Anti-abortion. Screw that? What? What'd you think I meant? I just put some stars up there and it's supposed to be all right isn't it? People are supposed to think of a much better and less dangerous word than "Screw" because of those stars huh? Right?
Agh. Anyways I really want to talk about abortion. Abortion is still controversial.
That means, that there are people out there who are still debating with reasons to why abortion should be banned.
Yes, why abortion should be banned (not kept legal. It is already widely legal at it's current state. Things are only controversial only to deter or question it from its present state. If everybody agreed with its present state, then it wouldn't be controversial.)
So there are people arguing to ban abortion. Since when? 25 years ago. A supreme court case that is referred to as "Roe vs. Wade" happened regarding a mother's choice to abort a child.
Here is what they decided :
-A mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable." -The point of viability is when the pregnant fetus can exit the womb of the mother and live without the mother's support (But can be kept developing with machines or other forms of artificial aid). This usually occurs at about 6 to 7 months.
So I have to ask something.
Why ban abortion? Why ban abortion? Someone else's abortion doesn't affect you. And the only time abortion will ever affect you, is if you decide for one. And guess what.
You could simply decide not to get an abortion!
Here is the thing : anti-abortionists have been associating murder with abortion. No. Completely wrong. Two different things, on different scales.
Murder, has the tendency to actually affect third-parties other than the murder victim. It is trauma that you usually can not control, as it comes from the will of another person.
Abortion, can only affect the person aborting the fetus. The fetus itself? It is still technically a part of the mother, and is a growing part of the mother until it has the ability to live outside of it.
Wait, I get it. You want to protect the rights of the fetus. Let's call it a "baby" for fair ground. The rights of the "baby".
"Well why do you quote the word 'baby'? It's still a baby!"
Let me tell you why it isn't a baby. Babies (or a living baby)can have more than one care-providers. Babies can be dropped off at an orphanage, where the owners of that orphanage can take care of that baby. Babies can be dropped off at your grandmother's house, and she will be the care-provider for that baby's survival.
Fetuses can only have one provider. That is the body in which the fetus grows from. It isn't alive. You can't give it to someone else to take care of it. You can not drop it off at your auntie's house for some baby sitting. Nope. It requires the life of the mother to live.
"So then why is it so that when a thief mugs a pregnant woman and accidentally terminates her pregnancy, he gets charged with murder? Is it not because he killed the baby?"
No. It's because he killed a potential child of a family. He prevented someone from having the freedom to raise a family by killing a wanted fetus. The child was only potential because it was wanted. If the child wasn't wanted, then the fetus would've been aborted.
Anyways, the rights of the fetus. What rights? You would conflict the rights of someone old enough to become pregnant, for someone who isn't even born yet? Society has horrible standards for consistency. Freedom! Yeah! Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness! Just as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. That's fair right? So what if the birth of a child hurts someone else economically? What if it hurts someone psychologically to have a rape victim's child?
The rights of the fetus.
Well, what about the rights of our children? They have the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Yeah. Pursuit of happiness. So the drinking age is 21, smoking age is 18, assault rifle owning age is 18 and concealable side-arm owning age is 21 (don't ask -_-), driving age with a permit is 15, driving age with a license is 16, rated PG, rated G for everyone, rated PG-13 for teenagers, rated R for restricted, rated NT-17 for 17+ - when do these restrictions to our rights stop? The rights to liberty.
The rights of the fetus.
How about a 5 year old. Or a 2 year old. You want to keep your eye on them right? Prevent them from doing stupid things. Restrict them from burning themselves. For their own good, which coincides with your own relief.
The rights of the fetus.
Let's say the fetus grows up to be a serial killer. You could say all you want "What if he becomes the next Einstein or Galileo?". Well nobody asks "What if he becomes the next Hitler?"
"What-if" arguments are for the stupid. I read this text one time on the internet that went something like this :
A
women has tuberculosis, and the father has syphilis. Together they had four children.
Their first child was born blind...
The second child was stillborn...
The third child was deaf & dumb...
and their fourth was born with tuberculosis
They're
now pregnant with their fifth child.
Would you recommend that they abort this child?
It turns out that you would've killed Beethoven if you did abort. But I found this pretty stupid in the first place. Abortion wasn't an option back then, but if it was - this couple "would've" (which seems to be so popular among anti-abortionists - the abstract thinking of what could've, would've, or potentially can happen) definitely aborted their fifth baby. If they did, then Beethoven wouldn't be the name of the famous musician that we see in our music books, but it would've been someone else - whose name might've been Draco or known as something other than the surname "Beethoven".
