 |
Well, I've decided that this space will contain the "opinionated rant(s) of the moment" or something like that. Basically I don't have the motivation to update this regularly so I'll just put anything here that I feel is an opinion and people might, for whatever reason, want to read. So here ya go...
-----------------------
On avoiding situations because you think you've logically deduced the outcome and it isn't 100% favourable
So why don't you let anybody get to know you? I mean, apart from the fact that people who are close to you almost inevitable hurt you sooner or later, and more often than not are just out for their own satisfaction when it comes to a relationship...but hey, that's all part of life. You can secret yourself away and never let anybody in and be safe and secure but then you're lonely. The trade-off for sacrificing some of that security is a little less loneliness.
Intelligent people, thinkers, have a hard time with life because they think they can logically REASON the outcome of any situation...even if it's 10 years down the road, and then avoid anything that doesn't seem like it's going to be 'worth it'. I do this all the time and I kick myself over it. Of course MOST relationships you have will have bad times and most of them will end sooner or later, but damn you can't let that stop you from experiencing the good bits as well. We have to understand that thinking we've figured out the conclusion isn't the same as reaching that conclusion through living the road that leads there.
The problem with avoiding pain like that, in a sort of fortune teller way (you don't REALLY know what's going to happen, as hard as that is to admit...believe me, I know) is that it prevents you from doing a lot of things that could be a wonderful experience (sure, some bad mixed in as well, but that's life). Especially when it comes to relationships because your brain says, "don't get close because they'll only fuck you over in the end" but everything in human natures screams, "BUT I NEED COMPANIONSHIP" ...not bloody surprising that so many people have emotional issues!
So, what do you do? You use a little willpower and force yourself into uncomfortable situations, unCERTAIN situations. You have to. I still work on this every day -- and I'm terrible, but I try. If you never take any risks in life you end up one of those people that live in the same town their parents lived in, and never leave the county, and marry some person that's mediocrity incarnate because they're nonthreatening, and blah blah blah. you have to realize that taking risks (not like, jumping in front of cars, but making decisions in life where the outcome isn't clear) is what makes life livable, interesting, exciting, even. Sure, there will be ups and downs, but that's better than just plain boredom and lonliness.
Even though interpersonal relationships can be painful, it's worth it to have somebody to share things with in life. I can't count the number of times I've been somewhere and thought, "I wish I had somebody to share this view with" or share this experience with, whatever. We need that companionship; we need people to share thoughts and feelings and experiences with -- even if we're loathe to admit that we've such a gross weakness!
-----------------------
In response to a girl that caught her boyfriend looking at porn and came to me for advice
Didrik explains (I should have a newspaper column or something ;) Anyway, what you've got going here is completely normal and not something you should worry about (although you most likely will anyways) Him looking at porn, is normal. I think most guys do that, regardless of what sort of relationship they may or may not be in. I could probably go on all day rationalizing it but I don't think there is any good rationalization. Guys just like looking at porn (of various flavours). This situation has come up in both of the serious relationships I've been in (both of which lasted nearly 2 years). The difference being that instead of sneakily catching me looking at porn my girlfriends simply asked me at some point in the relationship, "do you look at porn?" What prompted them was different but the question was the same. My answer, "yes." And then, of course, came a reaction similar to yours (aren't I good enough? don't I satisfy you? are you a pervert? etc etc). What's hard for girls to understand is that sexual stimulation isn't nearly as *personal* for guys as it is for girls. If a girl fantasizes about something to get herself off it's intimate, personal, it's almost like a mini-relationship in itself; whereas for guys it's all business. Most guys have been wankin' off since they were about 10-13 and they enjoy it. It's not the same game as sex. An analogy that might work is this: let's say you play solitaire a lot, and you really like solitaire, it's a fun game and you play it a lot. Then somebody comes along and teaches you bridge, a more complex game that requires a partner and two opponents and a good bit of strategy. Now you're hooked on bridge and you really love it and you play as often as possible. Is there any reason why this should stop you from playing solitaire now and then? Hell no. They're not the same game. They're hardly even related apart from them both being played with cards. Should your bridge partner get jealous if you play solitaire when they're not around, or even if they are? Should they feel cheated? No, that's silly. It's a game. And masturbation, to males at least, is nothing but a game. It's a fun and noncomittal activity. The problem is that males and females have different perspectives on the subject. I talked with both my ex-girlfriends about this a lot when it came up and they never really understood where I was coming from, which can only be expected since they were coming from somewhere else altogether. The only thing I can really say is that you shouldn't worry about it. Do your best not to take it personally. To HIM it really doesn't mean anything and in no way reflects on your sexual prowess or your success (or lack thereof) as a partner and girlfriend. If you try and force him to stop he'll more than likely resent you for it. It might suck, and you might not understand, and you might feel slighted or whatnot, but I really think the best thing is to just accept it, unfortunately. *shrug* Obviously different people are different and I don't know much about this guy so I can't really speak for him. Personally if my girlfriend was really upset with me masturbating I'd probably stop, but I'm a pushover like that sometimes. Fortunately I was able to explain myself thoroughly enough not to have to bother. ;)
In conclusion, don't worry about the porn thing. That's just due to a misunderstanding between men and women and they way they treat sexual experiences. Men don't get spiritual about wankin' off. It's closer to defecation, albeit a bit more pleasurable. Chances are it's more out of habit and random urge than it is out of sexual frustration. I'm about 80% sure it doesn't reflect on your sex life and about 75% sure he isn't doing it just to hurt you.
