Wednesday, September 29, 2010

It wasn’t ordinary.
In fact, it wasn’t ordinary at all. This mattered little to Sera Wyrd, who had much more important things to do. The flies crawled across the kitchen table. Just a few minutes now, then she would be free.
“You know,” she mused to her cat, “I really do hate essays.”
The cat nodded in agreement. He, of course, of all would understand Sera’s plight, being the professor of psycholinguistics for Vertizontical Continuation School. This, however, to you reader, is of little consequence in this part of the story.

One might suppose that a story would begin with a general description of what Sera might look like, or perhaps one of where she lived. In a world of mirrors, however, it is hard to describe what one might look like, or what where one lives might. To the human eye, it appears a swarm of colours, with no general shape or form; distinguishing one object from another would be deemed impossible. Where she lived, consequentially cannot be described in a sense of words, but rather a sense of infinity. It would seem nothing can be described but by infinity – an incomprehensible word – in the world of mirrors, and that the history and story of this will be as drab as trying to distinguish Sera’s kitchen table – or perhaps her cat – from herself.

The point you must realize, however, is that every one of us has a place is the mirror world – everyone a swarm of colour. Colours are infinity; they last forever, as does the mirror world. Whether today in glass, or yesterday in the creek, one shall always have a place in the mirror world. Is this world better, a more perfect world than the world we are aware of ourselves in? One could not answer that, reader, as one is never aware of both worlds at the same time. Few are aware of their existence in the mirror world.

So, you might ask, what is out of ordinary in Sera’s mirror world, and why tell her story? Every writer has a purpose for their stories. Sera is lost, reader. She is entangled in only the mirror world, scarcely knowing the world you and I call home – if at all.

That's all my thoughts for now. I would be highly appreciative of constructive criticism. :)

Wednesday, February 24, 2010


I’m Gabrielle. Lilly asked me to be part of her blog, so here I am. :)

I’m a freshman and I take Latin and Humanities at Regina Coeli Academy, which is where I met Lilly. :) My favorite subjects are Latin and Biology. I also like reading, (especially Tolkien and Star Wars) movies, and music.

I love gymnastics. Right now I’m recovering from a pretty bad ankle injury (worst sprain possible and maybe some torn ligaments) I got on beam 2 months ago :( . I have a meet a week from Saturday and I still can’t really do that much, so we’ll see how that goes. :)

So that’s just about me. :) (Do I overuse smilies? I think I do. :( ) Hopefully I can find something to blog about from time to time. :)

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Global weirding!!

Here's a short excerpt of the Best of the Web Today with James Taranto:

You know the global warmists are in trouble when they start getting advice on rhetoric and communication from Thomas Friedman. And the advice is hilarious:

"In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts--from places like NASA, America's national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre--and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it "What We Know," summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes."

They could call it "The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." And they'll get it right this time, they promise!

Then there is this advice:

"Avoid the term "global warming." I prefer the term "global weirding," because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes. The weather gets weird. The hots are expected to get hotter, the wets wetter, the dries drier and the most violent storms more numerous.

The fact that it has snowed like crazy in Washington--while it has rained at the Winter Olympics in Canada, while Australia is having a record 13-year drought--is right in line with what every major study on climate change predicts: The weather will get weird; some areas will get more precipitation than ever; others will become drier than ever."

Blogger Jim Hoft notes a pair of news stories that illustrate why this is the case. From the San Francisco Chronicle, July 6, 2009:

The Bay Area just had its foggiest May in 50 years. And thanks to global warming, it's about to get even foggier.

And from London's Daily Telegraph, Feb. 15, 2010:

Fog Over San Francisco Thins by a Third Due to Climate Change. The sight of Golden Gate Bridge towering above the fog will become increasing rare as climate change warms San Francisco bay, scientists have found.

See, it works either way! More fog? It's global weirding, man! Less fog? Also global weirding! What if the amount of fog stays exactly the same? Well, how weird would that be!

Monday, February 15, 2010

I Knew The Economy Was Small...

And I've finally found out just how small it is!

Thanks for telling the truth about the NEW economy size, Meguiars. I promise I will never again wash my car with Kit.

Loving you more by the moment,
Lillie A. S. Tove

P.S. It's 32 ounces. :)

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Happy Saint Valentine's Day

Lillie somewhat hastily dictates...

