It's time for a language review. If there are any words you'd like to see me address on this, e-mail me or post them in the comments and maybe I can make this a regular event. :D
Anywho, two topics for today: The old "progress/congress" joke, and the word "Potentional."
First, there's an old joke that goes thus:
If the opposite of pro is con, is the opposite of progress congress?
First, logically this statement is true. Because of the way we build words, we can say that If A is opposite of B, AC is opposite of BC.
The problem is the supposition we make at the beginning of the statement: "If the opposite of pro is con." They are not opposites in this sense, because their original meanings, in Latin, are not opposites. The root word, "gress," meant "to go." Pro originally meant "forward," so "progress" meant "to go forward." Still, we say we're making progress when we're going forward toward our goal. In the joke, however, pro means "benefit"... as in "we're weighing the pros and cons of..." These are two differense senses of the prefix "pro."
Similarly, "con" in the joke means "negative," whereas the original meaning of "con" is "together." "Congress," therefore, originally meant "to go together." Based on this definition, it came to mean "meeting" and also the group of people who meets in government.
So, while it's a funny joke, it just doesn't hold any water when analyzed.
I'd also like to discuss the word "potentional." This isn't really a word, but a surprising number of people (go ahead, do a google search for it) have been using it as one. The word they're looking for, of course, is "potential," meaning "possibility, capability, or power" (from dictionary.com). Potential derives from the following roots and affixes: Potent (strong) + ial (characterized by). Thus it means "characterized by power," which is a pretty accurate definition of its meaning today. Potentional would add an extra layer to to this. -ion means "process" or "the result of a process." So Potentional would mean "characterized by the process of strength."
Is there a process of strength? If so, how do you go about characterizing it?
Whatever, anyway, this made-up word is just really, really bad, and should be avoided unless you desire to make fun of people who make up bad words. It's not a remotely cromulent word. The people who say it may be getting "potential" mixed up with "portension"... that seems appropriate, since I have a great deal of foreboding when it comes to the word potentional.
Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
huh?
More ranting.
When I have arguments with athiests over the existence of God, invariably I quote passages of scripture or other Christian authors. Even more definite is the response I seem to get from every one of them. They always accuse me of being an idiot with no original thoughts of my own. I'm sure Connor will interject a comment at that... :p
Anyway, why is it that it's always the athiests that say that? It's all right, I'm sure, for a scientist to quote Hawking when talking about a Unified Theory or Darwin when discussing Evolutionism. Theoretically, these two men were experts in their field, and there's nothing wrong with quoting what they're saying. Yet, in the minds of atheists, there seems to be a double-standard when it comes to experts on religion. It's OK to quote an expert so long as that expert has a secular view, but the moment we have a Biblical scholar like C.S. Lewis present an argument, we aren't allowed to quote that.
When I quote something, I quote it because it provides other, more authoritative voices than my own to back up my side of the story, not because I'm an idiot who only quotes others. I make up my mind based on my own research, but I also find that some people say the same things I'm already thinking, and do it more succinctly and with more authority than I ever could.
Sphere: Related Content
When I have arguments with athiests over the existence of God, invariably I quote passages of scripture or other Christian authors. Even more definite is the response I seem to get from every one of them. They always accuse me of being an idiot with no original thoughts of my own. I'm sure Connor will interject a comment at that... :p
Anyway, why is it that it's always the athiests that say that? It's all right, I'm sure, for a scientist to quote Hawking when talking about a Unified Theory or Darwin when discussing Evolutionism. Theoretically, these two men were experts in their field, and there's nothing wrong with quoting what they're saying. Yet, in the minds of atheists, there seems to be a double-standard when it comes to experts on religion. It's OK to quote an expert so long as that expert has a secular view, but the moment we have a Biblical scholar like C.S. Lewis present an argument, we aren't allowed to quote that.
When I quote something, I quote it because it provides other, more authoritative voices than my own to back up my side of the story, not because I'm an idiot who only quotes others. I make up my mind based on my own research, but I also find that some people say the same things I'm already thinking, and do it more succinctly and with more authority than I ever could.
Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Vegetarians
Ok, so I read a post by someone who is a vegetarian, and I thought I'd make a few remarks about it...
First, I'd like to point out that I totally support vegetarians, and think that's the best way to eat. However, at the start of this article, I'm going to spend a bit of time bashing on them.
Whenever I hear Vegetarians state their reasons for being vegetarians, invariably the arguments always come back to one single argument: "meat is murder." Let's analyze this statement a bit. Meat comes from the muscle mass of animals, and in most cases the animal is either a chicken or a cow. When you eat meat, you're biting into the organs that gave the animal the ability to trot or fly, or even those muscles that gave it the ability to breathe and eat. Most of the time we only eat animals that have long since gone to that elephant graveyard in the sky, so the best way to describe our consumption habits is "gnawing on slowly rotting carcasses." Tasty.
Now, animal lovers say this is murder for one simple reason: We're the ones raising the creatures purely for the sake of harvesting their tissues, and when they're ripe, we slaughter them. It *is* technically murder if you define murder as the intentional act of one person to take the life of a living creature.
Here's where the bashing comes in.
When we harvest carrots, what do you think we're doing to them? Carrots were alive, we pluck them from the ground and cut them up, and eat them with a light ranch dressing and some crutons. Yum. By the definition of murder above, this is technically a murder. Yet without ingesting matter that was living, we would die.
What about apples, oranges, and other fruits that simply fall off the tree? Aren't they safe to eat? Well, technically no for several reasons: First, those fruits never simply fall off the tree - you can't trust fruit that has been on the ground for any length of time. They are plucked from the tree while they're still growing, still living. Also, we may view the tree as the living organism and the fruit as simply a byproduct of the tree - but that view wouldn't be entirely correct because the seeds within the fruit are still living, but we're consuming the fruit they would use to grow and become trees themselves. It's akin to eating an egg, even without the yolk.