Addendum:
I didn't go into this in that email but I think a lot of it is hardwired into our lizard brains (as my psych teacher called it). When you think that intercourse is for procreation it makes a lot more sense. Females, who will be stuck with the babies, naturally want there to be an emotional aspect to it all because that'll signify a greater chance of the male sticking around and helping kill deer and hit other men on the head with clubs and shit, whereas the only thing the man is thinking about is polluting the genepool with his seed -- so it becomes less and less emotional and much more a bodily function more or less like any other. Makes you wish evolution would kick in, eh? Funny thing about evolution is that it goes in bits and pieces, some things get neglected and others get too much attention. It's like taking an old rust bucket crappity car and putting a super fancy hi-tech sports engine in it but leaving the body and suspension and drive chain original. Insanity.
-----------------------
Isn't art something you do for yourself? I mean, thats why I do it. So if you're happy with your art, why do people need reassurance that its okay, or that something is wrong with it?
It's simply because humans crave validation. You could be the greatest artist in the world but it would make no difference if nobody knew about it and admitted it. People need that feeling of validation.
And yeah, I suppose there probably are some people that post their art and yearn for critiques and desperately believe that such critiques will help them improve (and I'm sure it does) but I still think it's mostly wanted to share what you've created.
I know that personally, anyway, I don't post my pictures looking for people that'll rip them apart (I generally know what's wrong with my work, anyway), I just post because I want to share my work and I'm curious if it appeals to other people. I mean, that's partially (or even primarily, depending on how you look at it) what art is about, isn't it? Sure it's an expression of blah blah blah and whatever but really it's trying to appeal to people. That's why lots of you draw anime, because anime appealed to YOU and now you want to immitate it, whether for fun or in hope of being able to use its appeal for your own benefit. The appeal issue is also why many now-famous artists were poor and depressed until the day they died ... they didn't appeal to the public.
Fact is, you can express your deepest emotions and paint your soul to the canvas all you want, but if it doesn't appeal then it makes no difference to anybody but yourself; I suppose that's fine if you create art just for yourself but I think that conflicts internally with every human being's innate desire for validation.
-----------------------
In response to this comment: "LOL I laughed my ass when I saw that "rap is real music" posts! you call some black guys talking with computer bips music? unlike rock which uses real instruments and their just not repeating the same shit over and over again. Hahaha rap is crap"
Uh, just because most of the really mainstream commercial rap is lousy doesn't mean that all of it is. I listen to all sorts of music, including a good deal of rap. My favourite rap group, The Roots, use instruments. I saw them live and they toured with a full band. I wouldn't call them repetitive either.
In addition, like Meg said, just because rock bands USE instruments, doesn't mean they've got a clue how to play them. And if you call three chords and distortion talent then I'm not surprised by your close-minded attitude towards music.
But music isn't just about who's the best guitar player, or who's this or that, it's about whether it rocks you! Any type of music can rock you ... it's just that feeling you get when you listen to something you really like. It moves you differently than just a collection of different noises. No genre does this better than any other "by default." There are good groups and lousy groups in every genre --
Let's take Country & Western music ... which even the most trendy and open-minded music afficionado will often just blatantly say they don't like. "Yeah, I like all sorts of music ... except country." (note: I hate these people ) I could present you with, say, five country songs and even if you hated them all you could easil (assuming you're not a moron) pick out which of the five was the best, the most WELL DONE, the one that got your foot tappin' desite your best stuck-up elistist music-fan efforts. It's not hard to see when somebody is good at what they do. BUT, the point is that's not all that counts. If the music still doesn't rock you ... you probably wont like it.
An example from my life would be punk rock. Not many people could argue for very long that most punk rock "musicians" (and I used the term lightly) are very skilled ... at anything. EXCEPT that some of them can fukcing ROCK. Good punk music is packed full of energy and that's what people love about it. It's angry and jumpin'. If you take what is arguably one of the better punk bands around (taking into account experience, popularity, talent, etc) and use Bad Religion (or Pennywise, for that matter) as an example. I really like Bad Religion (partially because Graffin isn't an illiterate monkey and can actually write good, and meaningful lyrics, which is rare in punk) and sometimes I just love listening to them. But man, if I'm not in a punk mood they get old SO fast. If you objectively listen to one of their albums, it's essentially all the same. It's just well polished because they've been doing it for so long. Again, the key is whether or not the music rocks you.