Saint Valentine
There are at least three Saint Valentines -- all martyrs, mentioned in the early martyrologies under the date of February 14. One of them being a priest of Rome, another the bishop of Interamna [modern Terni]. These two apparently were martyred in the second half of the third century, and were buried on the Flaminian Way -- though at different distances from the city. The third Saint Valentine -- who suffered in Africa with a number of companions -- nothing further is known.

St. Valentine's Day Celebrated
St. Valentine's Day is an annual holiday held on February 14 celebrating love and affection between intimate companions. The holiday is named after one or more early Christian martyrs named Valentine and was established by Pope Gelasius I in AD 496. It is traditionally a day on which lovers express their love for each other by presenting flowers, offering confectionery, and sending greeting cards (known as "valentines"). The holiday first became associated with romantic love in the circle of Geoffrey Chaucer in the High Middle Ages, when the tradition of courtly love flourished. [Source: Wikipedia]

What It Is Today
Today, in this so very distorted culture, Valentine's Day has become a commercial...I hesitate to say holiday [yes, holiday -- they took that word from us, too -- HOLY DAY] promoting sexual interaction, and buying the nicest gift for your "loved one". Okay, I admit, I'm not opposed to receiving candy any time [especially those nice chocolate hearts ^.^], but this is beyond just receiving candy. Who knows, your boyfriend might buy you a pair of underwear that say "LOVE" across the front of them -- aren't you lucky? Maybe you'll even get a card like this while he's at it!

Oh, but don't worry, it's not over! There's advertisements up over the web, and over the town -- buy your condoms half-off! No, really, we'll give them to you for 75% off! Come buy your condoms today!

You might want to check the price of what your boyfriend bought you. Your friend might've gotten an MP3 player from her boyfriend, and you got an iPod -- you never know, though -- her boyfriend might've spent more on her gift.

Anyhow, you get the general idea. I'm not happy, Bob. Not happy.

Would you like fries with that?

Happy Saint [?] Valentine's Day.

-Lillie A.S. Tove

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Justin scribbles hastily...

I've been investigating lots of minamlist music lately -- mostly Philip Glass, John Adams (not the president) and a little of Meridith Monk. Their styles of composing seem so different. Philip Glass's music is rarely harsh but instead generally nice and pleasant sounding but oh, so repetitive. John Adams is not so repetitive but a little more difficult to listen to; he excels in strange and prolonged dissonances. Meridith Monk's music is not only repetitive but usually contains no melodic line, no counterpoint, and the harmony seem random -- as if she planned the construction of the composition with complete disregard for the pitches. Hence, her music is vastly different sounding from Glass's and one would not immediately guess that they both consider themselves of the same genre: minimalism.

So what is minimalism, that it contains such a wide variety of music and composers? According to Michael Nyman (one the first minimalist composers; a founding father, if you will), the definition of minimalism is:

(1)...any music that works with limited or minimal materials: pieces that use only a few notes, pieces that use only a few words of text..

(2)...or pieces written for very limited instruments, such as antique cymbals, bicycle wheels, or whiskey glasses...

(3) ...pieces that sustain one basic electronic rumble for a long time...

(4) ...pieces made exclusively from recordings of rivers and streams...

(5)...pieces that move in endless circles...

(6) ...pieces that set up an unmoving wall of saxophone sound...

(7) ...pieces that take a very long time to move gradually from one kind of music to another kind...

(8)...pieces that permit all possible pitches, as long as they fall between C and D...

(9)...pieces that slow the tempo down to two or three notes per minute...

Nine criteria in toto, and interestingly enough, not one of them can be found in either of the three aforementioned composer execpt for Monk. Why is this so; aren't Adams and Glass minimalist composers? They are -- to an extent.

I personally would argue that like everything else, minimalism eventually has to modify itself into something that the public would be satisfied with or it would suffer the fate of many, many other "isms" (Philip Glass, in his early days, could find absolutely nobody to commission him or professionals to perfom his music. Obviously, this is no way to earn a living.) Minimalist composers find that playing remastered recordings of the ocean does not really please an audience paying twenty dollars minimum for a seat in the concert hall. Likewise, the novelty of pieces moving in endless circles, or music composed for whiskey bottles inevitably wears aways, leaving an almost "emperor with no clothes on" effect.

