A Hypothetical:
What if we taught the ABC’s in the order of the QWERTY layout?
*to alphabet song melody*
Q, W, E, R, T, Y, U
I, O, P, A, S, D, F
G, H, J
K, L, Z
X, C, V
B, N, M
Now I know my QWE’s
This is what technology’s done to me!
Are you there, God? Can I have my pants back?
Oh god, you know what I just realized?
10 years ago we were all still in elementary school. I was 11.
Doesn’t that seem forever ago?
And four years ago we were still in high school. That seems like forever ago to me.
Freaking crazy.
Sorry, it’s been a weird day. Blogs are short because I’m preoccupied with trying not to skip the country.
Today’s song: United State of Pop 2007 by DJ Earworm
A question for you fine ladies and gentlemen
Why do a lot of us automatically see doing something “because of love” as a bad thing? Like suppose a person decided to abandon their current job (or whatever) and move across the country to follow someone they love. Why do we tend to look down on that, especially in comparison to someone who abandoned their current job and moved across the country to follow some other passion, like a passion to become a photographer or something?
I mean, I understand the fickleness of humanity, so I guess that’s part of it. Your passion for photography will not change its mind—the only reason it wouldn’t be important to you would be if you decided it wasn’t. Your boyfriend/girlfriend, on the other hand…
But still, when you think about it, a lot of our unhappiness comes from love-/relationship-related stuff, doesn’t it? So doesn’t that indicate that it is at least somewhat important for the human condition? I say yes. So I also say we should stop looking down on love.
Sorry, it’s like 5 AM and this is coming out of nowhere.
So I’ve been thinking (uh-oh)
You know that little riddle you give kids to make them feel stupid if they get it wrong? The “what’s heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold” one?
Well, aren’t precious metals like gold measured in troy weights instead of regular weights? And isn’t one troy pound equal to 12 troy ounces, whereas one pound is equal to 16 ounces?
I think troy ounces are a little heavier than ounces, but not enough to make the one “pound” of gold heavier than the one pound of feathers. So the pound of feathers is heavier.
WE’VE ALL BEEN DECEIVED!
Sorry, I’m hyper and sleep-deprived
Realizations
I’ve graduated in the Kibbie Dome a total of three times (our high school graduated there, too).
I’m the “transition girlfriend.” Only once has this not been a problem.
I’m afraid.
I’m twenty-one years old. That is terrifying.
I don’t know if I’m ready for grad school. I have a feeling I’ll miss the freedom of undergrad (but not the U of I).
Stupid Late-Night Ponderings
Brought to you by the random, semi-coherent paragraphs scrawled out in my sketchbook. Because 17 hours is a long-ass shift.
“…and this is just a FRACTION of the savings you’ll see!”
Oh yeah? Well what if the “fraction” of savings you’re seeing is something like 9.99/10? That’s a pretty big ass fraction to be saying this is JUST a fraction. It just seems stupid.
“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”
Says who? The one-eyed guy? The blind masses? Maybe the one-eyed man doesn’t want to be king. Maybe he just wants to steal the blind’s stuff and skip town.
“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man can sure get away with a lot.”
“An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”
And also fucks over a lot of optometrists. I wonder if this hypothetical world is the land of the blind. So how’d that one-eyed man escape this? Maybe everybody came to their senses in the middle of poking this guy’s eyes out—“wait…we need a ruler here! This guy has an eye, let’s let him do it!”
Why do all these sayings involve blind dudes?
“Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me.”
Yes they can. Ever have someone scream “TACO TIME!” in your ear really loud?
Excruciating. I don’t have an eardrum anymore.
“It’s like shooting fish in a barrel!”
I can’t even describe how inefficient and messy that sounds like it would be. Why would you shoot the fish? For sport? Out of boredom? Because they mocked you? What are they doing in the barrel, anyway? Why wouldn’t you just bowl the barrel over if you wanted them dead? I think that would be more fun. “It’s like dumping a bunch of fish out of a barrel and not wasting any bullets!”
In Soviet Russia, handle flies off YOU!
So…the whole “is the glass half-empty or half-full” question bugs the hell out of me, and here’s why: every time I’m asked that question, I desire to answer it based on the glass’ function. That is, I want to answer it by asking myself, “what is the purpose of a glass?”
What the hell do I mean? Well, let’s take another example.