We wouldn't have some musical works such as "Flight of the Bumblebee", but we would've had this Draco fellow make musical masterpieces just as well as Beethoven did. Of course. This is all "what if" and "would've, could've or should've". Nothing tangible with proof. Society however, contrasts the popular from the unpopular among what exists - so if Beethoven didn't exist in the first place, it wouldn't have any impact on us because we wouldn't have known of the existence of a Beethoven in the first place.
[Edit :
After realizing that Beethoven didn't write Flight of the Bumblebee : I am sorry to those that I may have offended by implying that he did write it. I am not familiar with his works, nor classical music so I apologize. But my point wasn't specific to his works so please understand. I do not want to mislead anyone into thinking that he is the original composer of this song, but since it wasn't part of my point I will leave the text unedited. Instead I will keep this addition to the post. ]
You can never know what good or bad things a person could do if they weren't born yet.
Plus with Beethoven, I could've said :
"Someone would've taken his place."
Anyways that doesn't even relate to what we're talking about. Those people were talking about banning the rights to an abortion, and comparing our situation with a what-if-in-the-past abortion.
Alright you know what I'm lazy, tired, and I want some cereal.
The Father's Perspective. Well, since someone mentioned it I guess I will talk about it. Abortion is a choice, just as marriage is a choice.
The perspective of the biological father in the stories of abortion may not even matter in some cases. Rape victims wouldn't care for their partner's opinion. One-night standers wouldn't.
Of course, this is encouraging having sex with as many people as you want - but then again that isn't illegal in the first place unless you gain "under-the-table" money out of it. (I do not encouraging you to have sex with multiple people without the use of contraceptives. Actually - at all. Once you have sex you give a part of yourself [more for females] to someone that you can never take back. Abusing yourself may affect you negatively. If you do however, it isn't my business. So basically, I'll leave you alone because it doesn't regard me.)
See, why can't people be like that? Person A : "I DON'T LIKE ABORTION!" Person B : "I DON'T LIKE ABORTION!"
Person A writes up a Proposition to ban abortion. Person B just says "eh, but it doesn't affect me." and leaves the people alone.
Argh. Okay I have to stay on topic. I may have a form of blogger's ADD. So the topic of who it harms gets to the father of the baby.
Then I ask you this : Did I ever mention that the father doesn't have a say in this?
Suppose they are a non-married couple. Who weren't planning to become pregnant.
Here's the thing - pregnancy is a mutual decision. Well, it SHOULD be to avoid conflict.
What if a woman wants to have a baby, but the man doesn't? So the woman stops taking her pills for a while, and one day she gets pregnant. The man didn't expect this, but what can he do about it? Does he have a choice? Can he force her to get an abortion? No. It's her own body, for a medical procedure that she has control over. Well then you just made the man's life a little worse!
There's a food for thought for you. Why don't you just make lawful abortions? "Well he decided to marry her so it was his choice in taking that risk!" Yea but keeping the baby affected him! So what do you say to that?
Bottom line - he doesn't have a choice because it is her freedom. You can't force someone into an abortion because that is restricting freedoms. This is an important thing - anti-abortionists sometimes get the idea that abortion is a restriction of freedom. It's not. Abortion is a choice. Same with not having one.
It is also the woman's choice to take the risk of her husband leaving her. If she is willing to do that over a baby, then let her take it.
Ahh. Okay then.
Well what about the other way. What if a man wants to have a baby, but the woman doesn't? So the man pokes a hole in his condom and eventually the woman gets pregnant. She panics, and goes for an abortion. The man says no. The woman does it secretly. They quarrel. But they stay married, because it's just an abortion.
Plus the decision wasn't mutual, and the man tricked her. He deserved it right? Wrong - it isn't about who deserves what. It's about who gets the freedoms to do what.
By impregnating the woman (or having sex), you take the risk of having her choose to keep, or get rid of the possible baby. If you do not offer her the choice of having the baby, then you shouldn't have had sex with her in the first place - and it is taking someone else's freedom away.
It is the man's choice to leave his loved one over an abortion. That's his choice to make.
What if the baby was accidental? Well and the man wants to keep it, but the woman doesn't. That is for them to decide on their own now, isn't it? (Nope. It isn't for them to decide. It should be the law's decision according to some people. She can't have an abortion.)
But there is something that anti-abortionists don't consider when it comes to the argument of the father. "Oh, but it affects the father to get an abortion".
Did you ever consider how it would affect the mother to keep the baby? Unless the choice to abort / keep the baby is mutual, one side will always feel bad. It is traded off.