How do minimalist composers remedy this? What do they alter? They simply discard the questionable elements and keep the good. They throw away the loud, annoying saxophone noise and keep the repetiveness, What's more, they add harmony. I find it no coincidence that Philip Glass has lately been breaking his ties with strict minimalism and stressing his extensive study of Mozart's counterpoint and harmony. He retains the repetition however and this results in a moody, haunting even sublime atmosphere, which I, personally, enjoy -- especially in scores like "The Illusionist".

John Adams is going in a similiar route, though his music generally tends to sound more neoclassical (new-classical) than anything else. (Basically, neoclassism is throw-back to the good ole days of Shostacovitch , Sravinsky and Prokofiev, but nowadays, neoclassism is never without that twenty-first century "spin".)

Meridith Monk. Not having heard terribly recent compositions of her's, I can't really say anything much about her changing. However, I'm pretty sure she isn't. The last I heard, it appeared that she much prefers the technical aspects of composition over the aesthetic. The "icy demonstration of mathamatical principles" as Bloch would have it, greatly intrigues her.

To conclude, minimalism needed to be adapted and changed some before it was largely embraced by musicians and listeners. Philip Glass realizes that; John Adams realizes it. They've both adapted considerably and the exent of the evolution of their music is incredible. Consequently, they're well-known, well-respected, with soundtracks to reputable movies to their names, and many people enjoy their music. Meridith Monk, on the other hand, seems to be restricting herself to strict mimimalism. This, in my opinion, is a pity. In this way, I believe that she is not only restricting herself to the narrow confines of the college/university, but she is also, in effect, dooming herself to obscurity.

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Cureth my boredom!

Samuel dictates...

I don't like dead blogs. They're so...rotty and corpse-filled and...yeah.

So, being the quirky individual I am, now for something completely unrelated.

What America (and Americans) lacks in general: sound logic. I've been noticing lately on account of a few practical reasoning and general nose-poking (no fingers, though :P) that there is a complete lack of sound logic in most everything I see and hear lately. Sadly, I don't find it worthy of time or efficiency to give an overview of practical logic (go figure, I still only half-understand the half of it), but I do find it incredibly worth my precious minutes to come on here and say that it should be introduced as a necessary class in public schools: formal and material logic. Formal because it sounds formal and material because it provides the basis for practical application. I've already taken a formal logic course in one semester, and have started a course known as Informal Fallacies; both in the Memoria Press Online Academy (I wish there were liberals there, it'd be funny in the heat of class).

Whenever I'm in school and running around being my anti-controversial, piratical self, I end up in loose-topic, heated flame wars (lol). These fire-against-fire, rather pointless battles always end up having the winner being the one who talks the loudest and longest and last. There's three L's you should avoid. Eventually I figure out that I'm not getting anywhere and wasting my time on somebody who doesn't want to change their flawed ways, and they take my relenting to their eardrum-cracking verbal beration as a win for them, when in fact I just get bored of mindless and hopeless repetition (on their part, of course). Okay, so maybe I tried to make that sound a little funny and maybe even a little biased in my favor. :P But one should obtain the general meaning of my constant blathering.

An argument can in general be defined as a conclusion supported by premises. If there are just premises, it is not an argument and just a bunch of pointless, probably isolated, statements. If it's just a conclusion then it's just a random, unsupported, objective declaration that I'm going to screw you upon because you have no idea what you're talking about. Clear? I'm glad you so willingly submit to my obvious psychological superiority. :P No, I am not sick or twisted in any way...potentially conceited, but that's no grounds for accusation, right? G'day, sheeple!

~Samuel Ignes Fox

PS: Yes, I was joking when I called you sheeple. But it's a fun word, right? Sheep + people = socialism! w00tage ft(p)w(n)! Anyways, don't take offense. I was just saying what Obama tells us, except more me-centered for the sake of me getting a laugh (and hopefully anybody else with the same sick sense of humor). But mindlessly repeating that sentiment will make somebody just as mad as seeing me sitting on my little throne (that I made). Heh, this kind of joke is funny. But seriously, people, I don't mean it! XP

Sunday, January 31, 2010

The Crucifix

Lillie rants...
We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.
-1 Corinthians 1:23

I haven't encountered a debate on the crucifix for some months, but recently, I got into one.

What is a crucifix?
A crucifix is a three-dimensional representation of Jesus on the cross. It emphasizes Jesus' sacrifice - His daeth on the cross.