Regardless of what happens, we're requiring life to get the energy we need to us. The basic reason for this is that we need the energy the sun provides, and we have no way to get that energy ourselves without some other creature consuming it first.
My second bashing of vegetarianism is this: animals don't seem to have any qualms about killing their food and eating it. Look at tigers - they hunt zebras and antelope, pick out the weakest members of the pack, take them down, and eat them before the dead beasts' blood has even had a chance to turn cold. The rest of the animal kingdom acknowledges this fact - only humans turn against the tide and say it's wrong.
Thirdly, nature has equipped us for the consumption of meat. We have canine teeth that are designed to let us pierce flesh. Most of our teeth are molars designed for chewing plants, but not all. If our teeth are designed for carnivorous eating habits, that just means it's in our nature to eat meat.
Lastly, most vegetarians think the creatures we're eating are cute little fuzzy creatures that never hurt anyone and consciously spend their entire lives worrying and crying about the day they'll have to go to the slaughterhouse. They've been watching Charlotte's Web a few too many times. Earth to vegans: most animals in slaughterhouses feel no pain when they're killed, and they certainly don't have the intelligence to worry about their future as a steak.
So anyway, that's all I've got to say about that... now then, there are some genuinely GOOD reasons, however, for being a vegetarian (ones that don't have anything to do with killing "Peggy the Love Pig").
One such reason is the sheer volume of food that a cow needs to consume in order to be eaten at the dinner table. For every 1000 pounds of feed we put into a cow, we get about 100 pounds of meat. If we simply ate the feed ourselves, we'd be able to supply corn to the entire world and keep everyone fed easily. Think about the fact that Americans alone make up 300 million people of the Earth's population, and if we multiplied our food reserves by even just 5, we'd be able to feed an additional 1.2 billion people in the world just from what we throw to the pigs. Clearly, it's inefficient to eat meat. For the sake of ending world hunger, vegetarianism is a much better way to go.
But back to the corn thing... did I forget to mention that pretty much all the vegetables we feed to cows, chickens, and pigs is cornmeal? Yes, the wonderful, mystical ear of corn, a food that serves no purpose whatsoever other than to make animals fat for the slaughter. It's amusing that it's also the largest staple of the American diet, and Americans are the fattest country on earth. Hmmm. Anyway, not only are you consuming corn when you eat corn and obvious corn products (ie, chips), but also when you're eating the butter on popcorn or drinking a can of coke - both contain corn syrup. Additionally, since all the meat you eat has been corn-fed, your diet is even more wrought with corn because you're absorbing it from the creature that was slaughtered after eating it. And, because we think corn is the greatest gift God ever gave us, we spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to make it cheaper for farmers to grow the stuff, making cornmeal much cheaper, and eventually making it the prime choice for ranchers to use it to feed their chickens, pigs, and cattle. If you give up animals just because you want to get away from corn as a dietary staple, then you've got a good reason for quitting the game.
BTW, if anyone feels they need to be a vegetarian, they should be. If anyone feels they can't be, they shouldn't be. Neither side should force the other to do what it wants. This is as per Paul, the great Christian writer and minister of the 1st century. In his letter to the Christians in Rome (the book of... ROMANS! Who would've thunk it?), Paul tells them that some people's faith requires them to eat meat, and others requires them not to, and both views are fine. See Romans 14.
Sphere: Related Content
First, I'd like to point out that I totally support vegetarians, and think that's the best way to eat. However, at the start of this article, I'm going to spend a bit of time bashing on them.
Whenever I hear Vegetarians state their reasons for being vegetarians, invariably the arguments always come back to one single argument: "meat is murder." Let's analyze this statement a bit. Meat comes from the muscle mass of animals, and in most cases the animal is either a chicken or a cow. When you eat meat, you're biting into the organs that gave the animal the ability to trot or fly, or even those muscles that gave it the ability to breathe and eat. Most of the time we only eat animals that have long since gone to that elephant graveyard in the sky, so the best way to describe our consumption habits is "gnawing on slowly rotting carcasses." Tasty.
Now, animal lovers say this is murder for one simple reason: We're the ones raising the creatures purely for the sake of harvesting their tissues, and when they're ripe, we slaughter them. It *is* technically murder if you define murder as the intentional act of one person to take the life of a living creature.
Here's where the bashing comes in.
When we harvest carrots, what do you think we're doing to them? Carrots were alive, we pluck them from the ground and cut them up, and eat them with a light ranch dressing and some crutons. Yum. By the definition of murder above, this is technically a murder. Yet without ingesting matter that was living, we would die.
What about apples, oranges, and other fruits that simply fall off the tree? Aren't they safe to eat? Well, technically no for several reasons: First, those fruits never simply fall off the tree - you can't trust fruit that has been on the ground for any length of time. They are plucked from the tree while they're still growing, still living. Also, we may view the tree as the living organism and the fruit as simply a byproduct of the tree - but that view wouldn't be entirely correct because the seeds within the fruit are still living, but we're consuming the fruit they would use to grow and become trees themselves. It's akin to eating an egg, even without the yolk.
Regardless of what happens, we're requiring life to get the energy we need to us. The basic reason for this is that we need the energy the sun provides, and we have no way to get that energy ourselves without some other creature consuming it first.
My second bashing of vegetarianism is this: animals don't seem to have any qualms about killing their food and eating it. Look at tigers - they hunt zebras and antelope, pick out the weakest members of the pack, take them down, and eat them before the dead beasts' blood has even had a chance to turn cold. The rest of the animal kingdom acknowledges this fact - only humans turn against the tide and say it's wrong.
Thirdly, nature has equipped us for the consumption of meat. We have canine teeth that are designed to let us pierce flesh. Most of our teeth are molars designed for chewing plants, but not all. If our teeth are designed for carnivorous eating habits, that just means it's in our nature to eat meat.