It may even be the other way around. The mother may be affected if her husband nags her to an abortion. However, the husband will be affected if she ends up keeping the baby.
Either way, someone gets hurt, unless it is mutual. The only way that no one gets hurt, is if the choice of abortion exists, and if it is a mutual choice because they could simply choose to or not to get an abortion. If you ban abortion, then it will hurt more people, than if you had it as a choice. There would be people that would want an abortion, and those people will be greatly misfortuned.
And don't patronize with the "Well as soon as that father or mother sees the eyes of his or her baby, they will change their minds immediately". That appeals to the emotion, and isn't logical.
When arguing about a topic like this, you must consider all ends. If you want an anti-abortion just to make people feel better, then why not make a lawful abortion to make people feel better?
Abortion depends highly on the situation. But nevertheless, it's a choice or an option that should be kept open for those who really need it.
Not banned just because someone thinks that it is wrong and immoral.
For me, would I get an abortion? It depends on the situation. Did I impregnate someone right now? Or later? If now, I would urge for one *though earlier I wouldn't have wanted one* because the time is just too f***ed up for me to have a baby. I'm sure that she would agree, but if she doesn't want an abortion - I don't mind either. It's her choice, and would be my screw up that I would have to live through.
Don't you think that there are times where an abortion is necessary? If you answered "yes", then you aren't an anti-abortionist anymore.
So uh. What did we learn here? (By the way. The "Put it up for adoption!" argument is selfish. If you were put in a rape victim's shoes, you would not want to have that baby living inside of you for 9 months. Again, its circumstantial. If it doesn't affect you or your friend, who is the a-hole? You, who left the person alone? Or your friend who kept pointing that finger at the woman who didn't want to nourish the rapist baby? You decide. You cruel a-hole... >:O )
My conclusion? Reese's Puffs cereal looks like dog food, and tastes slightly bland so I'm going to get Frosted Flakes. Actually, Reese's Puffs is a "dog-food style" meal for humans if you think about it. Small beaded pieces that are flavored to our liking, loaded with vitamins and minerals. Has the same texture and shape as my brother's dog food.
An effective force that uses training to break down a civilian and mold him/her into a soldier.
Isaac is joining the Marines. And it seems so damn fun. Where else can you get into shape in six months and become an efficient killing machine? Jenny Craig? Hell no. Fuck 24 hour fitness - join the Marines.
People have the tendency to think that you'll automatically be killed when you join the Marines. Wrong. That's for the Army!
A Marine is much more valuable than an Army soldier. Training is more disciplined. Here is the difference between the Army's training, and the Marine's training :
Marines : Segregates males and females. Army : Used to train males and females together. This tells you one thing about how much those guys up there give a sh** about the quality of these soldiers after they come out of boot camp.
Significance :
Yeah, well males and females are equal right? So the Army did the right thing and the Marines did the wrong thing right? I mean men and women should be treated equally, right? Who the hell decided this? That is completely wrong.
Men and women each have this natural thing.
It's called genitalia. And that's not all. They happen to coincide with each other's genitalia to match. Like a puzzle. Genitalia has also been proven to produce seductive pheromones released by sweat and be the source of hormones. Genitalia has been proven to alter our adrenaline/heart rate, concentration, and even our awareness.
"Well that's different - that's training someone to be a killing machine."
Hey. Shut the f**k up. The separation of males and females is a good thing in any productive environment. Males distract females just as females distract males. Sexual harassment training is very ineffective. Women cannot be treated the same as males can. If they were, then there would be a new rally of anti-male activists, simply because males would curse, pop sexual jokes, and simply be guys around the women that they are treating as equally as they would a male. Women want to be treated as women - respected, cherished, and cared for. But that's impossible in the workforce with stressed out guys who do the same work every day.
Why some women don't get hired? Because men are distracted by females, and companies don't want their men to sleep with their workers. Women are also characterized with maternity, and estrogen. Men have more aggression and that evil asshole instinct inside of us with all of that testosterone. That's what companies look for - an asshole who is willing to f*** everyone else over. Not a maternal figure. Women don't want to be treated equally as men. Women are not men.
However, this doesn't mean that men are greater than women. Both men and women are equally advantaged and disadvantaged. Females give painful birth and have 20% less muscle than males. Males are horny all the time and are usually the workforce of any animal population. Men are also considerably vulgar and will not socially survive without a woman.
Instead of woman's rights activists, you should have a male re-education movement. That's what women want. They want men to be nice. That's all they want. They want men to follow the rules. Be like them. They want to play dress up and be girly and be able to sleep next to one without getting raped. They don't want to be treated like a man, because the only way that's possible is if they become one. They just want men to become women. They just want men to stop being so dirty, and to stop seeing women sexually. Yes. They want equal ground, but women don't want to become like men. I've solved the secret to why women's rights activities exist. Women want men to become women.
