Do you remember that rectangular plastic thing that you payed $150 for? It has all those neat buttons on it, and makes those neat sounds.
In order for you to hear those sounds you have to charge it every once in a while. And once it's charged you have to keep it with you. And when you hear those sounds push the button on the left hand side. The one that looks like a little green phone receiver. Because when you push it, it turns into a phone!
Just an added perk I guess.
Sincerely,
Your family.
Monday, October 18, 2010
I'm Back!
Hey! How's everybody doing?
Sorry I've been away for so long, but for some reason I haven't been able to sign into my blogger profile for about ohh...two months now.
But I'm back! So expect semi-regular posts about all your favourite Philosophically driven stuff!
Or just more cats and Keyboards!
Sorry I've been away for so long, but for some reason I haven't been able to sign into my blogger profile for about ohh...two months now.
But I'm back! So expect semi-regular posts about all your favourite Philosophically driven stuff!
Or just more cats and Keyboards!
 | |
| Three Keyboard-Cats Moon |
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sad News!
 Image via Wikipedia |
| Christopher Hitchens |
Hitchens is known not only as a great lover of titles including colons (as ten out of 12 of his books contain this particular form of punctuation), he is also a well known smoker and alcoholic. His seemingly constant cigarette, coupled with a family history of esophageal cancer, makes Hitchens' diagnosis far from surprising.
When asked to comment on how he was doing Hitchens replied "How am I? I'm dying. Everybody is, but...the process has accelerated on me. So I'm looking for ways to try to die more like you".
Hitchens, in his usual fashion, is maintaining an objective stance on the subject.
"It's not a good cancer to get. The statistics are very depressing. Mine isn't just in my esophagus, either. It's gone to my lymph nodes. I would be a very lucky person to live another five years." 1The five year survival rate of this type of cancer is typically between 3-7%.
So if there is a God, now would be the most spectacular time to prove your existence.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Homework!
For those of you who don't know Futurama is a cartoon series created by Matt Groening, the creator of the Simpsons. The series was cancelled just before the fall of 2003. It was never officially cancelled, however Fox simply stopped buying new episodes. But, almost seven years later, Futurama has returned!
Hope you guys like it, seeing as it is in keeping with some of my other posts!
-Taste of Sanity
| Matt Groening |
Thursday, August 12, 2010
What a sexist language!
I'm talking about English of course! So many of the words in the English language apply to only one gender. You know what I'm talking about. Policeman, fireman, mailman, man hole cover, manmade, mankind... just to name a few. This is a problem.
Some of you may say "Hey! The English language is androcentric! It has been since its inception. There's really nothing we can do about it!" Others may say, "Hey! We can't be the only ones who have an androcentric language!" neither of these are good excuses NOT to do something.
Here's why, admittedly the English language has been androcentric for a while. However the English language has seen many revisions over the years. Don't believe me? Go open a Shakespearean play or sonnet. Changes in the language happen colloquially and eventually become the norm. So change is possible.
As for English not being the only androcentric language, I'm sure it's not! But it's our language! We should make the effort to correct what is wrong with it!
So how do we fix this? Well sometimes its easy. Say firefighter instead of fireman, police officer instead of policeman, mail carrier instead of mailman. Instead of man kind, humanity; man made, fabricated. Not so hard. (I have some personal objections against saying server instead of waiter/waitress though that's simply because server sounds too close to servant for my taste)
Now the real problem lies with finding an appropriate substitute for generic pronouns (ie. It is important for the customer to pay before he leaves the store with his items) . He or she, he/she, s/he are all too inefficient, and the media and business world is too male dominated for the use of one's own gender as a pronoun (I would use he, while Carmerio would use she) to be effective. Some suggest that gynocentric language should be adopted since 52% of the world's population is female. This doesn't seem fair either. Our language should not favour either gender.
Greek and Latin found good ways of getting around this issue. The Greek solution comes in the form of the prefix anthropo-. However this does not work as a pronoun. The Latin solution is no more feasible (for obvious reasons) as it is Homo, as in Homo Sapiens, Homo Erectus.
I have no clue what the solution may be, but I think the internet is the best forum for the creation of a new word, because where else are all the english speakers of the world able to convene?
Any ideas? Post them!
Some of you may say "Hey! The English language is androcentric! It has been since its inception. There's really nothing we can do about it!" Others may say, "Hey! We can't be the only ones who have an androcentric language!" neither of these are good excuses NOT to do something.
Here's why, admittedly the English language has been androcentric for a while. However the English language has seen many revisions over the years. Don't believe me? Go open a Shakespearean play or sonnet. Changes in the language happen colloquially and eventually become the norm. So change is possible.
As for English not being the only androcentric language, I'm sure it's not! But it's our language! We should make the effort to correct what is wrong with it!