Here I have a pen (not really, but just humor me). The pen’s purpose—its “human-granted teleology”—is to write. Yes, there could be other interpretations of this quite easily (a pen is for holding, a pen is for conveying information, a pen is for doodling boobies when you’re bored in stats, etc.), but let’s just stick with the obvious, okay?
So the pen’s purpose is to write. Therefore, if someone were to ask me “is this pen’s ink-chamber-thingy half-full or half-empty?” I would respond with what the state of the ink-chamber-thingy would be after the pen had performed half of its purpose (assuming it held a full chamber-thingy at its manufacture, you never know these days). The chamber-thingy would, then, be half-empty.
Of course, you could look at the same question a different way, now that I look back and realize I specified the ink chamber inside the pen and not the pen itself. What is the purpose of the ink chamber? Certainly not to write (that’s the pen’s job). To hold ink? If so, then it is half-full, as when it began its little journey to completing its teleological purpose (holding a full chamber of ink), it was entirely empty.
Now that I’ve contradicted my argument (BUT NOT MY POINT), let’s look at the glass. If you think that the purpose of a glass is to hold liquid, then you would say that the glass is half-full, right? Since at the beginning of its teleological journey, the glass is empty.
But suppose you say, “you’re an idiot, the purpose of a glass is to be drank from,” then it seems natural to say that the glass is now half-empty, since a glass, in order to be drank from, must contain some amount of liquid, and since trying to drink out of an already-empty glass is dumb.
Does that make any sense? Any sense at all? Do I belabor everything way too much? I believe this discussion could carry on further into the metaphysical realm (“but what if the teleology of the ink chamber is to be empty in order to later hold ink?!”) and ultimately into “what’s the teleological purpose of PEOPLE, OMG?” but I’m hungry and I want instant mashed potatoes like none other, so I’m going to go make some.
PARADOX?!
So open-mindedness is “how open you are to revising them [your opinions] in appropriate circumstances,” correct? In other words, it is the opposite of close-mindedness.
Here’s the question: would an open-minded person still be considered open-minded if circumstances required them to change their opinions to the point that the person became close-minded?
But then wouldn’t they just be close-minded and it wouldn’t matter anyway?
Is open-mindedness close-minded to close-mindedness?
Cleaning sinks all day does nothing to distract my mind from this crap, and probably screws with my logic quite a bit.
Without thought, what have we?
Do you guys think about this kind of stuff? Cause I do. All the freaking time. Philosophy shall be a terrific outlet for me.
What if we were unable to feel fear? What kind of world would it be?
What if there was no concept of religion/deities/a higher power? What is the human being’s natural state without having to be “responsible” for their actions in regards to some higher creator or force?
What if the original few American colonies had failed? How different would things be if there’d been different people (aside from the Native Americans, of course) trying to populate the middle of the continent?
What if we all realized that all our efforts, all our actions, and all our attempts don’t matter in the grand scheme of things? What would people do then?
What if we had no concept of mathematics?
If a tree falls in the forest…ah, you know the rest.
What do you do with things you want to buy at a grocery store? You put ‘em in Decartes!
DISCLAIMER: this is all coming from a middle-class white kid from Idaho. Take what you want from it. This is by no means my opinion, because I really don’t know what the right answer to this question is (if there is a right answer at all). It’s just another way of looking at things. Proceed? Yes/No [click yes!]
Okay. Question: our culture is rather focused on promoting differences between races in order to promote tolerance of other peoples’ races, correct? In doing so, though, aren’t we simply a) furthering a different kind of discrimination, and b) doing the exact opposite of what we probably should be doing to promote tolerance?
Let me put it this way: wouldn’t the best way to deal with race and tolerance be to eliminate the concept all together?
Of course, if you know me at all, you know that I’m not speaking at all of exterminating all races until a “master race” is developed. I’m talking about eliminating the concept of race by simply ceasing to bring up racial differences in our culture.
Here, let me try to make a little more sense. This is a problem I see with trying to “play up” racial differences in order to try to promote tolerance and equal opportunities. Let’s take, for example, a hypothetical college who is offering a hypothetical scholarship aimed specifically at those who are of Hispanic background. In other words, if you are Hispanic, you are basically in the running to get this scholarship. The school justifies this action by stating that the scholarship allows the school to become more diverse. Makes sense, right? Well, here’s the problem. By allowing this scholarship to be offered only to Hispanics, isn’t the school discriminating against them?
