|
Smyke_Savage
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Smyke
Gender: Male
Interests: Logic, Philosophy, History, Politics, Psychology, Anthropology, Theology, Basic Science, Skiing (Downhill and Nordic)
Expertise: Logic, Skiing (Downhill), Memorization, Bullshit, Behaving Stupidly
Occupation: Sales Clerk
Industry: Service and Toursim
Message: message me
Member Since:
12/7/2006
|
|
| I was listening to a song at work today and it made the most interesting statement which I decided to ponder for a second before just assuming, as I do with most deep-sounding song lyrics, that it was just drivel. My co-worker had some interesting thoughts on the subject.
Curtis: I think it's just drivel. Such a statement implies that truth and love are the same thing which isn't true at all.
It took me a while to think on it but then I realized that they didn't have to be the same thing in order for that statement to be valid. What the statement was arguing was that truth is a requirement for love to exist. Let us examen how this would work. Love would require trust and trust requires the ability to be able to tell someone the truth without fear of signifigant harm.
PS: today's song is the song that inspired this short debate; Where is the Love by Black Eyed Peas
| | |
| FuckYou Viacom
Google has taken all of the right sides to all of the right issues in internet debate. The only questionable act I've even heard of them committing was building the censored Chinese search engine. Between the secure and superior gmail to google earth and now YouTube, Google has built a massive array of online tools which have become indespensible to the average internet user. The combination of these two things could result in Google being the first authority to conquer the internet, through consent I might add. Old legal traditions may still break Google's hold and this case will certainly be one of many challenges to Google's power but for the most part, I hope they win it.
The Globe got this one wrong
The Globe and Mail said that the last shooting in Whistler was in 1968 as a result of a robbery. This is all lies. The last shooting in Whistler was a friend of my dad's in 1980. The shooter was drunk so he got a temporary insanity plea and ony spent 4 months in jail. Sure maybe he deserved more time and sure he someone shoulda told him that he wasn't the victim, the man he killed was. Shorter prison sentances are the price of maintaining a lower crime rate. Besides, the shooter had to live the rest of his life knowing that he killed his best friend and with him lost every other friend he ever had as well.
Bugger the draft... litterally!
If I ever was a US citizen being drafted into the army all I'd have to do is commit a little soddomy and bang *no pun intended* I'd be booted out in a jiffy. Just to be clear I'm implying that: Soddomy > Iraq | | |
| Yea, so the internet is back up. A storm blew in and took it out for about a week but the snow that storm brought in... man, what a week!
So it occurs to me that, in our society today, pretense is the grease on which all relationships slide. In this case, lets use weed as an example. If one wants to have company for an evening, especially when it's platonic company, one needs to have an aliby, and for good reason. When one says, "hey lets go smoke some weed" it can also have a double meaning as "lets go outside and talk." It's a great way to meet strangers sometimes too. Hitch-hikers, for example, often get picked up for this reason.
Doubletalk is often lost on me though. Despite trying I still have yet to meet people here in Whistler I can call friends. As far as I'm concerned thusfar, everyone is just a zombie. They don't go any deeper than the pretense for which they give. Sometimes, the pretense for human contact, weed, is more the hidden reason. "Come over and drink with us! It's Felix's last night here." Nothing was said until I got there, then they asked me if I had my weed.
The big problem is, are these people actually people or are they zombies. Just clever fleshy constructs that impersonate human behavior but just aren't quite the real thing. They are like zombies in that they are easy to handle by themselves but dangerous in large crowds.
 | | |
| In our store there is a childrens section for ski equipment and all of the childrens' helmets are pink. Pink!
For some reason, someone decided to make childrens helmets only
available in pink. This isn't fashion, this is direct exploitation of
children. I can just picture some 3-year-old who doesn't know what's
going on having this helmet put on them by their parents to the chorus
of "aww, he's so cute!"
This would imply that the child is being
exploited for one's own cheap entertainment. It's funny that we submit
children to this kind of degrading behavior and not the mentally
handicapped. We only spare the mentally handicapped this treatment
because it's just not as entertaining. Maybe I should photoshop this
thing onto a picture of Terry Schiavo and see if it's as entertaining
as the 3-year old. | | |
| After giving it some thought I have decided that it is quite possible, if not probable, that supernatural entities exists. Things like ghosts, demons or even gods (lower case "g" indicating their lack of omnipotence). The only things is that we have to think about these forces rationally. If these creatures do exists they would likely be governed by the same forces that govern us.
Assuming that Spinoza's theory on substance was correct (I doubt it was his originally but he supported it and he is an extremely respected philosopher within the scientific community and influenced the theories of Einstein), then only one substance exists. If there was another substance it could not interact with our own nor could it have anything in common with our substance because then it would share a property and become a part of our substance. If it cannot interact then it could not exist within our universe.
This is nicely complimented by physicalism, which suggests that everything is governed by physical proccesses. This would only be a natural position to follow from accepting the one substance theory. Our Physicists agree. It is believed that all motion (which is everything seeing as how space, matter and motion are all now discovered to be more or less the same thing) can be simplified and explained down to a single hypothetical process reffered to as "The Unified Theory of Everything." Goodness knows, we're close. we're down to three forces right now (Electroweak, Gravitational [which no one has really made much headway with] and Strong Nuclear).
The final thing that can be concuded from this rant is that provided the Supernatural exists, the hypothetical theory of everything would govern it as well as our world. If there was a hidden spirit world or gods and demons or fairies and the great flying spagetti monster then they would all still be subect to our physical laws, admittedly we'd have to rewrite a few physics textbooks but to exist and interact in this universe they would be subject to our laws.
The lesson hear is that the word "supernatural" is a misnomer. It implies it is above nature, and since nothing that exists can be above nature then anything we would describe this way is simply something we don't understand yet. So when someone tells you that you just "weren't meant to understand" something, the adequate response would be "shut the fuck up."
| | |
|