This expression I'm using, "to rock you," probably deserves a little explanation. It doesn't so much mean jumping-up-and-down-headbanging ROCK like Slayer type rock. It just applies to anything that moves you, the music that's somehow, indescribably, a notch above the norm. If you're into music you know what I'm talking about. It's the difference between two otherwise identical groups. It's what makes punk rock concerts such a blast whereas the albums are a waste of money.
Apart from sheer musical skill (for which most rockers, not to mention most popular musicians in general, are at the bottom of the list ... the top being held by classical and jazz musicians, *mostly*) music is completely subjective. It is a form of expression just like art, and as with art different people will appreciate completely different things, and frankly it isn't your place to judge anybody for that.
-----------------------
To a girl that felt she wasn't in control of her life.
Christ! You're looking at life as if it's a linear video game where no matter what dialogue option you choose you get the same fucking outcome in the end!! Bad bad bad bad! Pay attention now... life is not pre-planned (ok, so maybe there is a God with a plan and all that, who knows, but I'm talking about planned by parents/teachers/politicians/society-in-general). Honestly it's not. I've found that out very quickly since finishing high school. So people expect things of you ... doesn't matter, it's YOUR life and you can do what you want. There are countless options open to you that DON'T involve the good ole American Dream. You don't have to go to a college, get a boring, unrewarding job you hate, get married, have kids, etc etc like they all expect you to. The thing you need to realize is that you have time. Life is only there for living. There's no must-be-at-a-certain-point-in-the-income-statistics-at-this-point-in-my-life thing that honestly exists. You can work at a gas station for a few years and sell artwork on the streets of some old world metropolitan city. You can go into hermitage on the shores of southern France growing what you need and doing variated odd jobs for people in exchange for grain (for bread) and milk and whatnot. You can join a band of bedouins in the Syrian desert and dance all night by the bonfire. Good God just don't start thinking you have no CHOICE!
-----------------------
Can a person be expressed as a collection of statistics?
Statistics:
1 : a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data
2 : a collection of quantitative data
Nowhere in the definition does it ever hint that statistics are, or are even intended to be, 100% correct. Statistics are just a method for us to make generalizations based on data we've collected. You take a sample (the bigger the sample the smaller the margin of error, in theory) and you compare it against itself and try and interpret what you see. Obviously this isn't an exact science but apart from pure mathematics, nothing is (and hell, if you wanna get picky, mathematics may not be either as our theorems and axioms may not hold true in some area of space or dimension we've yet to encounter).
So, can a person be represented completely and totally by a series of statistical analyses? I'd say no. Not in practice. In theory I think it's possible to represent a person to such an accurate degree that the margin of error is inconsequential.
But if we were to limit ourselves to things that were 100% we wouldn't get very far now would we? So we accept a larger margin of error and generalize so as to give us something to make our assumptions based off of; sure they may not be for certain, but we don't want for certain, we want to try and figure things out. That's what it's about: figuring things out.
We want to know WHY there's been a sudden increase in worn down gums and gum disease so we go out and gather information about various factors that MIGHT influence that and take a look at the sample afterwards: ok, so it looks like the people that use harder toothbrushes, brush more often and harder, are the ones that have a higher likelihood of the gum problems. Sure it might be some weird bacteria that is unknowingly produced in making a certain brand of toothbrush (or toothpaste) but we didn't look at that and the chances of that being the case are pretty small since we've already found a positive correlation in the sample we DID take.
Now we've got a sample of data, statistics we've analysed, a positive correlation, and a fairly safe conclusion; BUT, statistics are an inaccurate field and we wouldn't want to be rash, I mean, what if we're wrong?! *gasp* No no no, that's not how it works. If our result seems plausible we release it and the next week you see ten different TV public service announcements endorsed by some ex-pro-athlete about how we need to stop brushing so hard and start using so-and-so brand's new gentle-gum-ultra-brush-xtra.
It's inexact. It could be fatally flawed. But nobody cares. People are either too ignorant to realize that there's always a margin of error or they're smart enough to keep that in mind when they read some new statistic. The fact is that we just want something to use as a guide in life. If somebody has gone through the work (cause we sure as hell aren't about to) to come up with a plausible result that says we should relax our brushing, then we might as well. Certainly doesn't hurt us and hey, it's probably right.
Now, that's obviously just some fairly simple example. Back to representing a person as statistics. Let's say you gathered up 10,000 statistical analysis firms (I'm sure there are way more than that in the world, but we'll just go with it) and assigned each one the task of analysing one trait/feature/etc (covering both the physical and psychological) of ONE person the day before inception. Then you had them follow that person and observe EVERYTHING about their assigned bit for the duration of the subjects life. In the end some disgusting huge analytical binge on the part of probably a couple hundred thousand "trained professionals" combined all of it into a report that you could bludgeon an blue whale with... it still wouldn't be 100%, but I'd bet you a good bit that it'd be damn close enough for government work! :D
So, in theory, yes, it's possible. In practice, it's not *feasible* although I still think it's *possible*.
-----------------------
On the war on terrorism and recent talks of war with Saddam.
Politics make me ill.