Lastly, most vegetarians think the creatures we're eating are cute little fuzzy creatures that never hurt anyone and consciously spend their entire lives worrying and crying about the day they'll have to go to the slaughterhouse. They've been watching Charlotte's Web a few too many times. Earth to vegans: most animals in slaughterhouses feel no pain when they're killed, and they certainly don't have the intelligence to worry about their future as a steak.
So anyway, that's all I've got to say about that... now then, there are some genuinely GOOD reasons, however, for being a vegetarian (ones that don't have anything to do with killing "Peggy the Love Pig").
One such reason is the sheer volume of food that a cow needs to consume in order to be eaten at the dinner table. For every 1000 pounds of feed we put into a cow, we get about 100 pounds of meat. If we simply ate the feed ourselves, we'd be able to supply corn to the entire world and keep everyone fed easily. Think about the fact that Americans alone make up 300 million people of the Earth's population, and if we multiplied our food reserves by even just 5, we'd be able to feed an additional 1.2 billion people in the world just from what we throw to the pigs. Clearly, it's inefficient to eat meat. For the sake of ending world hunger, vegetarianism is a much better way to go.
But back to the corn thing... did I forget to mention that pretty much all the vegetables we feed to cows, chickens, and pigs is cornmeal? Yes, the wonderful, mystical ear of corn, a food that serves no purpose whatsoever other than to make animals fat for the slaughter. It's amusing that it's also the largest staple of the American diet, and Americans are the fattest country on earth. Hmmm. Anyway, not only are you consuming corn when you eat corn and obvious corn products (ie, chips), but also when you're eating the butter on popcorn or drinking a can of coke - both contain corn syrup. Additionally, since all the meat you eat has been corn-fed, your diet is even more wrought with corn because you're absorbing it from the creature that was slaughtered after eating it. And, because we think corn is the greatest gift God ever gave us, we spend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to make it cheaper for farmers to grow the stuff, making cornmeal much cheaper, and eventually making it the prime choice for ranchers to use it to feed their chickens, pigs, and cattle. If you give up animals just because you want to get away from corn as a dietary staple, then you've got a good reason for quitting the game.
BTW, if anyone feels they need to be a vegetarian, they should be. If anyone feels they can't be, they shouldn't be. Neither side should force the other to do what it wants. This is as per Paul, the great Christian writer and minister of the 1st century. In his letter to the Christians in Rome (the book of... ROMANS! Who would've thunk it?), Paul tells them that some people's faith requires them to eat meat, and others requires them not to, and both views are fine. See Romans 14.
Sphere: Related Content
Monday, December 27, 2004
Nothing can be proven
Nothing can ever be proven. After all, what is proof? To prove something, we have to show evidence that something is true without any questions to the contrary being expressed. For instance, we say that if we drop an apple, we see the evidence of gravity pulling the apple to the earth. We can repeat the experiment a seemingly infinite number of times and we should get the same result - the apple will always fall. We say that we have proven gravity works because the apple always falls. We say it's nonsense to believe that if we drop the apple 3 million times, once out of all those times the apple might do something different - like float there, or fly away, or fall slower than normal.
But have we really proven the apple is falling? After all, relativity teaches us that how we perceive things depends entirely upon how we're moving relative to objects. Is it possible that the earth is flying up to meet the apple, rather than the apple falling down? Further, is it possible the apple is only falling down because of a particular distortion in this section of space, and that another section of space might see objects flying apart rather than coming together? And, most importantly of all, what about our perception? Do we really know for certain that what we're seeing is really happening? Could it be that reality as we know it is merely a facade for some other type of existance, and the "apple falling to the earth" is really an expression of the essence of the apple and the essence of the earth interacting in a world we can't perceive?
Some of these things sound like nonsense, I'll be the first to admit that, as I intended them to sound silly... but they bring up a good point: We can be sure of nothing that occurs outside of our own thoughts. This is what Descartes (I never thought I'd be quoting that moron) meant when he said "I think, therefore I exist." He was looking for the answer to this very question - what can be proven? His answer: Only thought can be proven, and everything else must be taken on faith.
I would argue that even thought cannot be proven, because the theoretical possibility of something else controlling our thoughts still exists. Aliens, for instance, could be manipulating our minds (thus the need for tin foil hats!) "The Matrix" was all about robots controlling our thoughts so that we experience and think what they want us to. It is still possible that such a reality exists, so that everything, down to even our thoughts, must be taken on faith.
So, I propose a new way of looking at proof. Science seeks to prove the purely empirical (not to be confused with empyrical, which would make science a part of coal's combustion process). The empirical world is the world as we see it, and since we are forced to live in the world we perceive, we need empirical evidence and data to help us improve our quality of life. However, we cannot discard the possiiblity of a spiritual world outside of our own empirical world, possibly a place where our prayers go when we meditate, but possibly even a place where our thoughts are the physical, palpable stuff of the universe. Imagine two spirits sitting next to each other in a couch. They have come together to have a conversation and share a bond, but only within the spiritual realm. In the empirical world they're confined to, they are 800 miles apart, sitting in front of two separate computers, typing away at their keyboards.
If empirical evidence must be taken on faith to a spiritual mind, why can't spiritual evidence be taken on faith to an empirical science?
Sphere: Related Content
But have we really proven the apple is falling? After all, relativity teaches us that how we perceive things depends entirely upon how we're moving relative to objects. Is it possible that the earth is flying up to meet the apple, rather than the apple falling down? Further, is it possible the apple is only falling down because of a particular distortion in this section of space, and that another section of space might see objects flying apart rather than coming together? And, most importantly of all, what about our perception? Do we really know for certain that what we're seeing is really happening? Could it be that reality as we know it is merely a facade for some other type of existance, and the "apple falling to the earth" is really an expression of the essence of the apple and the essence of the earth interacting in a world we can't perceive?
