out that some of the most characterful, colorful, in-your-face serial killers were never caught, and in fact waved their crimes in front of the police. The Zodiac Killer, Jack the Ripper, and others have all escaped "moral law." These laws don't have any effect on society. We were pals with Josef Stalin during World War II, and the man died peacefully in his sleep. Countries with approved homosexual marriage licenses are doing just fine right now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now, little by little, after a sinister marketing and public relations campaign where homosexual activists have gotten many Americans to see their case a matter of 'justice,'..."
How dare they!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...now, courts and legislatures are beginning to grant their sexual liasons the status of legal marriage. They claim this to be a triumph of individual rights. In truth, no right exists. Many people in society do not have the right to marry as they see fit. Marriage is composed of the foundational elements of 'number' and 'gender.' "
Yeah, pointless argument about how eventually we'll regress back to polygamy and bestiality...
1. I'm sure similar arguments were raised when different-race marriage was a big issue.
http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~jkyser1/histrel.html
2. Unless they want a modified contract, I'd argue the polygamy isn't likely to go. Considering how powerful some of the marriage rights are, being able to disseminate them across large groups of people is not a good thing. Spousal privileges to not inform law enforcement about anything relating to their spouse is not something that should be spread to multiple people. But gender has no effect on this.
3. Bestiality? Uhhh dude...dunno if anyone's told you, but animals have no legal standing to sign contracts in the USA...
4. Incest. Seriously?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And perhaps the loudest talking point of all, none of these unions are begetting the next generation and THAT should be the state's primary concern. In the tiny minority that employ a surrogate mother to carry someone else's child to term-not the couple's child mind you-someone else's child, there are often times legal wranglings between the surrogate mothers and the gays explode."
I refer back to my barren partners argument. Oh, and barren couples often employ the same techniques to end up having children that lesbian couples do, so the problems raised are not standard to homosexual marriages, simply marriages where individuals can't give birth. You really wanna crack down on the rights of those who are biologically incapable of producing children by defect?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And in the cases of children raised by gays, who is looking out for the rights of the child? We cannot speak of an all-encompassing right to marry, but we can certainly speak about a much broader right of a child to be raised in a natural home by a mother and a father. The way nature has ORDAINED it to be."
There you go again with your kooky nature God. No, homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature. And considering the number of abusive parents out there in the real world, I'd rather know that a child is in the arms of a loving gay couple rather than being beaten and/or raped by their straight parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No one denies the pain and...differentness...that homosexuals will encounter and struggle with. A compassionate society, and certainly every society can be more compassionate and loving towards all its members, reaches out and helps those in the greatest need, especially when the need is not of their own making."
Logic death. If gays are not responsible for their "differentness" (and your use of that word is what made me want to beat you down with my own two hands) then who do you blame? Your infallible nature-God that made it a law you can't jump off cliffs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest isn't worth mentioning. Fun exercise though.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But when a moral law..."
Moral law? If you mean this as a natural law, there's no such thing as "natural moral law." Morals are also created by societies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...is violated, there is often a lag between crime and punishment. The adulturer, for example,is rarely caught in the act. The murderer often escapes justice for a prolonged period. And so it is with societies when we collectively make immoral choices there is often a time down the road when its too late, that the consequences finally exact their toll."
*sigh*
I was hoping you didn't actually think morality was something "nature" enforced. But you do. Morals are made by people. In the above-mentioned examples, "justice" is distributed by governments. Murderers don't escape because of some imaginary "lag factor" in nature. Murderers escape because they plan to not get caught, and because humans are human and prone to making mistakes, and because investigation takes time. If you really wanna play this game, I'd like to point out that some of the most characterful, colorful, in-your-face serial killers were never caught, and in fact waved their crimes in front of the police. The Zodiac Killer, Jack the Ripper, and others have all escaped "moral law." These laws don't have any effect on society. We were pals with Josef Stalin during World War II, and the man died peacefully in his sleep. Countries with approved homosexual marriage licenses are doing just fine right now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now, little by little, after a sinister marketing and public relations campaign where homosexual activists have gotten many Americans to see their case a matter of 'justice,'..."
How dare they!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...now, courts and legislatures are beginning to grant their sexual liasons the status of legal marriage. They claim this to be a triumph of individual rights. In truth, no right exists. Many people in society do not have the right to marry as they see fit. Marriage is composed of the foundational elements of 'number' and 'gender.' "
Yeah, pointless argument about how eventually we'll regress back to polygamy and bestiality...
1. I'm sure similar arguments were raised when different-race marriage was a big issue.
http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~jkyser1/histrel.html
2. Unless they want a modified contract, I'd argue the polygamy isn't likely to go. Considering how powerful some of the marriage rights are, being able to disseminate them across large groups of people is not a good thing. Spousal privileges to not inform law enforcement about anything relating to their spouse is not something that should be spread to multiple people. But gender has no effect on this.
3. Bestiality? Uhhh dude...dunno if anyone's told you, but animals have no legal standing to sign contracts in the USA...