This is why I left the US and moved to Norway. Nobody hates Norwegians. A war hasn't been fought on US soil since the Revolutionary War (not counting the Civil War since that was US vs. US). The US doesn't remember what REAL war is like. War isn't just killing the enemy and having your soldiers killed; war is your civillians being killed, their houses, farms, businesses, schools, churches, and *gasp* shopping malls, being destroyed. This has given the US a skewed concept of what war is and made them feel overly secure in their position as "Global Purveyor of Love and Democracy (and Christianity and McDonalds)"
Now that somebody has had the ball to attack them on US home turf it's scared the americans shitless. That's why they've started this huge international war on terrorism and drawn the rest of the world into it; is there any more terrorism now than there has been for the last 50 years? No, not really. BUT, now they've had the gall to attack the US instead of keeping their silly little terrorist activities isolated to other countries we only see on CNN.
This is also why they've suddenly decided to go fight Saddam (again)... because, he doesn't like america and he's a fairly powerful guy. Probably the most notorious muslim leader around, survived a full scale war with the US and lived to plot again, elected president (hey, democracy works!) by a reluctant people with only one candidate on the ballot. Saddam! Ok, he's a bad dude, I don't think anybody is denying that. The US has done all sorts of terrible things throughout the years but we don't judge people be comparison with the US because everybody would seem lovely in that light. So, he's a bad dude, who hates the US, who has money (and oil), and plenty of weapons (chemical and biological at least, if not nuclear); conclusion? He's obviously going to make a move.
This WTC attack has proved it's possible. For the first time ages, somebody has made a noticable attack on US soil. That's why they're suddenly hassling Saddam again. They're scared. They realize they're vulnerable. Quick, take the battle to his front door (and his innocent supporters (willing or not) and houses, farms, businesses, etc etc) before it comes to us!!
Of all the horrible wars in just the last 100 years, the closest thing to an attack on the US mainland was Pearl Harbour (we're also ignoring that whole proclamation that US navy ships count as US soil. Whatever). WWI, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, to name the major ones...and not a single farm in Iowa burned to the ground...while in the first two nearly all of Europe was leveled. And americans wonder why the UN is a little more reticent in jumping headlong into a couple more wars.
With nuclear weapons being up for grabs to the Joe with the biggest wallet and there being more than a handful of wealthy people with a bone to pick with the US, what we DO NOT NEED is a war. You start war and it's the best excuse in the world for people to fight back; hell, you could almost call it JUSTIFIED if they attacked the US if the US (with a hesitant and hardly involved UN sulking at its heels) starts bombing.
Now, I wont deny that something needs to be done about terrorism. Not that this is a new thing. It doesn't need to be done any MORE because now it's affected america directly. But something needs to be done. But, am I the only person that thinks a highly efficient international anti-terrorism task force of some sort, with excellent intelligence networks and whatnot would serve a lot better than marching the collective armies of the world into Afghanistan? You can't fight terrorism like that. Terrorists don't sit in buildings marked, "Al Qaeda Embassy." They don't wander around wearing lil' flags on their obvious uniforms identifying not only that they're a member but also which cell and which country they're from. You attack Afghanistan, they wander into Pakistan and hang out with their friends and relatives a bit until the heat dies down. No biggie.
If you're going to fight terrorism you have to do it the way THEY do it. Information is key. It doesn't take 50,000 men to take out 5 terrorists. With good intel you could probably do it with 2 men! But really, subtlety and intelligent forethought isn't (and has never been) america's strong point.
Thank God for my dual citizenship. I'm ashamed to use my US passport when I travel. Norwegian is I. *sigh*
-----------------------
On people with computer experience intentionally fouling up somebody looking for help.
What kind of bugs me is the sort of elitist attitude a lot of people take when it comes to computers. Like, "Oh my god, I can't believe that person can be sooo stupid." But when it comes right down to it, if you don't have any experience with a computer, it's very complicated and confusing machine; even with how user friendly things have gotten today. A person is not stupid because they haven't had the same experiences or spent time learning the same things as you. One of my favourite authors has never used a computer and has no clue how to use them; do I think he's stupid because of that? Hardly. He's probably one of the more intelligent people around. Should a mechanic laugh at you and call you a moron when your car breaks down and you couldn't even figure out that one of the plug wires was loose? I mean, it's such a simple and obvious problem but I can bet that a good majority of you even after I mentioned the problem, STILL don't know what I'm talking about. Or what about an example a little closer to home: should the more experienced artists on this board laugh at the ones that are just learning and ridicule them and give them faulty advice just to spite them for not being as good? The logic is just not there. Don't just chuckle to yourself and get a few laughs out of someones misfortune because your too lazy to sympathize that you may be in their situation a thousand times in your life, and probably will. And when you are in their situation wouldn't you like it if people were helpful and tried to answer your questions and aid you along your way? How would you feel if you sincerely needed help and were just made the brunt of a childish prank?
I'm not trying to get on anybody's case here I just want people to think a little bit now and then. That's all.