The question that arose was praying in front of the crucifix - is this worshiping a statue? No! Do we talk to the crucifix and look at it while we pray? Yes, we do. Doesn't this mean we think the statue is God? No!

Imagine this, my reader. Perhaps you keep a picture of your mother, or father, perhaps your spouse or child in your wallet. If you haven't seen this person in awhile, perhaps you take this picture out. You look at it and say, "Mother, I love you." Does this mean you think that this picture is actually your mother? Of course not! Would this seem crazy? Of course not! Liken to this is our picture, our representation of Christ on the cross. If we look at it, and say, "I love you, Christ." are we crazy? Are we worshiping this picture/statue? Of course not!

This point was proven, and agreed upon.

However, my friend mentioned, "When you draw Christ on the cross, you are leaving him there, after in scripture it tells us, 'Do not leave me on the cross.'"

Well, first of, I don't know where you're talking about, 'leaving Christ on the cross'. But, for the time being, I'll ignore the fact I don't recognize it.

This is just a representation, of course we don't believe Christ stayed on the crucifix! That would be ridiculous. It's like if I took a picture, or drew a picture of my sister on a rollercoaster, a few days after she had went on it. Does that mean she's still on the rollercoaster? Of course not! That would be absolutely ridiculous.

I never got a response from anyone I had debated this subject on after that.

Anyone else willing to think up another reason why not to have crucifixes? I'd be interested to hear your objections.

-Lillie A.S. Tove

Thursday, January 14, 2010

i can haz rights?

Samuel writes...

No! Because I'm a white male. :P Okay, that's not the idea of this post.

I'm here to advertise quickly a book I'm about halfway through called Fatherless. Lemme give a quick history lesson.

Is America as profoundly the "best country" as it was? Heck, no! ...but why? If things were still being run the way they were with simple changes for new technologies, we would still be hangin' out on the top of the food chain. But that's slipping. This implies something changed. However, it isn't just the country's leadership and stuff that changed. The entire country has to change for so massive a slip as this (seriously, it's like tripping on the second to the top stair of the Sears Tower and falling back to the 50th floor -- major stuff here).

The book Fatherless details the time when I firmly believe this change happened. Though a fictitious novel, it is still historically correct. The whole scene occurs somewhere in the 1960's, when there was a plethora of "new evils" that we see being widely accepted today. This includes birth control pills, abortifacients, pay-to-watch programming along with cable in general ( at prime time, folks! -- but then you payed for it; now...), and a slew of other issues. All these were questioned and fought by the Catholic Church. Members of the Catholic Church sided with pleasure on most of these, and this tells of priests and the faithful in those times.

I'm no fan of slow-going, normal life novels. Really, I find them boring like nothin' else. However, if business was ever action-packed, and it is, this is where to find it.

"...This is storytelling at its heat pounding, page turning, masterful best..." -The Philadelphia Bulletin
"...A gripping and deeply moving read that is, at the same time, a hauntingly beautiful exploration of man, God, morality, faith and the Church in our contemporary world. Masterfully done..." - Roy Schoeman, author Salvation Is from the Jews

Note, some profanity and obscenity. Nothing alarming, though.


Sunday, December 20, 2009

Reliving history?

Christopher writes,

I was invited to post on this blog by Lilium bulbiferum er Lilly. Anyway, when she invited me, I asked what I should post, her response? "Anything!" And so I post.

We know that history repeats itself, so in order to find out what the United States will look like in the future, we only need to look at the past. We will start by finding a time in history in which some country looked like the USA does now. I find France just before The Reign of . The Reign of began late in the 1700's which was a comparatively short time ago. We find that shortly before The Reign of , a person in the French government was spending money left and right by the name of Obama, oops, I meant Marie Antoinette. The result of this? A sharp increase in the national debt. A large national debt resulted in the collapse of the economy, and great suffering of the citizens of France. During this time, the treasurer came before the queen and announced that he was done and marched out of the castle. He could not deal with the size of the negative numbers. The debt of France was at this time some multi-million dollar amount.

With the collapse of the economy, people got desperate. The guillotine was erected in many places and people were killed left and right. How did this all happen? The wrong people took hold of power in France. If The Reign of started when the national debt of France was several million dollars and our national debt is:

 What can we expect to see in the near future? You can draw your own conclusions.


Monday, November 30, 2009

Lost and Found for arguments?