4. Incest. Seriously?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And perhaps the loudest talking point of all, none of these unions are begetting the next generation and THAT should be the state's primary concern. In the tiny minority that employ a surrogate mother to carry someone else's child to term-not the couple's child mind you-someone else's child, there are often times legal wranglings between the surrogate mothers and the gays explode."
I refer back to my barren partners argument. Oh, and barren couples often employ the same techniques to end up having children that lesbian couples do, so the problems raised are not standard to homosexual marriages, simply marriages where individuals can't give birth. You really wanna crack down on the rights of those who are biologically incapable of producing children by defect?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And in the cases of children raised by gays, who is looking out for the rights of the child? We cannot speak of an all-encompassing right to marry, but we can certainly speak about a much broader right of a child to be raised in a natural home by a mother and a father. The way nature has ORDAINED it to be."
There you go again with your kooky nature God. No, homosexuality is naturally occurring in nature. And considering the number of abusive parents out there in the real world, I'd rather know that a child is in the arms of a loving gay couple rather than being beaten and/or raped by their straight parents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No one denies the pain and...differentness...that homosexuals will encounter and struggle with. A compassionate society, and certainly every society can be more compassionate and loving towards all its members, reaches out and helps those in the greatest need, especially when the need is not of their own making."
Logic death. If gays are not responsible for their "differentness" (and your use of that word is what made me want to beat you down with my own two hands) then who do you blame? Your infallible nature-God that made it a law you can't jump off cliffs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest isn't worth mentioning. Fun exercise though.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Oh, and in other Video Game news
Huzzah for Kotaku! They're pretty much my go-to for any video game news. So check this out? A great exercise in story telling.
Brought to you by Jason Rohrer, fellow who's apparently designed other, rather artistic video games.
Original story that tipped me off.
Michael Atkinson no more!
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/21/australian-mature-game-detractor-michael-atkinson-stepping-down/
Huzzah!!!! Those who hate censorship, rejoice!
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Sex on my mind
Mostly bondage.
No, I'm not actually into it. Personally, its not my thing. I tend to separate my sex interests from every other aspect of my life, actually. So generally speaking if I like a particular something (a movie, a book series, video games, particular objects or works of art, anything at all honestly) I tend to keep it very, very isolated from sex. I don't know why, I guess its because I feel if you eroticize something, you're cheapening it. Like when people write erotic fanfictions of characters from books or movies or what-have-you. See, when they do that they focus on an element of a character that I feel isn't important. Characters, in novels and stories and the likes, deliver messages and act as important symbols. Sex just makes them plain and human. I mean, when authors do it they do it because they want to humanize them, yes. Otherwise they'd be unconvincing characters. But when fanfic erotica authors do it, they disregard the symbolism completely and just make them glorified porn actors. I'm sure somewhere out there someone thinks this is an unhealthy thing for me to be doing, separating/isolating everything I like from sex. It's probably true. Gods only know what this will mean when I'm actually with someone I care about. I don't particularly care though, because it least it means the purity of my real, intellectual interests remains intellectual and isn't stained (no pun intended) by simple animalistic desire.
And please don't think I hate sex. I don't. And I'd like to think I'm pretty open-minded about the whole thing. For example, I'm a firm believer in the Kinsey Scale. Dunno 'bout the Klein scale though. I also enjoy pain. It means I'm pushing my own boundaries. I like how my muscles ache after a good work out. I've also got a thing for violence, I'll admit. If you've read my blog response to a comment Ron Jeremy made a long time ago, you know that I support violence and conflict (physical, dangerous conflict) as a good thing. To an extent, of course.
The reason I'm writing all of this is because if you follow the logic presented earlier, you can probably tell I don't like mixing sex and violence in general. BDSM, Bondage, S&M, etc aren't really things that particularly strike my fancy. Which is why I find it so intriguing that I've read so many articles over the week about bondage. Now, to be fair I don't usually see it that often. Almost all the stories I've found have been links provided from other news sources. One such article I read, for example, was linked from an article about a particular breed of Jellyfish that may actually be immortal. And up at the top, an article about how more and more women in this economy are becoming Dominatrixes to supplement their income. Maybe there's just been an upswing in the amount of articles written about BDSM. Or, to take a Freudian perspective on this, maybe I just wasn't paying that much attention until now. Either way, I've read about 5 articles on the subject. Figured I'd share, as they are interesting regardless of your position on sex.
Can't find the fifth one. It was an interview of two dominatrixes. If I find it I'll post it later.
A Vote For Murray Hill Inc is a Vote For a Better America
In a recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decided that corporations have all the rights of individuals when it comes to campaign funding. Taking this to its extreme conclusion, a PR company named Murray Hill Inc. has decided that, if there’s no longer a limit to how much they can indirectly control politics, they might as well just make things simpler for everyone and do it directly. Exercising their new rights as a “corporate person”, Murray Hill is running for Congress in Maryland’s 8th district.
I think this is a landmark even in American history, and may signal an end to decades of persecution against corporate persons. No longer will corporate persons be treated as second class citizens, unable to assert their God-Given rights. At last, the dream of a perfect democracy and the dream of our founding fathers, where every vote has its appropriate market value, may become realized! It’s only a matter of time before other laws, designed solely with the intent to persecute corporate persons, become repealed. And maybe-just maybe- in another few decades…. A corporation for president? If Obama could do it, why not Microsoft?
