Today's rant is about normalcy. Specifically, I'm wondering why people want to be normal. Much of the population is composed of complete morons, which is why we can have Darwin awards. Normalcy is defined by a majority. I'm also wondering why people want not to be normal. Nonconformists will go to any length to avoid the norm. This will cause headaches when the nonconformity is the norm, but that's not my problem. An ideal would be to simply define yourself in terms unrelated to normalcy. At either end of the spectrum is madness, though one end is much more literal in their madness than the other. I, personally, will define my existence in terms of my thoughts, or "I think, and therefore I am." However, this is not universal. Don't try and conform yourself to this, I'm only stating my course of action. This, sadly, has the side effect that it alienates the rest of the world. If that makes me alienated, fine, the rest of the world is mainly dull, punctuated by bits of humor. I've suddenly realized that the rants are drifting toward philosophy. Fine, I can deal with that. Just for fun, lets start on the purpose of life.From a common religious view, God cares for us, and our ultimate goal is to become a better person and go to heaven. I don't really care for the accepted definition of heaven-it's too idyllic and happy. Ugh. I'd rather think, as I am defined by my own thoughts. From a strictly scientific viewpoint, life has no special meaning, and we are a statistical fluctuation. (Many optimists can't stand this, and I can't help that.) In this POV, there is no higher standard that we have to work up to, so we can do whatever we want. The purpose of life is thus our own entertainment. That seems quite a lot closer to what most people believe. In fact, most groups are either trying to make themselves better people, or living in apathy of the rest of the race. Very few people have found middle ground. Which is a pity, since the middle ground is the way to go, or so it seems to me. I can't really describe my philosophy towards life, and that's part of the fun of it. I can never guess what i'll do next.
This is kind of a touchy subject, but i think I'll have a go at it. I am referring, of course, to the Afghanistan thing. Specifically, sending humanitarian aid even as we bomb them. Doesn't that seem sort of stupid? I can just imagine a poor person huddled in a corner, when a packet of food drops out of the sky. They run out to get it, and...BOOM! The survivors, on the other hand, probably have a field day. And the thing about kids sending a dollar is just weird. "Help the Afghan kids who survived the ruthless carpet-bombing of their neighborhoods!" Somebody explain to me how the current bombing is NOT terrorism. And make it better than, "They hit us first!", i've heard better from third-graders. Interestingly enough, when kids do this sort of thing, parents come to the rescue("I don't care who started it, just stop it!"). Who will come to our rescue, with a stern admonition and a time-out?Since I have time, I'll add a rant on environmental alarmism. You wouldn't believe how much fun it is to switch viewpoints once in a while. I mean, global warming won't have an effect in our lifespans, right? So why worry? Just try to breed intelligent kids who can keep the blame on other people. Ah, well, this isn't werking. So I'll go to my back-up topic, standardized creativity. But before I do, I'd just like to say that i've found a very interesting mathematical proof of God. Ask me if you really want to know. Now, back to topic.
Ever noticed how, in OM competitions, they have a list of things to be considered creative? That doesn't seem right. Ideally, it should be entirely at the will of the judges. Also, there's this recent push in OM circles that unusual is creative. See the problem there? You will. I, for one, am unusual because it comes naturally to me. Weirdness is so much more fun than sanity. [insert evil laugh, i'm too lazy.] I bet this year, there will be a lot of Dr. Seuss hats worn inside out or folded up strangely. When you see that, just remember that it was MY IDEA, DERNIT!!! [deep breath] That's all for today, I need my sleep. But remember: Don't let the penguins get yer sanity! The penguins! They're coming! AAH!
Today, i'll rant about evil and willful ignorance. Just so you know, i'm saying this while listening to the band music. Now, onto evil.The terrorists are, naturally, evil. It's hard to reconclie this with my being an evil child, but i've finally got an answer. I'll finish this later, my dad's yelling at me to get off the computer.
September 21, 2001
My internet connection went down, and I couldn't finish. So, here I go. I am evil because I have evil plans-how to kill a lot of people or send untraceable email using public systems or such. The terrorists are different. They actually kill people. Though I plot, I wouldn't hurt a fly. Actually, i'd swat a fly, and definitely a mosquito, but nothing bigger than that. Now onto my next subject, willful ignorance. I saw a guy on the news claiming the terrorists only thought of the WTC as a symbol. They didn't think of human life. Well, i've got news for you. One of the terrorist's objectives was to kill Americans. Sorry if i've ruined your perfect little worldview, but that's the real world for you. And while i'm at it, i'll throw in a critique of the religious people. How do we know that God will condemn the terrorists? Maybe God sympathizes with the terrorists and wants them to kill Americans, like bin Laden says. We don't really know. Unless, of course, we know the true religion, and i'd rather leave that to philosophers. We can't possibly claim to know what God wants, unless God comes and tells us so. And it has to come with a proof that it's God. Otherwise, how will we know? I saw a religious debate between an agnostic and a devout Hindu once. The agnostic said, "How do we know which religion to choose?" and the Hindu said, "they will be chanting Hare Krishna!" This is really an example of religious arrogance. Our religion is right because we say so. Keep this in mind next time you go to your church/mosque/temple/synagogue/religious place. What we need is a religion which is simply a way of thought, that doesn't encroach on other ways of thinking.Well, that's my two cents. But i'll be back, so long as stupid stuff hapens.