Listen closely, children. I don't care how you do it, I don't care in what context, I don't give two shakes of a rat's behind what situation. If you isolate an argument in your own little bubble, it will always appear correct. It does not make you look, seem or appear smart; in fact it makes you look like a sick, twisted stuck-up. This goes for Christians and Conservatives, too.


*Editor's note: I changed the italics, because you used BB code, which only works for BB. Use HTML instead.*

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Part 2 in the flame war! *yawr"*'s pretty funny where that last post went. That entire last paragraph was spent appeasing all the different "counter-arguments" I've gotten in response to that. The fact of the matter is, tough, that not a single person I've met has been able to deny (with a straight face) mankind's nature. All the people who were capable of that died along with G.K. Chesterton, whom I bet dragged them down with him. Anyways, back to attacking pleasure, the real epitome of America's downfall -- Rome is such a fun example, too bad Hitler didn't fall that way or we'd've never had this prablem.

Note, again there is some obscene language within this post that may offend anyone who reads, and again it is used in a perfectly appropriate way, so you'll only be offended by the language itself (which makes you sort of a sissy if you can't talk about it with a straight face).

Recap of what I have done:
Existence of non-arbitrary realities seperate from Humanity; sufficiently proven.
Existence of Moral Law; sufficiently proven.
Proof of Moral Law's non-arbitrary nature.

So! We now know that there is a set of laws that we are accountable to that tell us in all situations what we must or must not do. Heck, if you ever payed attention to yourself you'd be well aware its existence. So...what's at the bottom of this? Moral law has also been proven by my own worthy self that it is ingrained in our minds. Where's the problem? What happened? The ultimate answer to the existence of homosexuality is...! Porn. :O

Now, for some fun, non-theoretical, mostly scientific evidence that homosexuality is not only immoral, but that it is a mental and hormonal disorder...supported by the government, too. Dang, folks are out of whack. Aaaaanyways, what happens is whenever someone views *coughcough*pronz*coughcough* what happens is a gland in the endocrine system produces a hormone that causes a very special kind of excitement only found through sexual arousal. We all know that, though. :P Furthermore, at first this excitement is caused by viewing the opposite gender (in context). However, I've been informed by multiple sources (I'd never check out for myself) that much of it (*coughcough*pronz*coughcough*) contains photographs of both genders "in the act." Thank the thirteen-and-a-half dice gods that's all the obscene language I have to use for the rest of this post, since the rest of it is all endocrine and nervous systems. Suddenly, once this type of pronz is viewed, the glands in the endocrine system experience a sudden confusion. Which gender do they respond to when both are in the picture? Eventually, this question turns around into a completely skewed anser: it doesn't matter. Maybe, eventually, after viewing enough it's the opposite gender, since the viewing the female gets old or someat -- that reason belongs solely to the viewer, and could cover any number of excuses. Now some solid proof of this being the cause.

The homosexual agenda appeared sometime closely after the dawn of publicly-available photography. It expanded hugely with the dawn of the internet's capability to carry photographs. This ringin' any bells?

So, now we have proof that it is a hormonal disorder. I believe it was President Clinton that first pushed the agenda -- why? Because a GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transsexual) organization of some form or another provided campaign money, and Clinton, of course, had to repay that, being the generous man he was. I am, of course, figuring this as a deduction from the dates of the dawn of the homo-revolution, not clearly printed facts, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

So...back to moral law briefly before I must face the fact I'm in a reality with homework. We are aware of its existence and we are aware of its non-arbitrary nature. If moral law is non-arbitrary, then it must be the same for every human being (mind you, it codes for different situations, not people). So in similar situations people therefore must do similar things (as per moral law, nowadays it's all about ethnicity). Furthermore, people are accountable to certain axioms of moral law. This all follows from the proven non-arbitrary nature thereof.

On society, it is the duty of people in a society to further society. How do we further a society? Grow it. It is the very nature of human beings to do so. Axioms of moral law dictate that everything has a center purpose, a special usefulness. In an action there is the action itself and the intent of what is necessary for the action. Hammers are for nails, that is their nature. The hammering of a nail is a moral action, since it follows the nature of the hammer. I can also use the hammer to fix my computer by striking it with hard blows multiple times. This may not follow the direct nature of the hammer, but it is still a moral action (unless it's a rage quit, of course ^-^). Same goes for gonads! Their nature is Male and Female, however they have no alternative use (the urethra is different, men). To do otherwise is a violation of the nature of tissues intended for sexual reproduction (abbreviated "sex"...ring any more bells? Sounds like a Church bell choir already!). Futhermore, homosexual "unions" are a violation of man's very nature as a social animal as they are incapable of furthering society by means of reproduction! Now even further, since the duty of people in a society is to further society, aka the center of society, the epitome of society is the family. Oh, look, Obama's ears are already gushing blood like Niagra Falls. Being the center of society, the family must therefore be the goal of members of a society.

