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 politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, February 11, 2010
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.
~Samuel
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.
~Samuel
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.
~Sam
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.
~Sam
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
But he's the first black president!
Honestly, I couldn't care less what his skin color is. Saying that is racist. I never want to hear it again.
I simply want to go over very briefly what skin color is down to the very molecules that make us, and why there's no difference, and why this shouldn't reflect an election.
DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, is the stuff that codes for proteins, which is what we are made up of. DNA can code for proteins for things like eye color, how quickly your hair grows, hair color, or skin color. A chromosome is the state of DNA when it is tightly packed when a cell is ready to reproduce, usuqally in the shape of an "X". Quite nearlyalmostjustabout every cell in our body has two of all 23 (correct me if that's wrong...I'm going on memory here) chromosomes, every single one of them an exact copy. A section of any pair of chromosomes together is called a gene, a single of them is called an allele. Every gene codes for a protein.
Now that we have an idea for what DNA is, let's get reproduction down. In bisexual reproduction, two gametes meet and form a zygote. Each gamete has only 1 set of chromosomes (hence the "nearlyalmostjustabout" in the previous paragraph), so when the two gametes merge (a sperm and an egg), the new organism has two different sets of chromosomes coding for whatever the parents' did, but both of them! *g* Anyways, most of the time there is a dominant and recessive allele. So, let's say the allele for green eyes is dominant for the allele for blue eyes. That means, whenever just one of the parents has green eyes, the reproduced organism will. However, only if both have blue eyes will the reproduced organism have blue eyes. I don't know if that's the way it really is, it is merely an example. Don't take it for granted that everything I say in my examples is true. It's the overall message that counts, anyway.
There are a hundred different skin colors out there, and every one of them has a different coding. White people can have black kids, they just need to possess the genes for it, which is actually a semi-frequent occurance. It also works vice-versa, and in every other way possibly conceivable. Skin color doesn't change anything.
Sorry, but I have to define racism here. First off, what racism ISN'T!!!
Discrimination against people with black skin color.
I swear, everywhere I go, that's what people seem to think it is. I don't like that. That's not racism. That's not...moral. Discriminating against people with one tiny different gene, just a different skin color, is wrong. No matter what way you put it.
I hope I've helped heal some people. If there are any complaints about this post, I'd appreciate them a lot.
~Sam
I simply want to go over very briefly what skin color is down to the very molecules that make us, and why there's no difference, and why this shouldn't reflect an election.
DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, is the stuff that codes for proteins, which is what we are made up of. DNA can code for proteins for things like eye color, how quickly your hair grows, hair color, or skin color. A chromosome is the state of DNA when it is tightly packed when a cell is ready to reproduce, usuqally in the shape of an "X". Quite nearlyalmostjustabout every cell in our body has two of all 23 (correct me if that's wrong...I'm going on memory here) chromosomes, every single one of them an exact copy. A section of any pair of chromosomes together is called a gene, a single of them is called an allele. Every gene codes for a protein.
Now that we have an idea for what DNA is, let's get reproduction down. In bisexual reproduction, two gametes meet and form a zygote. Each gamete has only 1 set of chromosomes (hence the "nearlyalmostjustabout" in the previous paragraph), so when the two gametes merge (a sperm and an egg), the new organism has two different sets of chromosomes coding for whatever the parents' did, but both of them! *g* Anyways, most of the time there is a dominant and recessive allele. So, let's say the allele for green eyes is dominant for the allele for blue eyes. That means, whenever just one of the parents has green eyes, the reproduced organism will. However, only if both have blue eyes will the reproduced organism have blue eyes. I don't know if that's the way it really is, it is merely an example. Don't take it for granted that everything I say in my examples is true. It's the overall message that counts, anyway.
There are a hundred different skin colors out there, and every one of them has a different coding. White people can have black kids, they just need to possess the genes for it, which is actually a semi-frequent occurance. It also works vice-versa, and in every other way possibly conceivable. Skin color doesn't change anything.
Sorry, but I have to define racism here. First off, what racism ISN'T!!!
Discrimination against people with black skin color.
I swear, everywhere I go, that's what people seem to think it is. I don't like that. That's not racism. That's not...moral. Discriminating against people with one tiny different gene, just a different skin color, is wrong. No matter what way you put it.
I hope I've helped heal some people. If there are any complaints about this post, I'd appreciate them a lot.
~Sam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