In an effort to take my mind off the tragedy of terrorist attacks, i'm going to rant about Andrea Pia Yates.
What she did was shocking, yes, but we absolutely should not seek the death penalty. The two main rationalizations for capital punishment are deterrent and making sure it doesn't happen again. Neither of these makes sense in the Yates case, unless you really believe it will deter insanity. The thing people have to realize is that she was not responsible for her actions. There is no way anybody would be convinced that it was preplanned murder. She did not think, "Hehehe, today i'll kill my kids". She couldn't help it, any more than a sick person can help sneezing on people and making them ill. Which brings up a good point. Many people in society think that mental illness doesn't exist at all. They don't recognize it as a problem. This leads to severe problems later on. What society needs is more awareness of mental health issues. So saying, I do favor the death penalty in certain cases. Timothy McVeigh, for instance. He bombed a building, admitted it, and said that he was willing to do it again. And whoever organized the recent terrorist attack, quite frankly, deserves to die.
Andrea Pia Yates, however, should not be put to death. Saying she does requires a special brand of stupidity:willful ignorance and hypocrisy.
My first subject today is the moon hoax hoax. (Yes, that was intentional.) In case you didn't know, some people believe the moon landings were faked. The majority of them are sincere, but some are only in it for the money, as evidenced by the fact that most of them are selling books and videos for ridiculous anounts of money. If you see one of these, DON'T BUY IT. For the most part, they show a bunch of anomalies which they claim prove that the moon missions were faked. Most have ignored that fact that the arguments don't make sense. Many websites have debunked them, such as Bad astronomy, which is actually a pretty interesting site. Spend some time there if you can. However, there are some wackos who go beyond the limit of sanity, such as Piper/Seethruart (he/she alternates names), who believes that the moon in the photos were long-range photographs taken from earth. Does this sound stupid to anyone else? Because it gets worse. It's no use trying to argue with him, because he invariably says, "I have the truth, the truth will prevail, you cannot just explain away the evidence..." and on and on and on. He has said himself that he does not listen to anybody else, yet he keeps on trying to argue. It's annoying when it goes on for weeks without end.My next issue is stupidity. (This seems like a good way to make a lot of people angry.) It is a well known fact that everybody is stupid, else how would the politicians survive? Most politicians would not make it back into office if everybody's IQ were to rise 10 points. Many of them actively prey on stupid people(Actual political slogan at Webster:"Last I heard, it takes gas to drive.") And advertisers are even worse. Drug ads, for example. "...Ask your doctor about Formula X. Possiblesideeffectsincludediarrhea,gas,andArmageddon." Doesn't this worry anybody else?
My last subject today is short. It's a quote which everybody should keep in mind.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting different results." Think of all the people who this applies to. Scary, isn't it?
Did anyone else see John Stossel's "Tampering with nature"? If so, did it outrage you? It sure ticked me off. If you didn't see it, what he did was "challenge alarmist ecological groups". A.k.a, pandering to the oil industry. Stossel has an interesting way of going about this. Most people would try and argue that the problem can be fixed. Stossel argues that there is no problem. I agree with him on GM food, but the record on ecology has to be set straight.That's all for now. I'd appreciate any input on the subject. Send it to wave_rpinjala@gaggle.net.
- Stossel starts out by saying that we can't take away technology and go back to the stone age. He's only half right. There is a lot of unnecessary waste going on which, if corrected, could partially clean up the Earth. The most notable example is power generation. Supposedly a square of solar generators a hundred miles on a side could power the entire world. Yet here we are, drilling for more oil. This apparently represents progress.
- What Stossel does next is worse. He claims that kids are brainwashed idiots who cannot think for themselves. To prove this, he parades a group of second graders on camera and asks them loaded questions. This apparently proves him right. He apparently does not think of people as sentient until they are old enough to influence ratings.