So, what are the opposing arguments? I'm just insensitive! They're born that way! B S! there is no "gay chromosome" and there is no "gay hormone." We've already seen that it is a hormonal disorder! The fact of the matter is, the entire thing is purely against the nature of human beings and in opposition of moral law and a non-benefit of society, aka an anti-society agenda formed by lobbyists in DC as pork for an organization. I rest my case, and my loud mouth.

~Samuel Ignes Fox;
~Samuel Dobrozsi

Monday, November 23, 2009

The epitome of what's wrong with this world...and the inevitable solution. Part 1

So, here I am again to say something. What am I going to say? That' s up to my so bloomin' ADhD mind, I can't say whether it'll be about ferrets or citrus cake! But that's the fun of it, isn't it?

Warning: This post may contain some language pertaining to obscenity, etc. The language itself is used appropriately, but the language itself may, then again, offend someone, so be forewarned.

I am going to make a proof. This proof is based upon known facts of humans and their behaviors as a generality. It must be known before I start that I do not focus on all these "minorities" when it comes to my own dang proofs, thank you. "Normal" humans encompass a far more generous portion of the planet's population than "abnormal," and the latter being, of course, undesirable (see? ADhD already!). I will state my conclusion first, because it's more epic and astonishing that way.

All sexualities are morally incorrect and against our nature except for a "traditional" sexuality.

Points for the sake of argument:
- A "sexuality" is the word describing what gender a person is attracted to.
- "Morally Incorrect" as per moral law.
- "Traditional" as will be defined presently.

When I say "Traditional" sexuality, what do I mean?
1. of or pertaining to tradition.
2. handed down by tradition.
3. in accordance with tradition.
This will suffice. Cited, .

I pick out that third definition. In accordance with tradition, what our ancestors throughout the world came to the conclusion of of their own accord. So, here we are: what is an axiom of life?

Each and every civilization before us, Eastern and Western, have all arrived at certain common conclusions. I find the best example is mathematics. Eastern, Western and African (what else do I call it? :P) civilizations all on their own created a system of their own intuition to number every person, place or thing. Mathematics itself has many common notions and axioms and other such, guidelines to follow to reach a goal; a correct answer to a question (e.g. how many sheep do I have? And also, to terrorize Lilly, are these triangles congruent?). All these seperate civilizations came up with the same system, ultimately, since they all expressed the same reality that is always acceptable. One apple is one apple and one apple alone, in any language or culture, whatever. This is a clear statement of a reality. All those different countries and societies all came up with this very same system, and each civilization (most namely the Greeks and Chinese) had its own mathmeticians (mathmagicians! 8D) that expanded upon it into the realm of theory and law. They developed guidelines so that they would arrive at correct answers.

All this proves that math (mathamancy they'd call it in Erfworld) is not arbitrary or something that we can just "define for ourselves." It serves as the closest example to what I go on to now, Moral Law. However, we still have more ground to cover before that; we now move on to just what is a human being?

A human being, on a purely animalistic level, is a social animal. Nobody likes putting gods (or God) and souls into debate anyways, so I shall prove without, since that argument itself is another half hour out of my day to prove everyone wrong. Either way, when social animals gather they create a society. This is their nature and that society is necessary for their existence (this is where that "generalities" thing comes into play, and why hermits sacrifice more than we think). Therefore, it must be a human's nature to benefit society. Now! Moral law comes fully into play as I define it:
Moral law is a set or code of laws to any and every possible situation that always rule in favor of human nature, aka society. Or, Moral law benefits society.
By this definition, if moral law is followed, a society will flourish. Best example, the Romans. We all know how they were to start out with, those brave, stalwart Trojans that abandoned their burning city for a life and place to prosper. Those people of old filled with the virtue of early times and the knowledge that their lives were on the line. They did, however, prove that ones life does not have to be on the line to continue following moral law, for anyone who would've picked that out. Rome was named out of a mishap, when Romulus did in his brother with a shovel (dun hops mah wall! *smack*). However, it flourished under a virtuous people -- a people full of patriotism and resolve. It fell under lust, gluttony and greed. Gee, ya think this "moral law" stuff might be important? Just be glad I didn't bring Hitler into this. :P Owait, I just did...