Some of these things sound like nonsense, I'll be the first to admit that, as I intended them to sound silly... but they bring up a good point: We can be sure of nothing that occurs outside of our own thoughts. This is what Descartes (I never thought I'd be quoting that moron) meant when he said "I think, therefore I exist." He was looking for the answer to this very question - what can be proven? His answer: Only thought can be proven, and everything else must be taken on faith.
I would argue that even thought cannot be proven, because the theoretical possibility of something else controlling our thoughts still exists. Aliens, for instance, could be manipulating our minds (thus the need for tin foil hats!) "The Matrix" was all about robots controlling our thoughts so that we experience and think what they want us to. It is still possible that such a reality exists, so that everything, down to even our thoughts, must be taken on faith.
So, I propose a new way of looking at proof. Science seeks to prove the purely empirical (not to be confused with empyrical, which would make science a part of coal's combustion process). The empirical world is the world as we see it, and since we are forced to live in the world we perceive, we need empirical evidence and data to help us improve our quality of life. However, we cannot discard the possiiblity of a spiritual world outside of our own empirical world, possibly a place where our prayers go when we meditate, but possibly even a place where our thoughts are the physical, palpable stuff of the universe. Imagine two spirits sitting next to each other in a couch. They have come together to have a conversation and share a bond, but only within the spiritual realm. In the empirical world they're confined to, they are 800 miles apart, sitting in front of two separate computers, typing away at their keyboards.
If empirical evidence must be taken on faith to a spiritual mind, why can't spiritual evidence be taken on faith to an empirical science?
Sphere: Related Content
AARRRRGGGHHHH
I gotta get out of this freakin country...
Anyone know of any place on earth that's not currently part of an organized country? Other than Canada, I mean. :D
Sphere: Related Content
Anyone know of any place on earth that's not currently part of an organized country? Other than Canada, I mean. :D
Sphere: Related Content
Sunday, December 26, 2004
A Bit O' Philosophy
What is Blogger if not a notepad which everyone reads? I was thinking tonight about what life really means, and I thought I'd jot those nots down here for everyone to read...
First, there are different meanings for different people, and each meaning has its own benefits and drawbacks.
Religious people believe the meaning of life is to worship in their particular religion, and possibly to convert others to their religion. To be truely faithful to a religion, you must believe that religion is absolutely true. Because all religions have very different beliefs, if you believe one religion is true, you must believe that any other religion is false. Religions are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if you really believe in your faith, and you love mankind, then you'll naturally try to convince everyone else that your faith is correct. In many faiths, this is a core requirement, so it could be seen as the meaning of life.
For everyone else, however, we have to look at what we do as human beings in order to conclude what the meaning of life is. Life forms from procreation, so the meaning of life could be to produce offspring. The downside of this is that it's a lot of work to raise offspring, so the sheer number of children produced is usually kept low. For life to be efficient, however, more life must be produced than was consumed, so a couple should need to produce at least 3 children.
Life continues by consuming and expending energy, so the meaning of life could be to work to produce the energy needed for consumption. The downside of this is that to produce energy you must expend energy, and thus the greater part of life is spent merely expending energy for the sake of consuming more energy. This seems like a great waste of time.
Life continues unabated until it encounters another form of life - murderers, viruses, etc. The meaning of life could be to exterminate these antagonists to the life cycle. This would make police valuable as they stop murderers, and doctors valuable as they stop viruses. However, this is always a losing battle.
So far I've come up with two good meanings for life - helping others (which should, theoretically, lead to you yourself being helped) or popping out kids. Any other ideas?
Sphere: Related Content
First, there are different meanings for different people, and each meaning has its own benefits and drawbacks.
Religious people believe the meaning of life is to worship in their particular religion, and possibly to convert others to their religion. To be truely faithful to a religion, you must believe that religion is absolutely true. Because all religions have very different beliefs, if you believe one religion is true, you must believe that any other religion is false. Religions are mutually exclusive. Therefore, if you really believe in your faith, and you love mankind, then you'll naturally try to convince everyone else that your faith is correct. In many faiths, this is a core requirement, so it could be seen as the meaning of life.
For everyone else, however, we have to look at what we do as human beings in order to conclude what the meaning of life is. Life forms from procreation, so the meaning of life could be to produce offspring. The downside of this is that it's a lot of work to raise offspring, so the sheer number of children produced is usually kept low. For life to be efficient, however, more life must be produced than was consumed, so a couple should need to produce at least 3 children.
Life continues by consuming and expending energy, so the meaning of life could be to work to produce the energy needed for consumption. The downside of this is that to produce energy you must expend energy, and thus the greater part of life is spent merely expending energy for the sake of consuming more energy. This seems like a great waste of time.
Life continues unabated until it encounters another form of life - murderers, viruses, etc. The meaning of life could be to exterminate these antagonists to the life cycle. This would make police valuable as they stop murderers, and doctors valuable as they stop viruses. However, this is always a losing battle.
So far I've come up with two good meanings for life - helping others (which should, theoretically, lead to you yourself being helped) or popping out kids. Any other ideas?
Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Waiters and Waitresses
So I went out to dinner at Johnny Carino's, and the food was absolutely amazing. It's definately some place I want to go again. The waitress and the other staff were exceptional *almost* the entire way through the meal, and I had planned to give her a 25% tip. My total came to $24.48, and I was planning to leave $30 (a 23% tip if you include tax in the tip calculation, a 25% tip if you don't. I usually don't). Anyway, she made a few mistakes that really irked me right at the end of the meal.
First, she asked if I wanted my change. Note to wait staff: never ask your customers if they want change. It's rude. If the customer does want his or her change, you may be making your customer feel like he or she isn't leaving enough of a tip, which may come across as a guilt trip. Instead, say "I'll be right back with your change." That way, if the customer doesn't want change, he or she can simply leave without waiting, and if the customer does want change, there's no harm.
I deduct 5% from every tip I give for that question being asked. Still, that only brought the tip down by $1.