-----------------------
After some girl exploded at me for criticising the USA.
Would you please relax. The comment about killing all americans was a joke. I thought that was pretty obvious. I apologize if it wasn't. You're being violently ethnocentric in your defense of america.
I could go on for hours about all the crap that the government in the US does on a daily basis that's in direct conflict with the constitution. Then I could go on for hours about all the crap in the constitution that is total bullshit. Americans think that because they have a capitalistic system that they're somehow free. All this means in reality is that it's survival of the biggest cheat. Survival of those born into wealth. America is not some sort of godsend country. I admit it has good points about it, but it's not some amazing country.
I moved to Norway last summer (from Washington state) and since I've been here I've been shocked at the things people here have that you don't have in the US. You still have all that freedom of speach and freedom of the press crap America claims (although it censors daily) but you also get: free health care, free higher education (university, vocational schools, etc), good public transportation, good social services. Did you know that Norway has 0% illiteracy and that nobody here is under the poverty line?
I'm assuming you're from an upper-middle class white family in a relatively well off part of the US. Right? Most likely. Have you ever been to the worst parts of Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc etc? I doubt it. The American government totally screws over the underclass in every way shape and form. Hell, just the fact that America is still blatantly divided up into classes, and that those classes are as ignorant of eachother as they are in India with it's infamous caste system, is absolutely absurd.
I must admit that I partially agree with you; america really is a relatively good place. Some things I admire about it greatly (cheap gas prices, for one). But when you start talking about americans not "dissing" other countries I have to laugh. When I lived in the US, I'd say about half the people I knew couldn't point out Norway on a map. When I told them I was moving to Oslo (the capital of Norway) the most common response I got was, "Isn't that, like, uh, in Denmark?" Is it a surprise Americans don't "diss" other countries when they often have almost zero knowledge of international affairs/news/politics/economics/geography/etc? Hardly. Now, this is obviously a gross generalization but I found that a great number of Americans really are remarkably ethnocentric and ignorant when it comes to anything other than America.
Sorry if I'm being blunt but it annoys me when childish people yell at me about topics they obviously know very little about. I also don't appreciate being called "racist" when first off, Americans are not really a race. America is what they call a "melting-pot" of other races and cultures. But, assuming America WAS a race, I AM American. I have American citzenship, my dad is American, I attended American schools, I am every bit as much American as you; and, well, it's a bit of a paradox to be racist against your own race, so I'll just ignore your silly insult and just tell you that you should be careful about flinging around offensive words for fun.
Now, so far you haven't presented a single valid argument in support of your theory so I don't see the point in wasting my time with this any further.
-----------------------
On an article stating that research has discovered that video games decrease brain activity.
The internet is chock-full of people that can hardly write in the English language and apparently hardly have a coherant thought all day. Don't think that our lil' community here is some sort of haven for creativity and intelligence.
Now, whether any of this is due to video games is debatable. But it sounds perfectly logical, to hell with research, it sounds logical that kids are being negatively effected by video games. Now I'm not talking about playing video games pretty often; assuming you do other things when you're not playing. If you read and spend time outside, etc etc, when your not busy splattering zombies, you're probably fine. I'm talking about kids that wake up, log a couple game hours, go to school, come home and eat, play video games, eat dinner, play video games, and sleep.
My little brother plays GTA3 all day it seems. He doesn't talk about anything other than that stupid game.
Do I think he's gaining anything intellectually from playing that game? A little hand-eye coordination, perhaps. But that's about it.
Do I think he'd gain more from reading a good book? Absolutely. Reading propogates imagination and creativity. It increases your vocabulary and understanding of the language you use to communicate with other people.
Now, my brother isn't stupid by any means. He's a naturally intelligent guy and does well in school (for what it's worth, school up until a certain point is just redundant crap). But I clearly see the sort of impact video games have on his life, as an impartial observer. So I think, well, if my brother, a smart kid, is being negatively effected by video games...what's happening to the not-so-naturally-clever kids out there?
The time in our lives where we're growing and developing our intellects and whatnot is vital. The more you're exposed to and the more you can learn, the better off you'll be. If you spend those years watching Digimon and playing video games, I can't help but think you're going to be worse off than somebody that spent them reading, playing around outside, socializing, etc etc.
But who knows, eh. The world doesn't always act in a logical way. Or rather, it doesn't act according to our form of logic...
-----------------------
In response to a girl who said, "But when I do see him online, there's not much to talk about."
I've noticed a tendancy to that effect when you talk to people online. Since you're confined to just TALKING you will find that most people don't actually have very much to talk about. They're not passionate about many things; they don't have loads of exciting dreams; they don't have strong views they think worth defending. You find that most people just go through their daily routine and that's their life. I think the only reason so many people manage to have long-term relationships in person is that when you're in person there's a lot more to do than TALK. To have a purely platonic and text-only relationship is bloody difficult.
-----------------------
On some guy who claimed he'd figured it all out and could answer any question about humanity asked of him...seriously.