I didn't know where I was going with this. And that eventually became my conclusion. STFU.
In the Army, training is unbelievably poor with the presence of the opposite sex. Imagine a lot of just-out-of-high-school 18 year olds training with the opposite sex. Yup. Lots of rape. Lots of sex. Un-reported, mind you. The training isn't that great either. Recruits won't be pushed as hard with the presence of the opposite sex. You'll never be broken down, simply because of the presence of the opposite sex.
Of course, Marines have female instructors for females and male instructors for males. Everyone is broken down to the point of crying (at least in the inside) and brought up as a team with a member of your own gender. A brotherhood or sisterhood is always the strongest, simply because men understand men and women understand women.
Guy from the Army : "I'd rather be trained in two months with a lotta girls around me than be inside a hard sausage fest for three months!"
That's another thing. The quality and duration of training. When in war, guess who goes first! Yup that's right. The Marines. Why?
Marines secure a front line and secure an invasive opening. This has to be done without any f**k ups. The Army is the sent to the front lines and is actually the force in numbers. A much larger army to have more expendable soldiers.
The training for Marines are much more advanced. Why? Because they emphasize on the quality of each small team of Marines rather than the quantity of a mass-produced army. Marines have to be smart, and disciplined.
You never hear of a Marine raping someone on the news. That's all just Army stuff.
Anyways my point is : You're more likely to be killed in the Army than in the Marines. The Marines offer you better training.
In fact, that's some crazy sh** right there in the first place. Lots of people want to get into shape in a short period of time. Why not join the Marines?
In twelve weeks, you will become an efficient killing machine. Room and board will be paid, and you will get money at the end of your training. You will be fit, and able to take someone down.
F**k 24 hour Fitness and Jenny Craig. Join the Marines! It offers you the stuff that lots of people want anyways.
1. Effective training.
Here is something that we don't get. Effective training. If the people invested as much attention in schools and education as much as they did for Marine training, you would see our future generations as disciplined and extremely educated people. How long does it take for a student to learn up to the high school level? About 12 years. Highly inefficient. And at the age of 18, that is 1/4 of most people's lives. Plus, who remembers what they learned in the 5th grade after they grow up to be 25 years old on that show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"
They should focus on strict discipline in schools. Who the f*** whined about teachers hitting students with a paddle? Cruel and unusual? Puss*. Why are all of the other countries so much smarter? Because they beat the hell out of their children. Whether it is the schools or the parents - they are encouraged to beat the sh** out of their kids. Motivation. Discipline. Effective.
The type of discipline we administer only causes our kids to grow up being ignorant, stupid, illogical, and druggies during their teenage years. The new trend of Disney Channel's kiddie porn and sexual innuendo is making the new generation become more and more sexual. Parents are spoiling their f*cking kids.
2. Weight loss and health.
There are a handful of people who are just lazy as f*ck. Those people who want to get in shape, but are lazy as f*ck. Not motivated enough to engage in their progressive workout schedule. They buy the memberships to those bastard gyms who know that half of them won't come back after their first visit for the 6-month package that they paid for. These people's workouts are also usually detrimental because they give up after 20 push ups and pat themselves on the back for doing that much. Higher confidence with lower standards = fail.
Yup. All of this will disappear.
3. Being able to kick ass.
Same reason as above.
And damn. I am tired. It's 2:00 AM. I should sleep for tomorrow. Will probably continue this entry tomorrow.
The more you live, the more you realize that everyone has their own price over their dignity.
This is true. But then again, what is so bad about it? Using your own abilities to gain other items that you may deem more valuable or of equal value to the work you are doing at the time.
Whether the price may be paid in services or money. It's basic. Everyone knows that it's true.
People value money to pay for their bills and housing + other luxuries they may want. In exchange, they work with social and technical skills accumulated by spending two-fifths of their lives in school.
Some value their own dignity more than they dislike the idea of labor. Prostitutes don't. In fact, prostitutes are the bluntest people on the streets.
"You want to put your dick in my vagina? $50 bucks."
Well of course, sometimes they might ask if you want to have a good time. I don't know - I've never encountered one before.
If someone were to offer you $100 to strip down to your underwear and walk around a crowded street for an hour, would you do it?
How about $200? $300? $400? Ok how about $1,000? $2,000? The cash is right in front of your face.