But even with their noble goals, Murray Hill is having to fight an uphill battle against anti-corporate bigotry. Many have been quick to point out that Murray Hill, established only five years ago, does not meet the age requirements to run for Congress (At least 25 years old). But do age requirements really need apply to a corporate person? As stated on the Murray Hill campaign blog, “The constitution does not define how to calculate age, but simply states a minimum age. Corporations are not bodied persons because we are complete from day one and do not have a meaningful age in any way a bodied person would calculate. No infancy, no immaturity, no waiting until a corporation is 21 to buy beer. There is also no distinction between corporations on the basis of age, so a corporation does not ask an older corporation to buy beer on its behalf.” But to make things even worse, just this morning, Murray Hill announced that their registration had been rejected by the state of Maryland, due to the fact that they are a corporation, not a human being. What is this, the 50s? Barring someone from participating in our country’s fine democracy simply due to the fact that they aren’t a bodied person reeks of bigotry. Murray Hill has stated that they are preparing legal actions to defend their right as an American corporation to control our government. I ask all readers to put their full support behind Murray Hill Incorporated, in hopes that we may enact real change in our system, for a brighter future for us all.
(Note: I originally didn’t think I’d need this bit here, but after witnessing the reactions of many people whom I told this story to, I realized I had underestimated our culture’s belief that all corporations are mindless, evil abominations constantly scheming new ways to steal our freedom. Yes, Murray Hill Inc is a corporation that is running for a seat in the United States Congress. No, they are not doing it as a means to seize power for corporations all across America. Murray Hill’s campaign is a form of protest against the Supreme Court’s decision in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission”. They are doing this to bring more publicity to the matter, and their use of legal action is to bring the topic back into the courts, in an attempt to get the decision repealed. Amusing as it would be, they are not seriously trying to become elected. I spent 20 minutes arguing with a girl who was convinced that the Supreme Court and Murray Hill were working together on an evil scheme to seize control of the American government before I was finally able to convince her that they weren’t being serious about it. Come on, people. Their campaign video contains the line, “However, as much as corporate interests gave to politicians, we could never be absolutely sure they would do our bidding.” I think this country seriously needs to get its ability to detect sarcasm checked.)
I think this is a landmark even in American history, and may signal an end to decades of persecution against corporate persons. No longer will corporate persons be treated as second class citizens, unable to assert their God-Given rights. At last, the dream of a perfect democracy and the dream of our founding fathers, where every vote has its appropriate market value, may become realized! It’s only a matter of time before other laws, designed solely with the intent to persecute corporate persons, become repealed. And maybe-just maybe- in another few decades…. A corporation for president? If Obama could do it, why not Microsoft?
But even with their noble goals, Murray Hill is having to fight an uphill battle against anti-corporate bigotry. Many have been quick to point out that Murray Hill, established only five years ago, does not meet the age requirements to run for Congress (At least 25 years old). But do age requirements really need apply to a corporate person? As stated on the Murray Hill campaign blog, “The constitution does not define how to calculate age, but simply states a minimum age. Corporations are not bodied persons because we are complete from day one and do not have a meaningful age in any way a bodied person would calculate. No infancy, no immaturity, no waiting until a corporation is 21 to buy beer. There is also no distinction between corporations on the basis of age, so a corporation does not ask an older corporation to buy beer on its behalf.” But to make things even worse, just this morning, Murray Hill announced that their registration had been rejected by the state of Maryland, due to the fact that they are a corporation, not a human being. What is this, the 50s? Barring someone from participating in our country’s fine democracy simply due to the fact that they aren’t a bodied person reeks of bigotry. Murray Hill has stated that they are preparing legal actions to defend their right as an American corporation to control our government. I ask all readers to put their full support behind Murray Hill Incorporated, in hopes that we may enact real change in our system, for a brighter future for us all.
(Note: I originally didn’t think I’d need this bit here, but after witnessing the reactions of many people whom I told this story to, I realized I had underestimated our culture’s belief that all corporations are mindless, evil abominations constantly scheming new ways to steal our freedom. Yes, Murray Hill Inc is a corporation that is running for a seat in the United States Congress. No, they are not doing it as a means to seize power for corporations all across America. Murray Hill’s campaign is a form of protest against the Supreme Court’s decision in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission”. They are doing this to bring more publicity to the matter, and their use of legal action is to bring the topic back into the courts, in an attempt to get the decision repealed. Amusing as it would be, they are not seriously trying to become elected. I spent 20 minutes arguing with a girl who was convinced that the Supreme Court and Murray Hill were working together on an evil scheme to seize control of the American government before I was finally able to convince her that they weren’t being serious about it. Come on, people. Their campaign video contains the line, “However, as much as corporate interests gave to politicians, we could never be absolutely sure they would do our bidding.” I think this country seriously needs to get its ability to detect sarcasm checked.)
Hummer Limo? Really?
The development team from Yakuza 4 actually drove one of these as a bit of fancy advertisement.
What is the gas mileage for a Hummer Limo?