Next, she opened the book (the one they bring that contains the receipt and has pockets for money or credit card) to see if I had already left money for her rather than just asking if we were ready to have her take it.
Finally, when she brought change back ($5.52 should have been my change, keep in mind), she brought back one $5 bill and two quarters. She didn't return all of my change, and she didn't bring me cash that could have been useful in tipping. The mistakes made here were: a) not bring back all of my change, and b) not bringing back enough $1 bills to use for tipping if I so desired. She may have thought I would be forced to leave a $5 tip. She was sadly mistaken.
I ended up leaving a total of $3.52 (counting the 2 cents she already kept) since until the money portion of the service she had done an amazing job. My tea never went empty, my food was brought out promptly, we were checked on regularly, and she brought me more bread when I asked for it. That was all great, and would have earned her another $2 had she simply not been so annoying at the end of the meal. That may not seem like a lot, but if I'm not the only customer who operates this way, she may be shorting herself $20, $40, even $60 bucks a night.
Sphere: Related Content
First, she asked if I wanted my change. Note to wait staff: never ask your customers if they want change. It's rude. If the customer does want his or her change, you may be making your customer feel like he or she isn't leaving enough of a tip, which may come across as a guilt trip. Instead, say "I'll be right back with your change." That way, if the customer doesn't want change, he or she can simply leave without waiting, and if the customer does want change, there's no harm.
I deduct 5% from every tip I give for that question being asked. Still, that only brought the tip down by $1.
Next, she opened the book (the one they bring that contains the receipt and has pockets for money or credit card) to see if I had already left money for her rather than just asking if we were ready to have her take it.
Finally, when she brought change back ($5.52 should have been my change, keep in mind), she brought back one $5 bill and two quarters. She didn't return all of my change, and she didn't bring me cash that could have been useful in tipping. The mistakes made here were: a) not bring back all of my change, and b) not bringing back enough $1 bills to use for tipping if I so desired. She may have thought I would be forced to leave a $5 tip. She was sadly mistaken.
I ended up leaving a total of $3.52 (counting the 2 cents she already kept) since until the money portion of the service she had done an amazing job. My tea never went empty, my food was brought out promptly, we were checked on regularly, and she brought me more bread when I asked for it. That was all great, and would have earned her another $2 had she simply not been so annoying at the end of the meal. That may not seem like a lot, but if I'm not the only customer who operates this way, she may be shorting herself $20, $40, even $60 bucks a night.
Sphere: Related Content
Friday, December 17, 2004
Polonius to ACLU: "To thine own self be true"
The ACLU thing is really frustrating me, so I decided to post a bit more about it. America was built on the concept of freedom, and these freedoms were specified by our founding fathers in the Bill of Rights. You can read a copy of the Bill of Rights for yourself at The National Archives website.
Recently, the ACLU joined a lawsuit against a school district in Pennsylvania in which the school district started teaching Intelligent Creationism as a method by which the universe and all the living things on Earth were created. This is not saying that the Christian or Jewish God created those creatures, but that some greater power of some kind did. I think the ACLU is following a double standard.
The very first expressed protection in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is the protection of people to worship as they choose: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [...]." This is referred to as the Establishment Clause. As the Supreme Court has defined the Establishment Clause, it not only means Congress can't make a law creating a state religion, but it also means no government official on any level can appear to support one religion. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Court established tests to determine if a law was legal with regards to the Establishment Clause:
the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.
The key here for the ACLU is that the government cannot advance religion, and therefore cannot support a creationism view because creationism is too closely associated with religion. Under the 3rd circuit court, religion was defined:
1. A religion deals with issues of ultimate concern; with what makes life worth living; with basic attitudes toward fundamental problems of human existence.
2. A religion presents a comprehensive set of ideas--usually as "truth," not just theory.
3. A religion generally has surface signs (such as clergy, observed holidays, and ritual) that can be analogized to well-recognized religions.
Intelligent Creationism deals with attitudeds of human existence, ideas presented as truth rather than theory, and is analogous to a recognized religion (Judaism and Christianity). Therefore, it is a religion being sanctioned by the state, and is therefore a violation of the Lemon v. Kurtzman case in that the government is advancing religion.
So, since the argument rests on the Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, I demand they take a stand against evolutionism being taught in school. In that case, a law must be "one that neither advances nor inhibits religion." For most Christians, the creation of the universe occurred in 6 days and that creatures came into being exactly as they are now, and all of this was caused entirely by the divine power of God. Evolution teaches that this view is bogus, that creatures formed from the primordial ooze that existed after the earth formed from the stellar dust that surrounded our sun. By teaching evolution, teachers are telling Christian students that their religious views are wrong. Any time the government requires evolution to be taught in schools, the government is creating a policy that "inhibits religion."
If the ACLU really wants to uphold the rights of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, they must fight the teaching of evolution in schools. It's not fair to religion to uphold one protection of the First Amendment and not another. Sphere: Related Content
Recently, the ACLU joined a lawsuit against a school district in Pennsylvania in which the school district started teaching Intelligent Creationism as a method by which the universe and all the living things on Earth were created. This is not saying that the Christian or Jewish God created those creatures, but that some greater power of some kind did. I think the ACLU is following a double standard.
The very first expressed protection in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is the protection of people to worship as they choose: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion [...]." This is referred to as the Establishment Clause. As the Supreme Court has defined the Establishment Clause, it not only means Congress can't make a law creating a state religion, but it also means no government official on any level can appear to support one religion. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Court established tests to determine if a law was legal with regards to the Establishment Clause:
the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Walz, supra, at 674.
The key here for the ACLU is that the government cannot advance religion, and therefore cannot support a creationism view because creationism is too closely associated with religion. Under the 3rd circuit court, religion was defined:
1. A religion deals with issues of ultimate concern; with what makes life worth living; with basic attitudes toward fundamental problems of human existence.
2. A religion presents a comprehensive set of ideas--usually as "truth," not just theory.
3. A religion generally has surface signs (such as clergy, observed holidays, and ritual) that can be analogized to well-recognized religions.