What is your price? Sounds tempting doesn't it? $2,000 just to strip down to your underwear and walk around the streets for an hour. Guys would generally have a lower standard than girls for this particular challenge. Would the embarrassment from strangers be too much for you to back out on this $2,000 deal?
Sure, joke about knocking the guy out to take the money and run. But if you really think about it, where does your limit lie? I would definitely do this for $2,000. In fact, I would probably do this for $400 or less. But that's because I'm a guy.
Okay how about some difficult questions? One billion dollars to kill your best friend. No, that one is difficult. It will scar you for life. Some people would kill their best friends for one billion dollars. They are called businessmen (owned bitches).
Maybe some of you would kill your best friend for one billion. I wouldn't. My best friend happens to be my lover. (I do not keep a separate "best friend" apart from my lover. it's just saying to all of my other friends that they're significantly different or than that one friend is better. nency is the only different person apart from my friends, and i would gladly take any of my other friend's lives for her. therefore, she is my "best friend" )
I think it's weird that most people associate their lover as something other than a "best friend". Or keep multiple best friends (who is the best of them then??). I don't classify my friends. They're just "friends" or "not friends". I trust each of them on a different scale, but I treat them equally. No one is my "best" friend except for my lover.
How about sex?
If you were single, would you engage in heterosexual vaginal intercourse with a stranger for $3,000? A handful of people would have sex with strangers anyway (they're called one-night stands). Most men would do this for under a thousand.
For those women who said no : how about $10,000?
For those women who said no : how about $50,000? $50,000 in just one hour. That is an offer that most people would not decline.
And for those lying mother-f**kers who said no : how about $150,000? That is a doctor's annual wage right there. Buy a Porsche, get rid of your debts, buy a cheap house, buy some land, invest in a business, or just live off of it for a year and a half!
Remember, you're single. But what if you're married? How about homosexual intercourse? Okay starting price for homosexual or married intercourse :
$5,000? No. Maybe? Lots of people are already well-off. I guess we should take it up a notch. $15,000? Would you jeopardize your relationship with your significant other for fifteen thousand dollars? $100,000? Okay what a big price jump. Straight men - get some lube. Straight women - go back to the $15,000 mark. Married people ; discuss this offer with your significant other. Is this worth it? $100,000 dollars! Maybe it isn't...
$1,000,000???? One million dollars. You could live off of the interest! Put it in a Swedish bank and let it grow! If one million dollars were offered to you and your husband or wife, would there be an agreement between you two? You have the choice of having a lifetime supply of any one type of object! Food, housing, cars - you name it! A hundred Corollas, or fifty Beemurs, or ten GT-Rs. Your choice.
The way that society has become addicted to luxuries and wants. Nobody wants to work with a million dollars in their name. Some people wouldn't even need the $10,000, but they would really want to buy that new car they've been saving up for! They trade their dignity for luxury. I guess that's okay. Reasonable in today's world. Actors have the excuse of "it's just acting" for doing nude scenes. Same with porn stars. Plus the money.
But then again, when will these scenarios ever happen? I never said they will. It's just a little test to the price of what we are worth to ourselves.
What's our price? Is there something that you absolutely cannot do? Why? People kill others on the street by mugging them of a hundred bucks. Their price is the risk of being caught and sent to jail. For a chance of a few credit cards and some pocket change.
Would you kill a stranger for one thousand dollars? Would you take the risk of being caught? How about for four hundred, if there is no garuntee of being caught?
You probably answered no, and no. But that's not the point. You probably have a price. You'll probably kill someone for the right price. You'll defile yourself for the right price. And if you don't, then someone else would. Someone else would kill for the price. Isn't it kind of scary just knowing that with the right price, you could be killed by someone who paid that price?
The old-aged Rant. KKK. Prostitution. Children. Blah blah blah...
So I was browsing through Youtube; the place now infected with viral videos and attention-whores; when I came upon the topic of racism (somehow). And it made me think.
Why isn't the KKK illegal? "Freedom of expression", right?
Well, this is just one of the many contradictions that we overlook and incorporate subconsciously into our laws and society.
Prostitution is a great example.. "Prostitution" is illegal. But...
The Playboy mansion and "escorts" are not illegal. Well then again, these "legal" pimps pay taxes to the government. And with $400-$1,000 per "escort", the government gets a good chunk of the money.
Maybe prostitution is only illegal because of the taxes not given with these "under the table" trades.
Plus it's considerably cheap. Goes as low as $50 per hour. I guess it was never about the morality of "prostitution", but the benefits of gain. Sex is legal anyway. Why not sell it? Oh, but not for so cheap. It has to be expensive because that's a lot more "moral" than sex found on the streets.