"Here are some reports on the H2's mileage: Motortrend gives it 12mpg; Car and Driver, 10mpg; About.com, 8.6mpg; Edmunds, 9.2mpg; and Four Wheeler, 10.8mpg. Let's just say nobody's riding in these limousines to cut back on greenhouse gases."
Monday, March 15, 2010
First Corporation to Run For Congress
The announcement: http://www.murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html
And their promotional video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA
Hell, they've got my vote. Cuts out the middleman. I'll write a more in depth article on this when I have the time (which may not be until Friday).
And their promotional video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA
Hell, they've got my vote. Cuts out the middleman. I'll write a more in depth article on this when I have the time (which may not be until Friday).
I Think We Need to Start Having Literacy Tests Before Allowing People Online
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login.php
Just skim over the article; it's not that important. The comments section is what you need to read. If you thought your faith in humanity couldn't get any worse..... It's about to.
Just skim over the article; it's not that important. The comments section is what you need to read. If you thought your faith in humanity couldn't get any worse..... It's about to.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Sid Meier, Video-Game Genius
http://kotaku.com/5492078/civilization-creator-explains-why-everything-game-devs-know-is-wrong
Perhaps one of the most insightful, and well thought out, lectures/speeches I've ever read. While I have minor disagreements based on personal preferences in some places, like the randomness of games (I think randomness can keep things fresh and force you to be more adaptable in your strategy, but there should still be a strong, clear structure to it) as a whole I think it really does highlight just about everything that's wrong with the video game world. Which is part of the reason I hold such mixed thoughts on Just Cause 2. On the one hand, I greatly dislike the control scheme, the combat is sort of meh, I'm easily frustrated by how few bullets I can use at a time, and the vehicle controls are not well designed (course I could be spoiled by GTA IV, I liked the driving controls for that), and gods-awful voice acting that makes me want to impale myself on a sword, but at the same time I love the simple fact that they are completely willing to destroy real-world physics for the sake of fun, create items that are completely non-existent just to toy with (grappling hook is so much fun), and know better than to actually, seriously try to make a story and cram it down our throats. Plus I actually liked the use of quicktime events in control panels. And it hits a good difficulty curve that makes it not especially difficult, but no cake walk.
Not to mention the fact that the commentary is brilliant at times as well. One person echoed my dislike of Quick-Time events for kill animations like in God of War (which I've always claimed was incredibly overrated, only played about half way through the first and considered it dull and uninspiring) or Darksiders.
To quote Kotaku commenter "ryoshi":
"Can someone please point this out to everybody who has made an action game this year, please? I understand that a videogame is an abstraction at best, but please, only abstract the parts that wouldn't be fun to play through myself. Don't give me single-buttons to execute powerful combos, don't make my character automatically react to cover, anddon't throw in quicktime-events, damnit. In recent years we've moved towards better graphics and animations and away from player control in most cases. In fact, the singular problem I have with the Just Cause 2 demo so far is the stupid QTE when you're hijacking a copter - I can shoot, I can grapple shit, why not let me handle that on my own? It's mostly excusable in that case, since clinging to the side of a helicopter is kind of a special case, but things like finishing off dudes with specials in GoW are frustrating. Sure, it's cool the first couple of times, but then you realize you're just mashing a button to execute an animation. (And before any pedantic idiots start groaning, "HURF DURF PUSHING BUTTONS IS WHAT VIDEOGAMES ARE," shut up, you know what I mean.)
Look at it this way: my favorite memory of Deus Ex was during my second playthrough, when I knew that after sending the signal to Paul all the UNATCO agents in that building would turn hostile. So I moved TNT crates around hole in the center of the level, rigged up some LAMs and gas grenades as mines, and then tossed another TNT crate down to the ground floor, creating an explosion that incinerated the entire UNATCO presence in the area. If I just had to hold down a button to rig up those explosives, or hit buttons in a sequence that pops up on screen, or anything of that sort, it's suddenly no longer memorable - it's no longer even my idea.
It's cool that games are moving towards some epic, cinematic stuff, but let's not forget that interactivity is the single thing separating a game from a movie to begin with. Every second that I have to push a button to complete some dumb canned animation is one less second I'm actually playing the game.
(Also: Please don't turn this into some QTE debate, I used them as an example for an overall paradigm shift. Yes, QTEs have their place. They're still used in lieu of actual gameplay in too many scenarios.)"
Misconceptions on Singularity
Several weeks ago (yes, I’ve been procrastinating), I attended a philosophy dialogue on the topic of the technological singularity. The singularity is a rather fun concept for me, especially when combined with my love of trans-humanism. I was first introduced to the concept through a webcomic; namely Dresden Codak (The story arc concerning the singularity can be found here), which is ironic given that much of what I am going to say is in contradiction to what the comic says (Also, intelligent as Kimiko is supposed to be in the comic, she apparently slept through the evolution part of her biology class).