So how do we fix this? Well sometimes its easy. Say firefighter instead of fireman, police officer instead of policeman, mail carrier instead of mailman. Instead of man kind, humanity; man made, fabricated. Not so hard. (I have some personal objections against saying server instead of waiter/waitress though that's simply because server sounds too close to servant for my taste)
Now the real problem lies with finding an appropriate substitute for generic pronouns (ie. It is important for the customer to pay before he leaves the store with his items) . He or she, he/she, s/he are all too inefficient, and the media and business world is too male dominated for the use of one's own gender as a pronoun (I would use he, while Carmerio would use she) to be effective. Some suggest that gynocentric language should be adopted since 52% of the world's population is female. This doesn't seem fair either. Our language should not favour either gender.
Greek and Latin found good ways of getting around this issue. The Greek solution comes in the form of the prefix anthropo-. However this does not work as a pronoun. The Latin solution is no more feasible (for obvious reasons) as it is Homo, as in Homo Sapiens, Homo Erectus.
I have no clue what the solution may be, but I think the internet is the best forum for the creation of a new word, because where else are all the english speakers of the world able to convene?
Any ideas? Post them!
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Advice for the Atheist: "There is no God!"
I advise everyone to watch this video before you continue on reading. This is one of the main reasons why I severely dislike creationists. They are purposefully ignorant. They have heard the responses to their arguments millions of times, yet they choose to ignore what is being said.
So here is a very smug creationist talking about why Atheism is an irrational standpoint.
Sound reasonable? Sound like he knows what he's talking about? Sound even slightly philosophical?
Here's the deal. Atheists do not claim that there is NO God. Your initial definition of atheists is wrong. Atheists are not "[individuals] who decide to believe against the idea of a deity".
This can be seen to be for tactical, and logical reasons. Tactically, if an atheist claims that there is no God, then it is up to the atheist to provide evidence to back that claim up. Which is impossible. Logically, you cannot claim to absolutely know that there is no God (just like you cannot claim to absolutely know that there is a God without extraordinary evidence). So yes theTRUTHgroup is right in that respect, that one must be omniscient in order to claim with absolute certainty that there is NO God.* However this does not make the person a God. It is rational to say that someone could have omniscience without being the creator of the universe. And even if you don't claim God to mean THE creator, you would not go attributing the title of God to anyone who developed extreme super powers!
Ultimately what this post boils down to is that atheists do not claim to know there is no God. A more appropriate definition for an atheist is a person who lacks a belief in God. For those who may be confused, the difference is that theTRUTHgroup's claim was that atheists believe there is no God, and so are asserting a claim. On the other hand the more accurate definition of the Atheistic position is that atheists have no belief in the existence of God, and so they are not asserting a claim.
_______________________________________________________________
*Omniscience may not even be compatible with the idea of the Creator God. A creator God must be omnipotent in order to create the universe, however omniscience may not be necessary. The creator God could know everything about creating the universe but not about everything else. The incompatibility between the two stems from this paradox (similar to that of the time traveler's paradoxes):
If God is omniscient He knows everything He will ever do and think. Yet if He is omnipotent He must be able to change what He is able to do and think. Yet if He changes what He does and thinks, since He is omniscient He must have already known He was going to do that... etc.
So here is a very smug creationist talking about why Atheism is an irrational standpoint.
Sound reasonable? Sound like he knows what he's talking about? Sound even slightly philosophical?
Here's the deal. Atheists do not claim that there is NO God. Your initial definition of atheists is wrong. Atheists are not "[individuals] who decide to believe against the idea of a deity".
This can be seen to be for tactical, and logical reasons. Tactically, if an atheist claims that there is no God, then it is up to the atheist to provide evidence to back that claim up. Which is impossible. Logically, you cannot claim to absolutely know that there is no God (just like you cannot claim to absolutely know that there is a God without extraordinary evidence). So yes theTRUTHgroup is right in that respect, that one must be omniscient in order to claim with absolute certainty that there is NO God.* However this does not make the person a God. It is rational to say that someone could have omniscience without being the creator of the universe. And even if you don't claim God to mean THE creator, you would not go attributing the title of God to anyone who developed extreme super powers!
Ultimately what this post boils down to is that atheists do not claim to know there is no God. A more appropriate definition for an atheist is a person who lacks a belief in God. For those who may be confused, the difference is that theTRUTHgroup's claim was that atheists believe there is no God, and so are asserting a claim. On the other hand the more accurate definition of the Atheistic position is that atheists have no belief in the existence of God, and so they are not asserting a claim.
_______________________________________________________________
*Omniscience may not even be compatible with the idea of the Creator God. A creator God must be omnipotent in order to create the universe, however omniscience may not be necessary. The creator God could know everything about creating the universe but not about everything else. The incompatibility between the two stems from this paradox (similar to that of the time traveler's paradoxes):
If God is omniscient He knows everything He will ever do and think. Yet if He is omnipotent He must be able to change what He is able to do and think. Yet if He changes what He does and thinks, since He is omniscient He must have already known He was going to do that... etc.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Prop 8, It's not too late!
Awesome news from our neighbours to the south! A federal judge ruled that proposition 8, the Californian bill passed in November 2008 banning same sex marriage, is unconstitutional!