Or maybe it really is about the moralities. Prostitution! Would I rather have the streets filled with girls offering sex for money?
Well. I don't think that if prostitution was made legal, the streets would fill up with girls offering sex. If that would happen, then I think we should really re-educate our women. Right NOW. We would have to! These women would be just dying to fill the streets! Their intent is to sell their own bodies as soon as prostitution is made legal! Of course, since that is their intent - we should make prostitution illegal. Just to be safe. It is immoral, and will probably have the streets filled with women who are dying to become prostitutes.
Of course, these playboy mansions of sex dolls are much more ethical than prostitutes on the streets. Plus they pay taxes, and abide by the law : 18 or over. Not that anyone could take in a 17 year old and just wait a year before she could start pleasing those customers. No. They're not like that. They're ethical. These are good people!
Plus, these girls are very good at what they do. Explains why they're so expensive. And also why all of those businessmen like to walk around with them whenever he is on that private jet or cruise.
So there! That's a good reason to ban prostitution and to keep those brothels of girls.
....
But don't take my word for it. Think for yourself. I don't know why the government wouldn't want to shut it down. Who knows. Maybe all of those taxesfrom the mansion are significant enough to make a difference. Or maybe it's just a whole deal about "freedom" of being an adult. Or perhaps they're making much more on the side with a random "donation for a good cause" by one of these businessmen?
You can decide. None of those theories would surprise me if they were true. Nor does it matter to me. NOR IS IT ON TOPIC! But one thing will always remain true :
The rich and established usually gets the higher end of the deal, and will get away with almost anything. That's how life works folks. Teach that to your kids before they learn it the hard way.
Anyways back on topic. KKK. Hatred. Racism. Illegal.
So why isn't the KKK illegal? They've made racism illegal in schools. If a teacher shows racism towards a student, that teacher have action implemented against him/her.
So here is this organization who supports white supremacy and shuns every other race. They hold rallies for this stuff, and wouldn't mind secretly beating a black man behind the alley.
Of course, this was all from such a long, time ago (half a century -_-) - when this was the big thing that just... kind of died out and became what small "Klans" they have now.
Humans surprise me. A lot.
In just half a century, we've completely flipped to the other side of the coin on this topic. The term "n**ger thief" turned into "an African-American suspect". Not that I like the word "nigger" or support racism. Just pointing out that we are somewhat easily changed and molded as a society.
Hate. Words don't hurt. Freedom of speech. Hate crimes. Words don't hurt. Right? Emotional harm is for pussies. Psychology doesn't exist. Only the tangible, and physical. Depression is just a disease that exists only in those handful of people who were too pussy enough to be hurt by a few words. Right? So why do words hurt?
Intentions don't hurt. Right?
Freedom of expression. Hey as long as they don't interfere with one's ability to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then it's alright!
And what if they do. Then what? But of course..
The KKK. They don't murder any more like they used to. So it's okay. It's the ultimate symbol of freedom. Just like the good-ol' days. It's okay...
Everything is okay...
But we wouldn't mind censorship on television. The words "Fuck", "Shit", "Asshole", or "Nigger" wouldn't show up on your daily news report.
Why? Because they are bad words. Yes. They cause conflict, and harm, and corrupt society's mind. Especially for children. But of course, the KKK doesn't do that. Plus they don't reach out to so many people as the media does. So that makes it alright. Right?
As for the uncensored words, - such as "stupid", "bitch", or "dumb" - they are not as bad anymore. Yup. We've decided to make those words T.V-legal just within the past decade. Suddenly changed them from "bad" to "acceptable". Society keeps changing. Intentions seem not to matter anymore.
We are slowly turning to a robotic society where the intentions of our expressive selves do not seem to matter as much (in our robotic laws, controlled by our human judges).
We teach our children to think linearly and to see things at it's face value.
Compute into the psychology of my generation's average parent :
A. Child does not learn bad words. B. Child will not use bad words. C. In case of Child learning bad words, being punished for using those bad words will make Child not use bad words. D. Child will communicate better with one another because of the absence of bad words. E. Child will learn to behave and listen. F. Child will grow up as a better member of society.
The intent of showing hatred. Isn't that the reason why bad words were banned in the first place? ( Nothing wrong with trying to teach children that hate is wrong. Just don't associate the word "fuck" with hate. Because that isn't always true. It releases stress sometimes. Very well. Teach them to think around these things and to behave with one another. Teaching them that "fuck" is a bad word will only encourage them to use it whenever they are angry, and carries on as they fully develop.)
Same with racism. That's why the idea of racism isn't "allowed" to be expressed by employers or government workers.