So, what exactly is the technological singularity? The phrase comes from the physics term “gravitational singularity”, which refers to the point where the measurements of a gravitational field become infinite and our conventional understandings of it breaks down. The technological singularity is a point where our scientific advances have continued to accelerate, and reached a point where the rate of discovery makes it impossible for us to predict the future based on our conventional understandings of the world. The theory is based in a concept by the British mathematician I.J. Good, who put forth the idea that, if we were to create an intelligent machine, that machine could create a better version of itself, which could create a better version of itself, and so on, until we had machines capable of massive amounts of intelligence. The main point of proof people point to behind this is the fact that new technologies are being discovered at an increasingly fast pace, in a seemingly exponential curve compared to the past. Just think of how quickly the fancy new PC you bought is replaced by an even fancier, newer PC nowadays. According to most singularity theorists, the Singularity lies at a point when the curve has become nearly vertical, and the rate of technological discovery becomes almost instantaneous. Speculation on what a post-singularity society could achieve often sounds similar to a description of gods; complete control over the weather, eradication of diseases, immortality, transcending humanity (or humanity becoming obsolete, in the less optimistic predictions), etc. The abilities of a post-singularity society are apparently limitless.
Yet there are some problems with that concept of singularity. Science, for one thing. An increasing number of people are claiming that a technological singularity, where we will ascend beyond our feeble mortal forms and become godlike beings, is inevitable, yet they are ignoring many important facts about it. There is an upper limit, based on our current technologies, for computing power before we reach a point where the computer cannot dissipate heat fast enough and literally melts. Energy requirements are another issue; there isn’t enough energy in the world to power the kind of things these singularity theorists claim, especially if we were to use machines, as most theories do. Electrical power is not the most efficient source of energy, especially when compared to much more efficient organic systems. We’re not that far away from reaching the upper limit to how much energy we can store in a battery, and that limit is certainly not enough to power a singularity. And this isn’t even going into how many of our current energy sources are non-renewable. Now, yes, all of this can supposedly be hand waved away by saying we will create the technologies to get over those barriers, and that it’s impossible to predict anything post-singularity using our current understanding of the universe, but therein lies the problem: It’s not science. One of the most important aspects of a scientific hypothesis or theory is that it is falsifiable. The claim that any criticism we can think of to the singularity isn’t relevant because we cannot predict past singularity is just a way to refute all opposition. You can point to as many things that you claim support your hypothesis, but unless the hypothesis is able to be tested, and can be falsified, it is not a scientific hypothesis. That claim turns singularity into more of a religion than a science; yet it continues to be put forward as science by huge numbers of people.
Another, somewhat minor, point here that bothers me is the constant claim that the singularity is inevitable. This to me is what gives belief in this singularity theory the most resemblance to a religion than anything else; many of its supporters claim that the singularity is going to come, no matter what we do about it. This annoys me to no end. At least in religious apocalyptic scenarios, there is a reason behind their belief in inevitability: some higher entity beyond the control of humans is the one controlling things which lead to the event. Yet singularity can only be brought about through human actions; it makes absolutely no sense at all that it would be inevitable. Say one day Russia decided it was bored, and decided to just nuke the entire world for the lulz. Not going to get your singularity then, huh? Or an asteroid comes by and collides with the planet. Or, hell, the entire population of the human race decides eating cookies is a better way to spend their time than being on a computer, and the computer market collapses overnight. Belief in the inevitability of singularity is a contradiction in itself; they are making a definite prediction about the future, and yet according to them, you cannot make predictions about the singularity. There is also this strange, rock solid belief in so many of them that the singularity will certainly occur during their lifetimes, which I just cannot fathom.
Now, this may sound strange after giving all this critiques, but I believe in the singularity. Just not that singularity. This is a strange case, where the more extreme view is the one with the most adherents, and the more reasonable theories are in the minority. The problem with singularity is that many people have put together the same evidence (increasing rate of technological discoveries, fancy new AI inventions, etc.), come to similar, but still slightly different conclusions, and all given their theories the name “singularity”. I believe in, special thanks to TVtropes for giving me this term, a “soft singularity”. This usually has a more generalized meaning of singularity, where rapid technological discoveries radically alter society in ways that we could not predict. The invention of the printing press could be seen as one such singularity; it created an intelligence explosion, and led to changes which someone before its invention could have never foreseen. I’ll steal another quote from TVtropes here: “As I see it, the main problem in designing a plausible 23rd century these days isn't lack of grandeur, it's the imminence of changes so fundamental and unpredictable they're likely to make the dramas of 2298 as unintelligible to us as the Microsoft Anti-Trust Suit would be to Joan of Arc." Yes, we will discover new technologies in the future, many of which will probably do things that seem impossible to us today. Yes, our way of life will be changed in unpredictable ways. Will we become gods? Sadly, much as I want to be one, that part is unlikely, at least in our lifetimes. I do not outright claim that such a singularity is impossible; yes, we could indeed make the discoveries that allow us to ignore the obstacles facing it. On the other hand, no, we may not; getting around them might turn out to be impossible. It’s good to work for new discoveries, and transcending beyond our current human limitations, but one must keep in mind that the singularity is not some inevitable, miraculous event that will solve all our problems. It’s still our job to solve our own problems, singularity or not.