I'm not sure but it almost seems as if you're actually serious in your claim to have "summed up all there is to know about humanity," which is intrinsically a complete absurd statement. Humanity, almost by definition, is a constantly evolving and changing thing. Actually, it's not actually even a "thing." For a member of humanity to know everything there is to know about humanity contains a paradox. You can never know everything about yourself because you cannot assume every perspective to study yourself; even if you could, the tools you have to study with are inadequate since they're either man-made (and hence fallible) or part of your body (and not many people would argue that any of the senses, or the brain, is perfect and always reports the world correctly; in fact it's relatively simple to demonstrate otherwise). Anyway, I don't think it's necessary to continue this much farther as the point is obvious. Throughout history there have been philosophers aplenty who all thought they *knew* how things really were. It's easy to have an answer to every questions; it's impossible to KNOW if it's the correct answer. Even in mathematics, which is arguably a realm where things can be proved for certain and there are "truths" that cannot be disputed, one cannot really KNOW that these laws hold true in every situation. Where are limited in every observation by the fact that we can only observe what is "beneath" us. I use "beneath" in a loose sense because that's implying that there is some sort of fixed heierarchy which I don't really belief there is. The point is that the ant sees things from the ant point of view and thinks that ants are what are important (ok, ants probably don't "think" much but whatever) and anything that seems more powerful than an ant will be viewed as a sort of "act of God." The ant understands ant things and other insects that are ant-enemies. It understands food and breeding etc etc. The anteater, on the other hand, sees from an anteater point of view and thinks that anteaters are where it's at. It looks down at the ants and views them as inferior, etc etc. And the chain continues up and up and until you end up with humans that are just so d*mn sure they're the hottest thing around. Then one step further, something else perhaps, another group of entities that think they're the top o' the chain, looking down at the silly humans scurrying around in their self-importance. You can only see down the chain, not up, or at least not very far up. It's folly to assume that you're already at the top (assuming their IS a top) and assume you know what's best. Anyway, I've strayed a bit from the original point, but that's fine, I think this is relevant as well.
Summation: Don't get so damn full of yourself that you think you've got the answers that everybody else in all of history wasn't able to get. Most likely the "answers" either don't exist or aren't there for us to know. Now, if you just wanted to get some good debate going, good for you, there are far too many people in our society that don't think past what outfit to wear today.
-----------------------
On censorship and sheltering of younguns...
You can't bloody well protect the kids from every undesirable thing in the world. They're gonna experience the unpleasant things in life sooner or later and if you shelter them until they're 20 it'll only be a bigger shock. I'm so sick and tired of everybody thinking that somehow they know what's best for everybody else. The government, teachers, parents, the media. Everybody is constantly trying to tell me what's best for me and what's best for the children and what's best for the world. People need *more* information, not filtered and censored information. Any rational human being deserves to have the right to make up their own mind about things. You present them with the information as it currently stands and they make the decision. Going around telling people what and how they should think just doesn't work. You can tell a kid that smoking is bad, or drinking is bad, for 16 years straight but that wont stop them trying it and trying to figure out their own opinions about it. People have to be allowed to come to their own conclusions and it's never too early to let them have the information. The teens are when humans do a good portion of their figuring out. They're maturing (physically and mentally) and they're breaking away from their parents and trying to decide what THEY think. It's hard as hell because you've got all these people telling you what you should think but that is still a vital time in developing your own identity. The absolute worst thing for a person that's trying to discover and develope their identity is to be uninformed or misinformed. I remember in high school I was continually shocked by the number of people that just weren't informed about things. I was talking to a female friend of mine and she honestly had no clue whatsoever as to how a female gets pregnant. I mean, she knew the basic concept of the sperm fertilizing the egg and whatnot but she had no knowledge of what sort of things would get you pregnant and was scared to death of doing anything with her boyfriend (we're not talking intercourse here, other stuff, oral, handjobs, whatever) because she didn't want to get pregnant. I was shocked. How could a 17 year old girl NOT KNOW how she could get pregnant or not? How could she be so misinformed?! Well...her parents had never talked with her about anything. The school "health" courses are a joke. She just had no information other than, "that if you have sex you can get stds and babies! watch out!!" The same thing goes for cigarettes and alcohol and other drugs, the kids just weren't informed. Their parents had just told them it was "bad" their whole lives and the DARE program is just a conveniently placed naptime. I mean, why do you think that despite the wealth of information about how harmful it is, the number of smokers in the world has actually increased? It's a ridiculous concept to an unpartial observer. It's completely absurd and unique in the animal kingdom. Any species that voluntarily does things to harm itself is usually wiped out of existence. But with out complicated society we've got into this rut that we have to protect our kids from everything. So you've got smoking, drinking and cheating parents "protecting" their kids by saying "don't smoke" while taking a drag of their cigarette. The kids are uninformed and have lousy role models. They're IGNORANT. Unfortunately we're not like most animals that when they see that something is "bad" they keep away if at all possible. We're too complex for that; it isn't enough to just hear "it's bad" because we have a much more complicated thought process than most animals. We need proof and proof that we understand and accept. Some grossly obese "health" teacher showing us a filthy tar covered lung is no more than a novelty. It's not something we can relate to. Because of this we find another way to figure things out. We try it out. Perhaps not the ideal situation but it's the best that presents itself. Obviously this doesn't apply to everybody because some people are lucky enough to have recieved the information and been able to make up their own minds without pressure from various sources and without having to try things out. I count myself among these. I've never in my life even tried cigarettes. Why? Simply because I made my mind up about that ages ago. I wasn't cornered and forced into making lousy decisions that would effect me for the rest of my life. Sheltering and censoring the information that goes to the children doesn't do any good. You've got to let them figure things out on their own, and the sooner the better. Just look at all the people "figuring things out" in their twenties and thirties?! You've got cheaters and drunkards and drugged out idiots. People with 3 kids and 2 wives that have never even had a steady job. These are the people that never got a chance to come to grips with reality in a healthy environment. Let the kids have the information and let them figure things out while their choices aren't nearly as permanent.