The restriction on hate directly contradicts the freedom of expression. Hate leads to conflict - but so does the freedom of expression. Hate is part of our nature, because grief and vengeance is prevalent in our lives. We were naturally meant to kill those things that we do not like. Just like how other animals kill for territory, we kill for revenge. We aren't quick to forget...
The concept of territory. That something is ours, and not someone else's. Yes... and the concept of "sharing" within the boundaries of our friends and relatives. We're merely the most dominant species, with very animal-like characteristics (for those who do not consider themselves an "animal".. or disgust in that thought).
Hate is natural. The intent of hate cannot be blocked. Someone could say "I hate you! I wish you were dead!" and we've conditioned ourselves to take that less severely than "F*** you!". They both have the same intent. To show hate.
What is the difference between "F*** you!" and "I hate you! I wish you were dead!" Oh right. One of them has a bad word in it.
To answer my rhetoric, the KKK isn't banned because it is their freedom to express themselves. But society doesn't really like them all that much in the first place. And yet the word "nigger" is publicly banned. Why? Because it reflects strong hate.
My rants (which helplessly change topics to the point where no one even knows where I'm going with it) are always so damn confusing. This rant was especially confusing, so I'll just cut to the point :
Change society. We need to grow up to think more. Think past the things that don't affect us. Think! Stop hating. Get along with each other.
And don't wince whenever someone says "what the fuck?". I do not mean harm to anyone. It is a harmless phrase. A question of imbalance. Imbalance to thought. Surprise. But please do be offended if someone says "Fuck you". That isn't so harmless.
Of course. This is only a stupid rant. Things won't change because of a complaint on Xanga.com. People will always hate. No matter what. And they'll try to stop hate by blaming words and such. Never really blaming themselves. Always being loyal to freedom of speech and expression. Always being contradictory when it comes to "freedom". Always with its ineffectiveness.
Edit : Please don't take my cynicism too seriously. It's a rant. If it offends you well... maybe I should include a warning at the top next time.
On a side note. I want some Gus's Barbecue. Does anyone know if I have to physically dine inside their restaurant, or am I allowed to order some hot wings and just leave with the deliciousness inside a plastic bag?
...I will await an answer... for those who live near the South Pasadena area...
Why do we want to travel into the future, or back into the past?
There is a new craze involving the mechanics of the "tangible" theory of time. Yes folks - it isn't abstract as some of us thinks.
We have accepted our existence in this theory of space-time continuum and now relate ourselves and other objects with the relativity of position - and of course, to light : something that remains constant to all observers regardless of position.
Apparently, scientists have claimed to have reached the point of "inevitably" creating a realistic time machine. That is, if we do live in this 3 dimension society with only the additional 4th dimension of a substance called time. Their equations fit in with the assumption that this theory is correct, and unaffected by any other factors.
Time can be expressed like this :
Imagine yourself in a moving bus. Going at 60 miles per hour.
Relative to the moving bus, you are standing still. Not moving. Now - take those 25cent gumball-machine-type rubber balls, and bounce one. You'll catch it as the ball goes straight down, and bounce straight back up. This is all - relative to you. The ball is bouncing from standstill.
Now let's pretend that the bus is transparent, and that people from the outside could see you. When you drop the ball, the ball hits the floor of the bus. Let's say, that when this happens, the bus is at point A. When the ball bounces back up to your hand, the bus is at point B - which is a couple hundred meters away from point A.
The ball has traveled a great distance relative to everyone else - as it bounced at point A, and went back to your hand at point B. It was moving at the same speed as the bus - which was 60 miles per hour. To yourself however, the ball only moved several feet - from the bus floor to your hand.
Now, with light - there is no such thing as relativity. Light supposedly remains the same speed no matter who looks at it. If you were moving at 3/4 the speed of light in a rocket, and someone shot a laser beam towards your direction - you will see the laser beam pass by at the speed of light , NOT 1/4 the speed of light! Light is constant - no matter how fast you are moving.
To further simplify - in traffic, if you were moving at 60 mph and another car was moving at 50 mph, you would pass that car at 10 mph. The guy in the other car would see your car moving at 10 mph, right?
With light, this doesn't happen. If someone standing still shot a beam of light to you, and you were moving at 9999/10000 the speed of light, both of you will observe light traveling at the same speed - not 1/10000 the speed of light.
That is where time comes in to change everything. Apparently, we are all relative to the speed of light. If we decide to move faster, it would only change our relevance to other people - not light. The closer we move to the speed of light - the more we distort our theory of "time".
