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
Showing posts with label definition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label definition. Show all posts
Thursday, February 11, 2010
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?
This will suffice. Cited, Dictionary.com .
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.
~Samuel
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. |
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.
~Samuel
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