-----------------------
On men and women and all the funny little problems that lie therein.
"Women love us for our defects. If we have enough of them, they will forgive us everything, even our gigantic intellects."
That quote, if nothing else, does a good job of illustrating the idiocy of females and the even larger idiocy of males. Funny how that works, eh? Anyway, I'm going to try and give you what may be an explanation for the common phenomenon I'm sure we've all experienced; girls choosing the absolute worst possible guys. Yes, that's right, I'm going to try and explain how this remarkable social defect has come into play. So either go away and do something useful, or sit back and read on!
First I think we should start with the instincts that are drilled into us from some primitive ancestor or whatnot. Arguable, the basic drive of any creature is to propagate the survival of its species. AKA: Gettin' jiggy wid it. Now, for humans and our ancestors, this is quite different for males and females as the male really only needs to be part of this process of procreation for oh, an average of about 10 minutes (if you include the time it takes to get your pants off and consume a beer or two afterwards). The female, on the other hand, is stuck with the child for quite a long time. Not only does she have to endure 9 months of joyful pregnancy but as human babies are pathetically helpless for at least the first 5 years of their life, she most likely will need to be there during that time as well. This difference in necessary commitment to the process of reproducing leads to very contrasting basic requirements out of a mate.
The male, wanting to spread his seed as much as possible, is very likely to go for the young and pretty females as this is a sign of good health and virility, which will insure as many babies as possible. The guy is also more prone to ditch the girl and go for other girls just to get that seed around. Gotta pass on the DNA, ya'know?
The female, on the other hand, becomes much more interested in finding a male that can be a provider. She would *like* somebody that will stick around but most importantly she looks for health, strength, power, resources. Whether or not he's sweet and caring isn't exactly a priority. Not when you've got the impossible job of finding a guy that will not only stick around but will also provide for you and the child. Gotta make compromises.
So with these fairly contrasting and not exactly compatible bases you can imagine how screwed up things are bound to get when you throw modern society into the package!
Modern society is not only confusing and complicated as hell, it also often goes against the more primitive drives we have lingering in our lizard-brain (that's the part of the brain that houses primitive and unconscious drives and desires, something akin to freuds ID). When I talk about modern society I'm going to limit myself to the US because that's where most of my experience lies. I believe that most of the western world is at least similar, and the rest of the world is probably following, but for the sake of accuracy I'll stick to the good ol' US of A.
Part of the problem is that we get so many mixed messages from society.
Females are constantly told to be strong and independent and not to be obsessed with their bodies, etc etc. Yet nearly every media role model is exactly the opposite. What do you see on TV when it comes to girls? You see whiny, pretty girls with jerks for boyfriends and self-esteem that's all but nonexistent. The occasional strong and independent girl is almost without exception shown as the girl that can't get a boyfriend and is usually a laughable character anyway. The so-called feminist role models and movements really are generally such the opposite of the media glamour star that they're not an attractive choice either. Really, who would want to be one of the constantly angry, butch psychos that are all but outcasts in society when with less work you could at least try and fit into the pretty, dainty, whiny little picture that'll at least net you some shallow friends?
As if life wasn't confusing enough as it is, society sees fit to take things up a notch. Now everybody knows about all the female stereotypes and the female expectations. That's common knowledge and common bitching by girls everywhere. But...
As a male I've been pressured into all sorts of strange things as well. Everything from liking sports to being a jerk to girls. Yes, that's right, everything from school to media of all forms has given me role models and idols that, if I had accepted them, would have taught me how to be brave, courageous, macho...not to mention chauvinistic, uncaring, rude, and more. War and sports are what I'm expected to like. Did I get crap for being a computer geek before computers were trendy? Yeah, yeah I did. Did I get crap for not playing school sports? Yup, sure did. Is it hard to see how I could have ended up a total sexist jerk? Not really. Look around you, nearly all the male roll models totally play into the category of guys that everybody complains about in secret, yet the girls fawn over in public.