And, this wouldn't exactly be the time travel that we're thinking about. The stuff that you see in the movies where people get sent back in time to warn others about a violent future. No. That would have to involve different theories and concepts in order to prevent a complete paradox of... everything. It would have to be something similar to "different universes" - from that movie called "The One" (with Jet Li in it).
Example : We cannot travel into the past or future. The future is obvious. Time is supposedly constant, and in order to travel "in time", we have to "bend" time. Ok! So let's say we somehow manage to harness enough power to "bend" (in fact, to prove this theory of space time correct at the same time) time. Now let's travel into the future. SHIT. We can't! Why? Future didn't happen yet. That's right... OK. Let's travel into the past! SHIT. We can't! Past is over. We need to recreate every structural and molecular feature of the past's elements, people, and events in order to "travel" back into the past.
So what kind of "time traveling" is it? To the traveler's perspective - it's simply traveling at a constant high speed for a short amount of time. It'll be like going into a machine, closing your eyes, and coming out 10 years into the future - without aging. (That is how, they interpreted their experiment by doing the same thing with single particles).
To an observer, this person is traveling too fast to observe, and they will have to keep the machine on for 10 years.
Of course, there is no telling exactly what would happen to the human body at such high speeds. It's basically now, a method of bodily conservation (in theory). An anti-aging element. But why? What is the use?
Suppose that you do take part in this experiment. You are trapped inside a capsule that is moving at an extremely high speed. You cannot do anything - and for ten years you are considered useless - as if you don't even exist to participate in anything for those ten years. To yourself however, you've only closed your eyes for a couple of seconds.
So what's the point? Doesn't matter to anyone else for those ten years - if you're not participating in it. You haven't been affecting anything, your wife and children were without you for ten years, you didn't work for ten years - you've only kept your body intact.
So you exit out of the time machine, ten years into the future. What now? You can't travel back into the past (No, you can't travel back in time. It's impossible, because its directly relative to the time that moves at a normal, constant rate. If you try to change the consistency of our "natural time", you'd end up getting a black hole and kill everyone inside it - including yourself.)
You are ten years into the future. Basically, you've experienced a ten year coma - except you haven't aged, and it took lots of power to do it.
Maybe to experience what the future is like? Well, you can. On the expense of others who aren't engaged in time travel. Yes - people will live normally for ten years. Things will change. People will make new inventions. We can't have everyone travel into the future now, can we? Otherwise, there wouldn't be any technological change. It would also use up a lot of energy - energy that will need to expel a waste product (at the very least : heat).
Plus you can't go back. So I don't really see the point of human time travel. Maybe if you created a device that could "slow down" time, with the option to control . Then you will never be late to work! Plus you could get away with theft, murder, rape, and vandalism. But who cares. Humans are good enough NOT to do that. Right?
Why invest in such things to create potentially dangerous material? Power. Greed. Hunger for knowledge. Where do you think AIDs came from? And who thought about having sex with a monkey, only to later have sex with a human?
It's just so we can. It's because we can. It's fun!
Just because we can! We can't travel into the past. It would be fun to! We would all accept that changing the past even slightly will cause drastic changes into the future - and any change into the future is a direct paradox to the present time!
So why do I get the feeling that SOMEONE will be so damn curious or clumsy enough to trip and fall on a flower? I just ... have that feeling that some asshole woman is going to want to pick some damn flowers from the past! Or what about some jackass man who might shoot an animal just for fun? Or how about scientists?? They're going to want to study dinosaurs!
Even your mere presence will cause minor changes in the future. It will be a damn paradox if you stay long enough for you to be born! It's impossible without the existence of multiple worlds.
There always was a problem with humans and the need to increase their pool of knowledge. There is more potential danger than benefit. Like nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is technology in the molecular scale.
Machines made to control molecules and attach to certain cells to expel diseases or abnormalities. Maybe a solution to high cholesterol or diabetics.
However, this also makes it possible to engage in a new type of biological warfare. Machines that attack and corrupt cells rather than aide them. Perhaps release a destructive poison or chemical when they activate at the body's core temperature?
Well.
Too much information is always a curse. Nuclear weapons. What comes first - a cure for a man-made ailment? Or the man-made ailment?
Man-made is any ailment that happened because of our own fault.
Well just my two cents to new technologies. What's the use anyway? Our economy is dying anyway. It will be better to invest in affordable schools (damn colleges are in the tens of thousands of dollars. why was this again? someone please tell me. seriously. please.) , giving jobs to the unemployed and taking out the credit system along with those asshole loan companies.
What would make the world better?
What can we do about this? Why not invest our time into something that would prolong our well-being and survival, rather than promote things that can potentially destroy us?