- On global warming, he starts making things up. He puts an "expert" on camera, and the expert says that a little global warming may be a good thing. Never mind the other consequences of CO2 emissions, like smog, which is killing people and making the air unbreathable. Never mind the polar ice caps, which could melt, raise the ocean level, and kill billions. Apparently the people in Siberia are more important, and would notice a change of a few degrees. Woohoo! It's only -38 degrees outside! Let's go sunbathe!
Okay, I'm back from Costa Rica now. Go ahead and cheer. Come on, cheer. Please? Oh well. Anyway, my first topic today is basic hypocrisies(in the White House). First off, Bush is a pro-life person who favors the death penalty. Does this seem weird to anybody else? Also, Dick Cheney is starting to tick me off, with his whole 'conservation is a personal virtue, not an energy policy' line. I'm going to quote somebody who said that the energy policy was really "Drill, Drill, Drill". You know what the funny thing is? It would be a lot cheaper for the average American to ignore Cheney on conservation, and use less electricity, maybe. People pay a lot in energy bills. And in fact, cars don't need gasoline, either. They have electric cars, or if that's too extreme, hybrids with 80 MPG. Most SUV's have less than a quarter of that, meaning that a more efficient car could save 3/4 of your gas money. How does that sound? And, of course, I understand owning an SUV if you have to carry a lot of people, but why do people who drive alone all the time own them?! That's all, really, about gas prices, so i'll go on to my next subject:Rationalizations for oil dependence. The most common one is the Human Ingenuity argument, though there are some people who really do believe that the oil is infinite. They don't really count, most of them being morons and all, so we'll focus on Human Ingenuity. The main premise of this argument is that we have overcome obstacles in the past, and we can do it in the future, so why worry? This is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it worries me that people will base their lives on it. All these people are basing it on two assumptions, one being that anything is possible, and the other being that their argument won't turn around and bite them. Think about it. If you get the attitude that Human Ingenuity will save us, then Human Ingenuity breaks down, with people relying on Human Ingenuity. If you see how this works, give yourself a hand. Most people miss it entirely. And the scary part is that it is going on RIGHT NOW. People would be developing non-petroleum based energy sources, but of course they don't have to, because of Human Ingenuity. Isn't it wonderfully circular?[If you are a person with even the faintest bit of influence, could you please try to do something about this? 500 years from now, we will all be very grateful. ] One of the ironies of this is that if people lived longer, they'd probably care a lot more about the future. As it is now, they think it doesn't concern them. And, if you really believe people are smarter than that and that I am completely wrong about this, please shoot yourself so as to remove yourself from the gene pool.That just about concludes my rant for today (and yesterday).
Today's rant will be on "all-natural" products, and genetically modified food. First off, I can't understand why people think that natural foods are superior to foods which are not all natural. A favorite marketing gimmick is to say "All Natural!" when, in reality, the food is full of natural chemicals. One possible explanation is that people don't buy anything they don't understand, such as tetrasodium edta. That breaks down when you realize that people have no idea how a computer works (which leads to Computer Stupidities). Which brings me to my next topic. People are so misinformed about genetically modified foods that they will force people to ban harmless products on the grounds of general stupidity. The myths spread by the anti-progress(oops, anti genetic modification) groups is enough to make a group with a name like Greenpeace chop down fields of corn, because it was not all natural. They could argue that the corn was not real corn because it was different, but of course the Nazi's said the same thing. And back to all natural...
I asked somebody once (an "all natural" person) what the thing was with all natural foods. He said that they generally taste better. He did not give any examples. So there you have it. They cannot defend their reasoning. And another thing...
People don't have to have reasoning to fear something. I bet at least 70% would rather have water than dihydrogen monoxide. Three things which many people have irrational fears about are anything nuclear, chemicals, and genetic engineering. They can't explain it, but they fear it anyway. This fear of technology is summed up in an ice cream commercial. In the commercial, a kid is sitting at a table, reading the ingredients on ice cream. He cannot read it. He then goes to another container, and BOoM! Suddenly he's a proficient reader, and he finds but four ingredients in the ice cream. He tries it, and says, "Yup. That's all natural." There was then a slogan of some sort saying, "Taste. Not Technology." Funny, I thought things could taste good and still be technological. Apparently the answer is to rewind civilization 5,000 years, when we didn't have to worry about our six-year olds not being able to read ingredients. A few other problems I have with the commercial:
- This kid, about six or seven, had apparently had enough ice cream to be able to tell what was in it, by taste. This disturbs me greatly.
- Why was he reading the ingredients? What kind of kid is he, conentrating on the ingredients more than the ice cream?
- Why should we care whether or not kids know what's in their ice cream?(I mean ingredients, they should probably know about poisons)
This concludes my ranting for today. Please fill out the form at the bottom, I need a good laugh.