We get these confusing and contrasting messages constantly. But the one thing that seems to come through is this weird picture: this is how the girl should look/act, this is how the boy should look/act and they should be dating. And they should have all sorts of stupid problems while they're dating. Is it strange that people have tons of problems in their relationships when there doesn't hardly exist a single role model with a good love life?!
With all this crazy baggage everybody is carrying around it really doesn't seem surprising that so many people can't maintain a healthy relationship. But, obviously not *everybody* falls into these stereotypical categories. Of course they don't. There are exceptions. Here are a few that I've observed:
The sincere and caring guy: This one is pretty rare. It really is. There are a few, but they're a vast minority. Because of their common lack of "social skills" (ie: not, *real* social skills, but the social skills society wants us to have.) they're often not easy to find. They are also often found imitating the stereotypical jerkoff guy in a misguided attempt to better their social life. If they're lucky they might find a sincere and caring girl but chances are more likely that they'll either end up alone or in a lousy relationship of some sort.
The sincere and caring girl: Again, rare, but perhaps not as rare as you think. I've found quite a few. The problem is they're often *very* emotional and confused as hell because of mixed messages and unstable social lives. Often nearly impossible to have a good healthy relationship because she's either had no relationships or a score of bad ones in the past. Either way she's suspicious when a decent guy is attracted to her and will either freak out or make up reasons to hate him.
the fake sincere and caring guy: I hate these ones. These are the guys that for whatever reason (failure in the stereotypical popular world, or who knows what) have decided that they've got a plan. Oh yes, they're so sneaky. Ooooo. Often disguised as goths, ravers or emo-boys. Their scheme is to pose as a real sincere and caring guy. They hunt down the sincere and caring girls, full of emotional problems, sadness, sorrow and all that good stuff, and they prey on them. They pose as the saviour of all woman-kind. The ideal man. So sincere and caring, he'll read you poetry, he'll go for walks, he'll listen to you whine. And in the end he'll shag you and dump you on the ground.
the fake sincere and caring girl: Perhaps not as common as the male version but bad nonetheless. I haven't experienced this one personally but I've had a few friends who have. Girls that lead you on like crazy only to laugh in your face. Girls that get a kick out of the sincere and caring guy's misery. These tend to drive those sincere and caring guys into hiding or cause them to snap and turn into your typical jerkoff guy.
the man-hater: We all know this one. The girl that's been shat on so many times buy our typical guy that she's gone anti-guy. Full of anger and bitterness. Suspicious of every guy.
the indiscriminate jerk: These are the guys that for whatever reason failed at being the popular jerk and isn't quite clever enough (or perhaps has morals *gasp*) to be the fake sincere and caring guy. So he is just an ass to everybody. All-around-ass. Whatever.
etc etc. There are lots of other strange little deviations from the norm. But what we really want to look at are the sincere and caring people. Why are there so few? Where are they all? Why do they so often end up with the wrong people? And why can't they find each other?
Obviously if either one of these is at all concerned with popularity and societal norms and whatnot they're already a step towards failure. They'll sort of half-way try and fit in with the popular crowd and really get into trouble. The result of this is often a terrible romantic relationship. I mean, what better way to get into the popular crowd than to date one of them? Yeah, so there goes a percentage of the caring and sincere people, thrown to the dogs so to speak. So what about the ones that manage to be sincere and caring without venturing into popular society and without being drawn into the bitter and spiteful outcast crowd? It's a thin line to walk but there are quite a few who do. Why don't they find each other? Perhaps just a large difference in interests. Who knows. The fact is just that with so many things going against them it's really surprising when they do find each other.
Obviously this is a bit of an extreme view of the situation, I know quite a few people in good relationships where both people really are decent. But it really does seem like the vast majority have problems.
We all want to know why girls always choose the ass-hole guys and even more why they keep going back to them. I'm sure a lot of us have experienced this whole cycle:
1) girl dates guy
2) guy hurts girl
3) girl comes to you for consolation
4) girl feels better
5) girl goes BACK to guy
6) guy hurts girl
7) repeat steps 3-6 indefinitely
Ah, boy, the few sincere and caring guys more often end up as the crying shoulder. "I like your friendship too much to be romantically involved with you." Heard that one before?
Here's the kicker, most of those sincere and caring girls you're looking for are probably in similar situations. Right under your nose, disguised as a friend or acquaintance that you never even considered as a romantic interest, wonder why the hell you keep going out with all these lame girls.
I don't claim to be an expert but I strongly suggest widening your scope a little bit. Look past looks and popularity and other nonsense and look at the person. And not the face the person chooses to show, because we all wear masks, take the time to get to know people a little better than the first impression. You might be surprised.
In conclusion I think I can fairly confidently say that there is no real legitimate reason for why people act so damn stupid. They're just confused and misled. What can you do? I'd suggest looking at yourself first. Chances are you're giving off some sort of image that may very well not be the real you. Try making yourself more genuine before you look for another genuine person. You might have better luck that way.
|
|
so i tells him where he can shove his damn opinions...
|
|
|
|