So, what exactly is the technological singularity? The phrase comes from the physics term “gravitational singularity”, which refers to the point where the measurements of a gravitational field become infinite and our conventional understandings of it breaks down. The technological singularity is a point where our scientific advances have continued to accelerate, and reached a point where the rate of discovery makes it impossible for us to predict the future based on our conventional understandings of the world. The theory is based in a concept by the British mathematician I.J. Good, who put forth the idea that, if we were to create an intelligent machine, that machine could create a better version of itself, which could create a better version of itself, and so on, until we had machines capable of massive amounts of intelligence. The main point of proof people point to behind this is the fact that new technologies are being discovered at an increasingly fast pace, in a seemingly exponential curve compared to the past. Just think of how quickly the fancy new PC you bought is replaced by an even fancier, newer PC nowadays. According to most singularity theorists, the Singularity lies at a point when the curve has become nearly vertical, and the rate of technological discovery becomes almost instantaneous. Speculation on what a post-singularity society could achieve often sounds similar to a description of gods; complete control over the weather, eradication of diseases, immortality, transcending humanity (or humanity becoming obsolete, in the less optimistic predictions), etc. The abilities of a post-singularity society are apparently limitless.
Yet there are some problems with that concept of singularity. Science, for one thing. An increasing number of people are claiming that a technological singularity, where we will ascend beyond our feeble mortal forms and become godlike beings, is inevitable, yet they are ignoring many important facts about it. There is an upper limit, based on our current technologies, for computing power before we reach a point where the computer cannot dissipate heat fast enough and literally melts. Energy requirements are another issue; there isn’t enough energy in the world to power the kind of things these singularity theorists claim, especially if we were to use machines, as most theories do. Electrical power is not the most efficient source of energy, especially when compared to much more efficient organic systems. We’re not that far away from reaching the upper limit to how much energy we can store in a battery, and that limit is certainly not enough to power a singularity. And this isn’t even going into how many of our current energy sources are non-renewable. Now, yes, all of this can supposedly be hand waved away by saying we will create the technologies to get over those barriers, and that it’s impossible to predict anything post-singularity using our current understanding of the universe, but therein lies the problem: It’s not science. One of the most important aspects of a scientific hypothesis or theory is that it is falsifiable. The claim that any criticism we can think of to the singularity isn’t relevant because we cannot predict past singularity is just a way to refute all opposition. You can point to as many things that you claim support your hypothesis, but unless the hypothesis is able to be tested, and can be falsified, it is not a scientific hypothesis. That claim turns singularity into more of a religion than a science; yet it continues to be put forward as science by huge numbers of people.
Another, somewhat minor, point here that bothers me is the constant claim that the singularity is inevitable. This to me is what gives belief in this singularity theory the most resemblance to a religion than anything else; many of its supporters claim that the singularity is going to come, no matter what we do about it. This annoys me to no end. At least in religious apocalyptic scenarios, there is a reason behind their belief in inevitability: some higher entity beyond the control of humans is the one controlling things which lead to the event. Yet singularity can only be brought about through human actions; it makes absolutely no sense at all that it would be inevitable. Say one day Russia decided it was bored, and decided to just nuke the entire world for the lulz. Not going to get your singularity then, huh? Or an asteroid comes by and collides with the planet. Or, hell, the entire population of the human race decides eating cookies is a better way to spend their time than being on a computer, and the computer market collapses overnight. Belief in the inevitability of singularity is a contradiction in itself; they are making a definite prediction about the future, and yet according to them, you cannot make predictions about the singularity. There is also this strange, rock solid belief in so many of them that the singularity will certainly occur during their lifetimes, which I just cannot fathom.
Now, this may sound strange after giving all this critiques, but I believe in the singularity. Just not that singularity. This is a strange case, where the more extreme view is the one with the most adherents, and the more reasonable theories are in the minority. The problem with singularity is that many people have put together the same evidence (increasing rate of technological discoveries, fancy new AI inventions, etc.), come to similar, but still slightly different conclusions, and all given their theories the name “singularity”. I believe in, special thanks to TVtropes for giving me this term, a “soft singularity”. This usually has a more generalized meaning of singularity, where rapid technological discoveries radically alter society in ways that we could not predict. The invention of the printing press could be seen as one such singularity; it created an intelligence explosion, and led to changes which someone before its invention could have never foreseen. I’ll steal another quote from TVtropes here: “As I see it, the main problem in designing a plausible 23rd century these days isn't lack of grandeur, it's the imminence of changes so fundamental and unpredictable they're likely to make the dramas of 2298 as unintelligible to us as the Microsoft Anti-Trust Suit would be to Joan of Arc." Yes, we will discover new technologies in the future, many of which will probably do things that seem impossible to us today. Yes, our way of life will be changed in unpredictable ways. Will we become gods? Sadly, much as I want to be one, that part is unlikely, at least in our lifetimes. I do not outright claim that such a singularity is impossible; yes, we could indeed make the discoveries that allow us to ignore the obstacles facing it. On the other hand, no, we may not; getting around them might turn out to be impossible. It’s good to work for new discoveries, and transcending beyond our current human limitations, but one must keep in mind that the singularity is not some inevitable, miraculous event that will solve all our problems. It’s still our job to solve our own problems, singularity or not.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Lesbian School Girl in Mississipi Sues School Over Prom Discrimination
Courtesy of Darkle. Thanks for finding this disturbing bit of news.