Intelligent Creationism deals with attitudeds of human existence, ideas presented as truth rather than theory, and is analogous to a recognized religion (Judaism and Christianity). Therefore, it is a religion being sanctioned by the state, and is therefore a violation of the Lemon v. Kurtzman case in that the government is advancing religion.
So, since the argument rests on the Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, I demand they take a stand against evolutionism being taught in school. In that case, a law must be "one that neither advances nor inhibits religion." For most Christians, the creation of the universe occurred in 6 days and that creatures came into being exactly as they are now, and all of this was caused entirely by the divine power of God. Evolution teaches that this view is bogus, that creatures formed from the primordial ooze that existed after the earth formed from the stellar dust that surrounded our sun. By teaching evolution, teachers are telling Christian students that their religious views are wrong. Any time the government requires evolution to be taught in schools, the government is creating a policy that "inhibits religion."
If the ACLU really wants to uphold the rights of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, they must fight the teaching of evolution in schools. It's not fair to religion to uphold one protection of the First Amendment and not another. Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, December 16, 2004
ACLU = Another Clueless Liberal Underworld?
So the ACLU strikes again. Oh, if only I were Tyler Durden. The crazyness they've embarked on now is nothing short of hypocritical, and yet I somehow think they'll win this round.
In Pennsylvania, some schools claim that all religions must be taught equally rather than favoring only one religion. The one religion they don't want to favor is Evolutionism. Because of this, they're teaching creationism (not Christian creationism, mind you, but generic creationism) as another theory of how the universe and human beings came into existance.
Of course, several parents who want their children learning only Darwinism complained not by e-mails to the principals of those schools, but rather by contacting the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS?) and filing a lawsuit against those school districts. They claim it violates the students' rights.
I guess it's only ok to violate the rights of students of religions other than Atheism.
Hmm. If I were a parent whose child was forced to learn Evolutionism rather than creationism, could I file a class action lawsuit?
Sphere: Related Content
In Pennsylvania, some schools claim that all religions must be taught equally rather than favoring only one religion. The one religion they don't want to favor is Evolutionism. Because of this, they're teaching creationism (not Christian creationism, mind you, but generic creationism) as another theory of how the universe and human beings came into existance.
Of course, several parents who want their children learning only Darwinism complained not by e-mails to the principals of those schools, but rather by contacting the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS?) and filing a lawsuit against those school districts. They claim it violates the students' rights.
I guess it's only ok to violate the rights of students of religions other than Atheism.
Hmm. If I were a parent whose child was forced to learn Evolutionism rather than creationism, could I file a class action lawsuit?
Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Thoughts
Sometimes thoughts are too frightening or painful to deal with, and so we do everything we can to avoid them. We shut them out by trying to find something to fill the gap. Too often, that something is drugs, sex, or some other kind of sinful indulgence. Gluttony, for instance, can likely be attributed to the fact that we just want to shut these thoughts out of our minds - eating is a comfortable action compared to some of the things we have to think about.
The problem? We don't want to accept the cruel nature of reality. The world is a horrible, horrible place, and that's been said so many times it's become a cliché. "Nobody said life is fair" ... well, that may be true, but in our minds we still believe it is fair. Some people have been through so much they can't handle reality anymore, and so they try to stop thinking about reality in whatever ways they can. Television, video games, sports, food, sex, drugs, alcohol, hobbies, work... all of these can be things to simply get our minds off our condition. Entertainment, after all, is trying to enjoy life, but how can you enjoy life when you know the reality that life is awful?
Granted, some people take this practice to the extremes. Some people want to stop their thoughts so badly that they kill themselves to silence their minds. That's kinda like giving up. I've got these difficult thoughts to deal with, but others have faced them before and made it through, why should I be allowed any more weakness? In the end, weakness and strength doesn't matter, but suicide is a one-way ticket. You can't change your mind once you're gone. And since your mind is uniquely yours, no one else will ever be able to express the thoughts you have in exactly the same way. When I think of it that way, death is even more of a tragedy - it represents thougths that will never again be allowed to roam free.
Addictions are a kind of one-way ticket as well, though at least with help we can overcome those... theoretically.
The real point here is the thoughts. These difficult thoughts that we don't want to face. What are they? In my mind, the ones I can't deal with are:
#1: Is there a God?
Yes, of course there is. That's what I try to believe. But, since I've never seen Him with my own eyes or heard Him with my own ears, there is still doubt. No matter how much I may believe, there will always be doubt.
#2: We will die.
That's the hard one to accept. The concept of existing at one moment and no longer existing at the next.
#3: If there is no God, what happens when we die?
Our minds simply cease to exist. How awful is that, for this wonderful, amazing consciousness I have... this imagination, this ingenuity, this love, this energy... to simply vanish from the face of the world?
#4: If there is a God, what happens then?
As I contend and as I believe as much as it's possible for me to believe, God does exist and at the end of my life I'll find redemption through Christ and enjoy eternity. How will that be? Can I handle the thought of existing forever any more than I can handle the thought of ceasing to exist?
#5: Regardless, death on this world means no one else on this world will know me.
Oh, people might read what I've written, if I'm lucky, and for a while if I have children they will remember me, but eventually even that will fade away. I want to make a change in the world that will last for all time, but how can I do that if no one remembers me 50 years after I'm gone?
We all want to change the world. So few of us ever do.
Sphere: Related Content
The problem? We don't want to accept the cruel nature of reality. The world is a horrible, horrible place, and that's been said so many times it's become a cliché. "Nobody said life is fair" ... well, that may be true, but in our minds we still believe it is fair. Some people have been through so much they can't handle reality anymore, and so they try to stop thinking about reality in whatever ways they can. Television, video games, sports, food, sex, drugs, alcohol, hobbies, work... all of these can be things to simply get our minds off our condition. Entertainment, after all, is trying to enjoy life, but how can you enjoy life when you know the reality that life is awful?