We (people in the US) are now being taught that there are no intellectual differences between the races of the world, meaning that all races are equally mentally competent and able to perform at the same levels. But this hypothetical school, by stating that they are promoting diversity by seeking out Hispanics especially with this scholarship, is actually disagreeing with this message by promoting that Hispanics “think differently” than the rest of the races, and thus need a special scholarship in order to be recruited by the school. Does that make any sense? By giving a certain race an advantage in the form of a scholarship or a job offering based solely on his or her race, a person, school, or company is actually making the statement that this race needs an extra chance or opportunity in order to compete on the same level as everyone else.
I don’t know if that’s making sense or not. Wouldn’t it be better if all races were given the equal chance, with no special cases or extra boosts for any one? Wouldn’t this removal of race from the formula basically eliminate racial discrimination?
Let me summarize with this: a white guy and a black guy are competing against each other to get a position at a corporation. If we believe what we are taught—that race makes no difference in regards to thinking capacity and ability to perform on the job—shouldn’t both these men be given the same chance to get the job, with neither one getting special advantages? I think downplaying rather than playing up race would be a much fairer and better way to deal with racial issues.
But hey, of course I know of the statistical, historical, and social ramifications of being different races in the United States. I know that not all races have the same economic standings, and that other factors both from present situations and situations in the past influence how races are perceived today and how many opportunities they actually have. I know that it is probably very realistic to be offering special deals and offers to, say, Hispanics, in order to allow them to have opportunities that they may not get simply because they are not white people in America. That’s just the way our country works right now.
So yes, I know all that. I’m just stating this opinion/viewpoint because I think it’s one that is often overlooked.
That is all!
“I dislike you, Professor Dislikeable”
Which is worse, to judge people based on the superficial (how they look, how they talk, their race, etc.) or to judge people based on the real deep stuff (their religion, their morals, how they think, etc.)? I mean, it seems like a real simple answer until you take a second and think, “wait, which is worse?” One’s superficial and has little meaning, but when you think about it, it’s also pretty bad to judge someone based on, for example, their religion. I mean, I don’t know the answer, which argument makes the least sense—the superficial or the deep? Shouldn’t the same value be placed on both?
Why are we more prone to accepting an argument when a person says, “I don’t like them because they’re a Christian” than we are when we hear them say, “I don’t like them because their hair is blonde”? Both make the same amount of sense, I think. When you think about it, though, what else could we possibly judge on when making the decision whether to like someone or not? And we have to judge people somehow because if we didn’t judge at all, we wouldn’t have the society we do today. For example, we wouldn’t really have the distinction of “friend” because we wouldn’t discriminate between those we liked and those we didn’t like. How would we choose someone to like? How would we choose someone to love? How would we “categorize” people (and we all do it, no matter how much we try to deny it).
Think about it. If it’s “bad” to judge people based on the superficial, and it’s “bad” to judge people based on their morals and convictions, how can we judge people at all? Also, are we taught to judge or is it an automatic thing? Would we dislike certain people the same way if we were raised in a way where there was no mention of “hating” or “disliking?” If we hated the kid down the block when we were raised by our parents, would we still hate the kid down the block if we had been raised in a totally different environment? I guess that’s kind of a nature/nurture argument.
Am I making any sense to you guys? I feel like I’m rambling. My thoughts aren’t coming in an organized manner today. I don’t know how to end this blog, so I’m just going to end it.
Serious crap
Do you guys ever think about immortality? I mean really think about what that means? Would you be able to resist the offer if it were given to you? I guess it would be pretty easy to; after all, you’d live forever, and there would never, ever be a way out. You would never die. Things would get boring, and you’d still be stuck around. When the year 4000 comes, no matter how bad things are, you’d still be around. As the sun starts to grow into a red giant, you’d still be around. You would always be around. Forever.
Of course, there would be a definite upside to it all. If you were ever immortal, you’d live long enough to do everything. You could literally experience almost every experience on earth. You could learn everything, you’d have time to memorize as much as you possibly could. You’d have eons and eons to work on experiments and designs and try to figure out how the universe works. How awesome would that be?
But there’s always the downside. You’d almost definitely get bored.
Yeah, I was so un-busy at work today I was thinking about immortality. Wee.
The Atheist Blog (you knew it had to happen sometime)
I’m sick of Atheists getting a bad rap all the time. For me personally, I am not an Atheist because I am “evil.” That’s ridiculous. I am an Atheist simply because there is not enough rational proof that God exists. It’s just that simple. I believe God is a manmade concept thought up probably soon after human beings developed higher thought processes. I choose not to go along with this concept because I don’t see the need for it. I can be a reasonable, rational, kind, conscientious human being without the need for an ultimate reward in the form of an eternity that is better than life on earth. I don’t believe in an afterlife.