So, how do I prove that moral law exists? Well, allow me to ask: what is a human at its most "human" point? When is a man most a man? (Note, when I say "man" it is an abreviation of "human") It is at the point of birth. Unbridled behavior and thought, unbound by the ropes of judgment -- affirmation and denial. Children who say "that's not fair!" are the perfect example of moral law, that it is bound in every human being down to their DNA (not to say it's as a result of genetics, but because people don't listen when I throw spirituality into arguments). When you take their cookie away, that's what they say. "That's not fair!" You know it, too, hence all that guilt involved...was it really worth that cookie? Naughty, naughty. Aaaanyways, note that as children grow they are inlfuenced more and more; the mind at that point is in a constant state of learning and repetition, and every single act or word will be a permanent influence. Therefore, they will in fact become just as cynical as their parents, if not more than, depending upon what behavior is exhibited before them. That is how we grow, and how Rome grew before it succumbed to pleasure and power. However, those children that turn so red when they know they've done something wrong; they know, and moral law is at its rawest form in them. However, it is not fully developed, and most of the time nowadays the pleasures and powers of our fast-paced lives teach us otherwise, even now my own mind is still in that learning state and I am still influenced by those around me. Most of the people if not all on this blog are in that same state. When we see or experience pleasure, we want it, and if this occurs enough and becomes the center of our judgment (affirmation or denial) and becomes an obsession.

I apologize, but I must stop at this point, because I've gotten so far ahead of myself in my own argument that I've forgotten where I was and my original thoughts are too cloudy. That whole last paragraph seems a bit drawn out. Worry not, I'll be back to finish that once I've had a good brain-rest (sleep). I had intended this to come out in a few parts, anyways.


Monday, November 16, 2009

A word....


I'm Justin J. As you can see, I'm now on this blog (thanks for the invite, Lillie!) and will hopefully contribute something that's not too stupid from time to time. :-)

I'm an SOer, if that makes any sense. If it doesn't, it means I take Latin and Physics from Scholars Online.

I'm really busy right now, with Latin due tomorrow, and quiz, a piano lesson, a rehearsal for Annie -- the musical. All going on tomorrow. The pedal broke on the electronic keyboard (they can't fit a real piano in the pit, puh), and I told the conductor I'd fix it before tomorrow's rehearsal, and quite honestly, I haven't the foggiest on what I need to do. I'll give it my best effort, though. It needs a screw perhaps, but the problem is most screws won't fit in the tiny little hole that's there, at least not any that are in the house. Also, whenever I press down on the pedal, it makes this loud crinkling noise. Why? I don't know. The rubber's falling off, and I don't think glue will work. And I'm supposed to fix all that -- Before tomorrow's rehearsal. Poor me. :-)

Anyhow, when I'm not up to my ears with school and other stuff, I'll post something interesting.

Hopefully. :-)


Monday, November 9, 2009

On Love

love (luv), n.,v., loved, loving. - n.
1. the profoundly tender or passionate affection for a person of the opposite sex.

There you have it. Sue Webster for the offensive definition.

I'm gonna post a longer post on this later this week. :P

Friday, November 6, 2009

Because we're all so bored.

I thought I'd make a small announcement about the state of the government and their first infringement on the most open-source...source of information, entertainment and revenue ever. The government is turning its black eye (LOTR reference ftw!) toward the realms of the internet. Quick, run for your lives!

Anyways, I've been listening to talk radio lately and on a 14 hour drive home from New Hampshire around 10:00 AM I heard that horrible announcement by the illustrious Glenn Beck that there is going to be an "Internet Equality" bill presented before the House, the Senate and Congress in all that process stuff I used to know about but forgot because the knowledge is unnecessary for two more years.

This bill is the first of many infringements that will take us down the road England is cursed with: horrible internet access speed, federally enforced internet policing, and first amendment rights infringements! It's easy to see where this will lead as soon this original bill is passed (and it probably will be).