We all know the Americans are a little backwards on some things (and I can say that 'cause I'm half American) but prop 8 really takes it to a new level. Now before everyone get's their knickers in a twist I'm not saying that all Americans are backwards. Some members of my family are American! But when you petition to amend the state constitution in order to define a word, that's just getting ridiculous. Leave it up to the people at Websters! It's their JOB!
In his ruling today, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker stated that the state of California had no reason to discriminate against same sex couples, and that Prop 8 was based on mere moral disapproval.
Walker's ruling, while temporarily overturning Proposition 8, will inevitably be appealed and sent to the American supreme court.
While I am thrilled that prop 8 has been temporarily overturned, (I was exceptionally p-o'ed when I originally heard about Prop 8) it still disgusts me that there was a need for such a ruling. It is even more aggravating that it took nearly two years for the proposition to be overturned. (Yes I do realize that these things take time, however keep in mind that the ballot qualified on June 2nd 2008, and was enacted a mere five months later).
So why do the people of California feel that same sex couples are less deserving of the institution of Marriage? Why don't we let preservingmarriage.org tell us:
So essentially their arguments boil down to nothing more than religion and slippery slopes. "If prop 8 fails then we may lose our religious freedoms". How is that any better than saying "If we let the gays get married then who know's what'll be next! People marrying dogs?"
I've heard too many arguments against same sex marriage to count, and none of them have been any more valid than the moon landing conspiracy theories, and predictions for 2012.
So let me set the record straight (perhaps the wrong choice of words, but no matter):
1. The institution of marriage is NOT simply about protecting couples who mean to procreate. There are plenty of couples who do not want or cannot have children, yet they all have the same right to get married. (if this were truly the case then the people of California should be petitioning to change the definition of marriage to "between two demonstrably fertile adults" and require everyone to prove their fertility before getting their marriage license. Though this would increase the number of opponents to the bill, so perhaps a smart move on their part)
2. Children are NOT better off in households with parents of both genders. Children will find role models for the gender not present in their parents through Grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles, and close family friends.
3. It doesn't matter what your religious creed says, you do not have the right to dictate who gets married to whom. The constitutional right to freedom of religion does not mean that religious ideals should be allowed to impede on the rights of others. In fact the separation of church and state means that your religious biases should remain outside of the political forum.
4. Lastly, why are you so obsessed with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. All that these people want are equal rights, and to be treated like regular citizens. No one's sexual preferences should ever come into play when it comes to allowing people their rights.
I guess some of us have just never out grown running around the playground calling people gay.
_______________________________________________________________
We all know the Americans are a little backwards on some things (and I can say that 'cause I'm half American) but prop 8 really takes it to a new level. Now before everyone get's their knickers in a twist I'm not saying that all Americans are backwards. Some members of my family are American! But when you petition to amend the state constitution in order to define a word, that's just getting ridiculous. Leave it up to the people at Websters! It's their JOB!
In his ruling today, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker stated that the state of California had no reason to discriminate against same sex couples, and that Prop 8 was based on mere moral disapproval.
Walker's ruling, while temporarily overturning Proposition 8, will inevitably be appealed and sent to the American supreme court.
While I am thrilled that prop 8 has been temporarily overturned, (I was exceptionally p-o'ed when I originally heard about Prop 8) it still disgusts me that there was a need for such a ruling. It is even more aggravating that it took nearly two years for the proposition to be overturned. (Yes I do realize that these things take time, however keep in mind that the ballot qualified on June 2nd 2008, and was enacted a mere five months later).
So why do the people of California feel that same sex couples are less deserving of the institution of Marriage? Why don't we let preservingmarriage.org tell us:
So essentially their arguments boil down to nothing more than religion and slippery slopes. "If prop 8 fails then we may lose our religious freedoms". How is that any better than saying "If we let the gays get married then who know's what'll be next! People marrying dogs?"
I've heard too many arguments against same sex marriage to count, and none of them have been any more valid than the moon landing conspiracy theories, and predictions for 2012.
So let me set the record straight (perhaps the wrong choice of words, but no matter):
1. The institution of marriage is NOT simply about protecting couples who mean to procreate. There are plenty of couples who do not want or cannot have children, yet they all have the same right to get married. (if this were truly the case then the people of California should be petitioning to change the definition of marriage to "between two demonstrably fertile adults" and require everyone to prove their fertility before getting their marriage license. Though this would increase the number of opponents to the bill, so perhaps a smart move on their part)
2. Children are NOT better off in households with parents of both genders. Children will find role models for the gender not present in their parents through Grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles, and close family friends.
3. It doesn't matter what your religious creed says, you do not have the right to dictate who gets married to whom. The constitutional right to freedom of religion does not mean that religious ideals should be allowed to impede on the rights of others. In fact the separation of church and state means that your religious biases should remain outside of the political forum.
4. Lastly, why are you so obsessed with what people do in the privacy of their own homes. All that these people want are equal rights, and to be treated like regular citizens. No one's sexual preferences should ever come into play when it comes to allowing people their rights.
I guess some of us have just never out grown running around the playground calling people gay.
_______________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)