Unbelievable. I forget some times that people are absolutely absurd when it comes to homosexuality. Ignoring the fact that I still maintain its unwarranted discrimination based on sex (yes, you can actually legally discriminate based on gender, but only if it is supported and serves a legitimate secular benefit, like all girl schools so they can focus on their studies, or separate gender bathrooms), the simple fact that people are bothered enough by who other people sleep with enough to make it a law is amazing. What makes this any different from not recognizing relationships between people of different races? More importantly, why is this a concern? Religious nutjobs of course. Guess what, I really don't give a fuck IF the Bible condemns homosexuality. It can condemn it six different ways to Sunday down the glorious road to eternal hellfire, just like those Westboro Baptist ministers say. But the Bible also condemns believing in any God except Yahweh. Funny story. I'm a polytheist.
So, by all means, connect how you're allowed to use the Bible to enforce certain religious beliefs (like homosexuality) but find it reasonable to be tolerant of others (different religions, not keeping Sabbath day holy, etc). "Pick and Choose Believers," as I like to call them, are insanely frustrating.
But it actually gets worse. The comments section isn't any better. Here's a little gem I found.
"Whether or not you approve of the behavior the homosexual couple DID ruin the prom for everyone else. Making a stand is fine until innocent people are harmed and in this case that's what happened."
Oh sure. That makes sense. So anyone here who ever has their rights violated, think of what this will do for everyone else who isn't having their rights violated. Darn slaves! Why'd they have to go demand to be free, their desire to have human rights ruined the South's economy! That's like...infinitely worse than ruining prom, right?! I mean, those poor plantation farmers! They needed money for food! The kind of empowerment that gives to people who want to discriminate is insane. Sure, now they can hold innocents hostage with tactics like the ones this particular school used to force anyone who will ever be discriminated against, and also happens to have a shred of compassion, to comply with their absurd rules and bigoted ignorance.
I wish I could go off on religion in America, ignorance, and how it fosters stupidity, a lack of desire to question, close-minded stupidity, and general lack of common sense. I tend to be more Nietzschian in my views of morality and ethics. I know what works best for what I want. I use common sense and reasoning in situations. I don't randomly beat the shit out of people I don't like. I don't demand the government be sympathetic to my dislikes and do what I feel is right. You might have seen my earlier criticism of pornography in America, and why its worse than video game violence. You might also recall that while I consider it a social ill and damaging to people, I never once said we should ban it or make it illegal. In fact, in that general vein I advocate the legalizing of prostitution because it keeps women who are put in those situations safer than they are now. Well, that and it makes it easier to track certain diseases and whatnot, but that is neither here nor there. The point is, the government is not the moral police. They are the legal police. By extension, public schools are not moralist institutions. Homes, churches, synagogues, the worn-down shack the local crack-dealing cult leader stole from the previous inhabitants he killed, THOSE are institutions of morality. That is where you get your ethics (fucked up as they may be).
But then again, I'm the kind of person who thinks we rely too much on government, and we've grown to see them as this paternal figure not too different from God in some respects. Criminals are treated like dirt in America, prison guards always being portrayed in the media as power hungry monsters who hate the people contained with in, believing them to be nothing but animals. Me, again I'm with Nietzsche on this one.
"Crime belongs to the concept "revolt against the social order." One does not "punish" a rebel; one suppresses him. A rebel can be a miserable and contemptible man; but there is nothing contemptible in a revolt as such--and to be a rebel in view of contemporary society does not in itself lower the value of a man. There are even cases in which one might have to honor a rebel, because he finds something in our society against which war ought to be waged--he awakens us from our slumber."
Taken from this well-written essay by a Mr. Travis Denneson of "Infidels.org."
The point here is that we look at the rule of our governments as absolute except in those areas that are too inconvenient to us, like piracy for example. The laws that people break like murder or theft, those have complex motivations behind them. What if one kills to survive, or to protect someone important to them? The more we see law as static and uncompromising, as the "Word of God incarnate" so to speak, the more we stand to lose of our individuality, the more we lose before our governments. How much longer until we stop questioning anything the government does? We entertain these bizarre notions of what government is supposed to do, and when we do we put less of ourselves into our lives and instead automate and regulate ourselves with government intervention. Me, I don't pirate. Music, video games, what have you. Nor do I buy used. I do this because I want my money to go to the artists, programmers, and developers. When they choose to offer there services free, like Funimation does with several of its anime series, I'll gladly accept the fact that they want it out there for free. And I'll probably end up buying something to support that series anyways. But I certainly don't do it because the Government says I can't.
Well, I've done enough soapboxing for today. Didn't particularly enjoy using the girl's misery as a platform for anarchy/libertarianism, and I hope that the ACLU manages to beat the school into legal submission and force them to host that prom (though they'll probably underfund it or something absurd to get around it).
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
How is this news?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234590?GT1=43002
Not that I don't agree, of course. But I find it amazing that this is still an issue.