The bill now presented will essentially make it so companies such as Time Warner Cable who provide high-speed internet access and upgrades for rich people will no longer be able to charge for boosted internet speed. Because it will no longer be profitable, and they need to remain as strong as they can at this point, companies will drop the options and there will be one option. Slow, unreliable, non-gamable internet. There may even be clauses containing such infringements as aforementioned.

Call your congressmen and women, and keep it from getting passed! Note not all information is correct because I'm lazy and don't have perfect memory, but you all get the idear.


Thursday, October 22, 2009

A title!! Omgosh!


Lilly!!!! (and whoever else might happen to be reading this....)

Um.... hi:) This is random. So it fits with this blog. Right? Agree? Yes? No? Yes. Yes? No!?! Come on, agree with meeeeee. Pleeeeeeeease?? Okay. *stops*

Alrighty. I'm SO wasting y'all's time. Sooo... I'mna be a good girl and end this post (which, btw, means that this post is only half-way through, because it's gonna' take me forever to say goodbye XD).

*siiiigh* La dee da. I need to go. Fare the well. 'Twas nice posting. Oh yeah... I guess I should say something about myself, eh? I'm a great friend of Lilly's (us mutualists... XD), aaand, yeah, we love each other. Don't we, Lilly? I think we do. Unless she's just a REALLY good actress. Which she very well could be. But anyway.

Good-byeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *sings her way off*
Yours truly,

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Are You Scared Yet?

Not scared yet? You want some more? Sure, I've got more! Lots more!

Don't worry, there's more!

“This guy was president before I was . . . This guy was God before I was.” – Barack Obama -in reference to Morgan Freeman’s portrayal in “Deep Impact and “Bruce Almighty”

“This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament.” . . .”I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event.” — Chris Matthews

“Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves.” — Ezra Klein

“I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let’s say, blessed and highly favored. That’s not routine. There’s something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God’s plan.”– Bill Rush

“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. … The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.” — Rev. Jesse Jackson Jr.

(quotes credit to "Obama for Messiah")

I would invite you to check out this great blog, but you'll be to scared.

Monday, March 9, 2009

The problem with men

Sorry to say it, but no, we're not perfect. But is that the point? Well...yes, actually. I'm here to talk about marriage and other such friendships. After reading The Fox and the Hound, the novel...okay, don't read it, it'll make you depressed for weeks afterward and there are some awkward scenes...but back to the point!

In said book, Tod's range is infected by modernity, factories, suburbia, the whole bunch. Eventually, there's only twenty or so acres of woodland left, which he clings to as his home since his childhood. However, the entire place is populated by a different kind of fox, more cat-like, all of them ungroomed and such because they've learned to scavenge the dumps and trash cans. How does this relate to marriage? Well, these fox's do not hunt, in fact they couldn't catch a mouse if they needed to, because they're so used to scavenging for their food from the rubbish piles of humanity. Food was easy to find, and the dog foxes did not have to support the vixens or the pups because all could pick and choose from the trash as they pleased. The male and female needed each other no farther than temporary sexual pleasure. There was no need whatsoever for monogamy! Because of this, even though the population flourished, this generation of foxes was stupid -- utterly useless beyond their pitiful scavenging. And now how that relates to modern humanity...

It's quite a similar state. First, I'll start with a...oh, I'll just give an educated guess as to how a colonial household was structured. The woman stayed home. Why? Because the man provided. Because the man provided, the woman stayed home to raise the children and keep clean the household, because the man was -- guess what? Providing for his family. The man needed the woman just as much as the woman needed the man, and this need brought the two closer together. Now, let's consider the average marriage nowadays. Man thinks girl is pretty. Girl thinks man is hot. They say they love each other a thousand times, but they both work. That need for each other is not established because they know they can exist apart. The government intervening with the public school system doesn't help much, either. They hardly use their house aside from sleeping in and making coffee in the morning, so there's hardly any need for the woman to clean and maintain the household. The man isn't attracted to the woman outside of the bed because he knows he isn't providing for her. They're only together for however long their individual beauty to each other lasts, and then they divorce and repeat the process.

That said, I am against women having jobs, because it prevents an ideal relationship. Providing, of course, that the woman decides she is called to the single life. It is only ideal that men work, too, since they are essentially built for the working life -- their mindsets, that is. Perhaps I'll post again on this subject later, since I can never cover the entire thing in one swoop.


Monday, March 2, 2009