Granted, some people take this practice to the extremes. Some people want to stop their thoughts so badly that they kill themselves to silence their minds. That's kinda like giving up. I've got these difficult thoughts to deal with, but others have faced them before and made it through, why should I be allowed any more weakness? In the end, weakness and strength doesn't matter, but suicide is a one-way ticket. You can't change your mind once you're gone. And since your mind is uniquely yours, no one else will ever be able to express the thoughts you have in exactly the same way. When I think of it that way, death is even more of a tragedy - it represents thougths that will never again be allowed to roam free.
Addictions are a kind of one-way ticket as well, though at least with help we can overcome those... theoretically.
The real point here is the thoughts. These difficult thoughts that we don't want to face. What are they? In my mind, the ones I can't deal with are:
#1: Is there a God?
Yes, of course there is. That's what I try to believe. But, since I've never seen Him with my own eyes or heard Him with my own ears, there is still doubt. No matter how much I may believe, there will always be doubt.
#2: We will die.
That's the hard one to accept. The concept of existing at one moment and no longer existing at the next.
#3: If there is no God, what happens when we die?
Our minds simply cease to exist. How awful is that, for this wonderful, amazing consciousness I have... this imagination, this ingenuity, this love, this energy... to simply vanish from the face of the world?
#4: If there is a God, what happens then?
As I contend and as I believe as much as it's possible for me to believe, God does exist and at the end of my life I'll find redemption through Christ and enjoy eternity. How will that be? Can I handle the thought of existing forever any more than I can handle the thought of ceasing to exist?
#5: Regardless, death on this world means no one else on this world will know me.
Oh, people might read what I've written, if I'm lucky, and for a while if I have children they will remember me, but eventually even that will fade away. I want to make a change in the world that will last for all time, but how can I do that if no one remembers me 50 years after I'm gone?
We all want to change the world. So few of us ever do.
Sphere: Related Content
Upcoming Movies and a Bit o' Scripture
So I went to the theater to see Ocean's 12. It was okay, but not the greatest. Anyway, there are a ton of movies coming out soon that I really want to see now. Those are:
The Chronicles of Narnia
Elektra
The Aviator
War of the Worlds
Meet the Fockers
As for requested scriptures regarding homosexuality:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Jude 1:7 - In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Romans 1:24-27 - Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
There's a better one if I can find it...unfortunately, I can't at the moment, but I'll keep looking... I've read it at least a dozen times, and I want to say it's in Romans or Hebrews...
Sphere: Related Content
The Chronicles of Narnia
Elektra
The Aviator
War of the Worlds
Meet the Fockers
As for requested scriptures regarding homosexuality:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Jude 1:7 - In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
Romans 1:24-27 - Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
There's a better one if I can find it...unfortunately, I can't at the moment, but I'll keep looking... I've read it at least a dozen times, and I want to say it's in Romans or Hebrews...
Sphere: Related Content
Monday, December 06, 2004
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Unfortunately, Beholders have about half a dozen eyes.
I was thinking about beauty, and more specifically what actresses, models, and singers I found attractive. I was interested in this topic because I am often surprised at what other people consider beautiful. Here is a list of some examples:
(format of entries - Name, Rating. Some include exposition)
Carmen Electra, 3
Hillary Duff, 4
Cindy Crawford, 3
Reese Witherspoon, 6
Mandy Moore, 3
Britney Speares, 2
Christina Aguillera, 2
Jessica Simpson, 3
Anna Paquin, 9
Keira Knightly, 10
Lindsay Lohan, 9
Catherine Zeta Jones, 4
Kirsten Dunst, 7
Elizabeth Hurley, 9
Angelina Jolie, 9: Most men are attracted to her breasts, but they're not really important to me. Her face disturbed me for a while, until I found new reason to appreciate it. Inside she's far more beautiful than the majority of the world, as evidenced by her devotion to her adopted son and the impoverished of southeast Asia.
Natalie Portman, 8: I used to think Nat was drop dead gorgeous, and physically I think she still is pretty darned attractive, but I get disillusioned by the severe liberal bent she's taking lately.
Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen, 7: They look great, but I still remember them as 3 year olds on Full House, so it's very disturbing at the same time. Also, the whole eating disorder thing, and especially the fact that they lied about it on Oprah... still, they are billionaires.
Sphere: Related Content
(format of entries - Name, Rating. Some include exposition)
Carmen Electra, 3
Hillary Duff, 4
Cindy Crawford, 3
Reese Witherspoon, 6
Mandy Moore, 3
Britney Speares, 2
Christina Aguillera, 2
Jessica Simpson, 3
Anna Paquin, 9
Keira Knightly, 10
Lindsay Lohan, 9
Catherine Zeta Jones, 4
Kirsten Dunst, 7
Elizabeth Hurley, 9
Angelina Jolie, 9: Most men are attracted to her breasts, but they're not really important to me. Her face disturbed me for a while, until I found new reason to appreciate it. Inside she's far more beautiful than the majority of the world, as evidenced by her devotion to her adopted son and the impoverished of southeast Asia.
Natalie Portman, 8: I used to think Nat was drop dead gorgeous, and physically I think she still is pretty darned attractive, but I get disillusioned by the severe liberal bent she's taking lately.
Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen, 7: They look great, but I still remember them as 3 year olds on Full House, so it's very disturbing at the same time. Also, the whole eating disorder thing, and especially the fact that they lied about it on Oprah... still, they are billionaires.
Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, December 02, 2004
To gays in the church
Yes, Christ's love is awesome. Yes, He forgives all sins to those who ask. Yes, the law is semi-invalidated because law is no longer necessary. Yes, Christ offers freedom...
However, all references to homosexuality in the new testament, during Christ's life on Earth and after His death and resurrection, say that homosexuals will burn in Hell.