Not that I don't agree, of course. But I find it amazing that this is still an issue.
Monday, March 8, 2010
As Seen On My Facebook
A friend of mine, a native of South Africa whose name will be kept anonymous, posted about how much he liked Saving Private Ryan. Can you spot the stupid?
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Probably My Single Favorite Song Ever Written
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqV1NStmoAE
I get chills listening to it.
I get chills listening to it.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Another From the Onion
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/liechtenstein_successfully_tests
I love Liechtenstein. Bestest country ever.
I love Liechtenstein. Bestest country ever.
"American Schools Trail Behind in Aptitude of Child Soldiers"
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/report_american_schools_trail
I for one am horrified to learn that our schools are lacking in child soldier training. This is a mistake which needs be rectified with all hast if we are to ever have any kind of international respect.
I for one am horrified to learn that our schools are lacking in child soldier training. This is a mistake which needs be rectified with all hast if we are to ever have any kind of international respect.
Friday, March 5, 2010
This Man is the Greatest Politician Ever
http://www.youtube.com/user/ukipmedia#p/u/6/iulNvamNzeg
I love this man. Seriously, I want to import him into the U.S. and make him president.
Btw the key about the third video is that he made this speech ONE YEAR AGO. And predicted Greece. Seriously, this man is amazing.
Perhaps the Most Important Scientific Debate Ever Settled
Forget scientific ethics, we finally figured out what killed the dinosaurs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35712419/?GT1=43001
Now I know who to blame for our lack of velocirapter-y goodness. Oh Deinonychus, I hardly knew ye.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35712419/?GT1=43001
Now I know who to blame for our lack of velocirapter-y goodness. Oh Deinonychus, I hardly knew ye.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Better Late Than Never?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world/europe/05armenia.html?ref=global-home
The House of Foreign Affairs has recently passed a vote to condemn the genocide of Armenians under Turkish rule. For those of you not familiar with history, said genocide took place 95 years ago. Here's a wikipedia article on the genocide, in case you're interested in it. Basically, the Ottoman Empire, during World War I, began to massacre and deport Armenians, with a total death toll estimated between 300,000 and 1.5 million.
Reading the news article, I was a tad bit surprised by the fact that it took our government this long to acknowledge the genocide. It's not as though it was an event that had been covered up and was only recently being rediscovered; the Armenian Genocide had been common knowledge for nearly a century. What's even worse was the final vote: 22 Against, 23 For. The genocide was recognized for what it was by a single vote. There are some arguments against it being classified as genocide; it's unsure whether or not the massacre was a deliberate, planned action on the part of the government or just something that spiraled out of control, and the fact that the term "genocide" wasn't invented until 1943, but those are just based on semantics. One of the big reasons the vote was so close was because we didn't want to upset our good friend Turkey, who is understandably a little unhappy discussing the subject. To show their unhappiness, they've gone so far to recall their ambassador in Washington (overreaction much?)
The entire situation just seems silly to me. The Armenian Genocide happened; it's a known fact, with plenty of evidence and historical documentation. Whether or not calling it a "genocide" seems to be a moot point; systematic slaughter of an ethnic group is still systematic slaughter of an ethnic group, no matter how narrowly you define the word. I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to harm our relationship with Turkey, as they're kinda valuable for our operations in the Middle East, but really now, Turkey needs to grow up. The events happened nearly 100 years ago, under a completely different government with a completely different country name. If other countries can admit to their darker moments in history, there's no reason Turkey can't do the same as well.
The House of Foreign Affairs has recently passed a vote to condemn the genocide of Armenians under Turkish rule. For those of you not familiar with history, said genocide took place 95 years ago. Here's a wikipedia article on the genocide, in case you're interested in it. Basically, the Ottoman Empire, during World War I, began to massacre and deport Armenians, with a total death toll estimated between 300,000 and 1.5 million.
Reading the news article, I was a tad bit surprised by the fact that it took our government this long to acknowledge the genocide. It's not as though it was an event that had been covered up and was only recently being rediscovered; the Armenian Genocide had been common knowledge for nearly a century. What's even worse was the final vote: 22 Against, 23 For. The genocide was recognized for what it was by a single vote. There are some arguments against it being classified as genocide; it's unsure whether or not the massacre was a deliberate, planned action on the part of the government or just something that spiraled out of control, and the fact that the term "genocide" wasn't invented until 1943, but those are just based on semantics. One of the big reasons the vote was so close was because we didn't want to upset our good friend Turkey, who is understandably a little unhappy discussing the subject. To show their unhappiness, they've gone so far to recall their ambassador in Washington (overreaction much?)
The entire situation just seems silly to me. The Armenian Genocide happened; it's a known fact, with plenty of evidence and historical documentation. Whether or not calling it a "genocide" seems to be a moot point; systematic slaughter of an ethnic group is still systematic slaughter of an ethnic group, no matter how narrowly you define the word. I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to harm our relationship with Turkey, as they're kinda valuable for our operations in the Middle East, but really now, Turkey needs to grow up. The events happened nearly 100 years ago, under a completely different government with a completely different country name. If other countries can admit to their darker moments in history, there's no reason Turkey can't do the same as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)