Literally, that's what it says. It doesn't say "Oh, Christ will forgive you, though." No, Christ offers forgiveness only to those who ask for it. It doesn't say "But if genetically you can't help these homosexual feelings, it's ok then."
Further, the New Testament says that leaders of the church must be even *more* upstanding than other members of the church, and that they will be judged more harshly for their sins at the judgement.
Ergo, if you decide you're gay, you have no right according to the Bible to be a preacher or a minister or any other high-ranking member of a church. So quit complaining.
No, I'm not going to take the time to explain this. If you honestly cared about whether your actions might be sins or not, you'd have read every word the Bible has to say about it by now, and come to the same conclusion. Don't bend the words of the Bible to suit your sinful desires.
This goes to the "Liberated Christians" out there too. Fornication and Adultery are evil, the Bible is very clear about that. Don't try to say that because Christ offers freedom from the law you can feel free to have sex rampantly with anyone you want. Christ set down very specific rules about that himself.
Sphere: Related Content
However, all references to homosexuality in the new testament, during Christ's life on Earth and after His death and resurrection, say that homosexuals will burn in Hell.
Literally, that's what it says. It doesn't say "Oh, Christ will forgive you, though." No, Christ offers forgiveness only to those who ask for it. It doesn't say "But if genetically you can't help these homosexual feelings, it's ok then."
Further, the New Testament says that leaders of the church must be even *more* upstanding than other members of the church, and that they will be judged more harshly for their sins at the judgement.
Ergo, if you decide you're gay, you have no right according to the Bible to be a preacher or a minister or any other high-ranking member of a church. So quit complaining.
No, I'm not going to take the time to explain this. If you honestly cared about whether your actions might be sins or not, you'd have read every word the Bible has to say about it by now, and come to the same conclusion. Don't bend the words of the Bible to suit your sinful desires.
This goes to the "Liberated Christians" out there too. Fornication and Adultery are evil, the Bible is very clear about that. Don't try to say that because Christ offers freedom from the law you can feel free to have sex rampantly with anyone you want. Christ set down very specific rules about that himself.
Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Sorry, I'm a loser, I know
Ok so it's taken me 13 days to post another blog, but I'm finally doing it... been kinda out of it for the last 2 weeks since, well, it's been the Thanksgiving holiday and I've been busy! ... playing video games ... for days on end ... ok so it's all my fault. :D
I've written another short story, but this has such a Hallmark Movie Classic feel to it that I don't think I can even post it here... I wrote it at the behest of Asako, and while I think it's a decent story, I just really don't feel it's my standard of *weird* fiction.
And as to the last message I posted, please don't assume that means I'm a Republican. Neither am I a Democrat. As it concerns pessimism and optimism, I'd prefer to think of myself as a realist. There are honestly people out there who cannot change their position within society - people who will never rise from the ashes of their hells on earth not because they won't let themselves but because societal demands will not allow it. If I remember correctly, the statistic I learned in my geography classes was something like 90% of people will be in the same social class as their parents. For the remaining 10%, the trend is to move upward, not downward, but by so little a margin that generally we can say children will always stay in the same social class as their parents and never really rise up. The current system of welfare does nothing to encourage upward movement, but we can't just destroy welfare either - if we do, those 90% of poor people who could not possibly advance would not even be able to support themselves.
And with regard to the number of children poor people have, remember this: Everyone has the right to find happiness in this life, and we should try to help everyone to find this happiness if we can. Life is too short and filled with too much misery. I'm not saying everyone should try to find *pleasure*... happiness goes above and beyond pleasure, and in fact you can be happy in miserable conditions... but for many people, they don't know the difference between pleasure and happiness - one of the reason why drug use and extramarital sex are so popular now. Where am I going with this statement? When you're poor, you can't afford to buy pleasure in other places, so sex tends to be one of the big thrills of your life. It is extremely helpful that the current welfare system rewards this thought process... not helpful for those of us who *pay* for the current welfare system, mind you.
You see how complicated this is? This is why Democrats and Republicans fight over the issue so much - it's so complicated that neither side is *right*... we just really need a politician who can merge the two sides and come up with the right answer.
Vote Gamel 2016.
;)
Sphere: Related Content
I've written another short story, but this has such a Hallmark Movie Classic feel to it that I don't think I can even post it here... I wrote it at the behest of Asako, and while I think it's a decent story, I just really don't feel it's my standard of *weird* fiction.
And as to the last message I posted, please don't assume that means I'm a Republican. Neither am I a Democrat. As it concerns pessimism and optimism, I'd prefer to think of myself as a realist. There are honestly people out there who cannot change their position within society - people who will never rise from the ashes of their hells on earth not because they won't let themselves but because societal demands will not allow it. If I remember correctly, the statistic I learned in my geography classes was something like 90% of people will be in the same social class as their parents. For the remaining 10%, the trend is to move upward, not downward, but by so little a margin that generally we can say children will always stay in the same social class as their parents and never really rise up. The current system of welfare does nothing to encourage upward movement, but we can't just destroy welfare either - if we do, those 90% of poor people who could not possibly advance would not even be able to support themselves.
And with regard to the number of children poor people have, remember this: Everyone has the right to find happiness in this life, and we should try to help everyone to find this happiness if we can. Life is too short and filled with too much misery. I'm not saying everyone should try to find *pleasure*... happiness goes above and beyond pleasure, and in fact you can be happy in miserable conditions... but for many people, they don't know the difference between pleasure and happiness - one of the reason why drug use and extramarital sex are so popular now. Where am I going with this statement? When you're poor, you can't afford to buy pleasure in other places, so sex tends to be one of the big thrills of your life. It is extremely helpful that the current welfare system rewards this thought process... not helpful for those of us who *pay* for the current welfare system, mind you.
You see how complicated this is? This is why Democrats and Republicans fight over the issue so much - it's so complicated that neither side is *right*... we just really need a politician who can merge the two sides and come up with the right answer.
Vote Gamel 2016.
;)
Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