Therefore, I think we should live striving for a better life on earth rather than working for the goal of a better life in the afterlife. I don’t advocate violence, lawless behavior, nonsensical actions, or anything of the sort. I just don’t feel the necessity of a god figure in my life. Why is that so wrong? I don’t believe in the concept. That’s really all there is to it.
And yet, in most conversations I have in which religion/spirituality is brought up, I get told at least one of the following:
“Atheism is a corrupting force in society.”
Um, not really. First, I’d hardly call Atheism a “force.” If Atheism has anything to do with society, its job is to stay in the background. In fact, of all the religious/spiritual denominations and classifications, Atheism is probably one of the least intrusive. When was the last time you saw an Atheist handing out pamphlets or knocking at your door asking you if you’ve considered “converting” to Atheism?
Second, all sorts of conclusions are jumped to by implying that a lack of belief in a god is equal to corruption. You don’t need God to be good. Just look at all the law-abiding Atheists in today’s society.
“You can’t prove God doesn’t exist.”
You can’t prove He/She/They does/do. Until then, I’m sticking with what I believe.
“Okay, if God is a manmade concept, it is a necessary one in order to prevent people from doing wrong” (or, “without God there is a lack of morality.”)
Again, not so. Like I said, there are millions of Atheists in the world. I doubt the percentage of them that fall into immorality is greater than any other denomination or classification. While I believe that people do things in order to ultimately receive some sort of reward at some point, I believe that this reward can be found on earth, not in the afterlife.
“There is no definitive proof of God because He wants you to have faith that he exists.”
A god who will not reveal rational proof that it exists while requiring that people believe in it despite that is a god I don’t want a part of. If God does exist, why would He require us to prove our faith in the face of such overwhelming evidence that denounces his existence?
“Atheism is the same thing as believing in evolution.”
Not necessarily. I know many Christians who “believe” in evolution, and I know two Atheists who aren’t convinced enough by the evidence to trust the evolutionary theory. Atheism is the affirmation of the nonexistence of god(s) or the rejection of theism. Evolution is a theory. Big difference.
That’s about it. I hope I didn’t offend anyone. I’m just trying to explain things from an Atheist’s point of view.
And stop picking on Agnostics, too.
Vibrant Motive (yet another title that has nothing to do with the blog. Shocking, eh?)
Ah, Ag Sci. I’ve spent more time with you than with any human over the past several days. I will ask for you hand in marriage…but all in good time, my dear…all in good time.
Several points of interest that may prove to be interesting!
1. holy crap—RAB 18 is hilarious. Not nearly as good as 17 (my favorite so far), but pretty damn funny. It made my day when I watched it at 7:00 this morning.
2. I didn’t get back to my room until 10 tonight, partially because of the Ag Sci escapade, and partially because of part 3.
3. Rob and I have our own secret language. It’s fun. We’re hilarious.
4. The blogs will grow more interesting as I come out of this horrible funk of homework and papers. I promise.
Waiter! There’s an Ethiopia on Djibouti!
It’s the weekend. Time for pondering!
Questions for said pondering:
1. Why do I have twelve spoons in my dorm room? (I don’t ever use spoons!)
2. What’s up with these summer sandals having friggin’ HEELS on them? (It’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen!)
3. Why do all the teeth on the right side of my mouth hurt?
4. I saw the most disturbing advertisement today—what is a “Hop on Cock” éclair? And why do I now want one?
5. Why is a raven like a writing desk?
6. Why is being a virgin portrayed as a curse in our society (in other words, why is being a slut portrayed as the epitome of awesomeness?)?
7. What do YOU see in the inkblot?
And finally…
8. What’s your favorite thing about me? Seriously. This is important for my egotism self-esteem.
And God said…
Okay, so here’s the rundown:
Day 1: God created light.
Day 2: God created water/oceans/sky.
Day 3: God created dry ground and plants.
Day 4: God created seasons, the moon, etc.
Day 5: God created the birds and sea creatures.
Day 6: God created land animals and humans.
Day 7: God created—oh, wait! He didn’t create anything today! He FLIPPIN’ TOOK A NAP.
What the crap…? God needed a NAP?? He’s God! You don’t need a nap when you’re the almighty! What possible wonderful things could we have had if God hadn’t been so lazy and had created something on the seventh day?
We could be missing out on fajita trees or something!
How on earth will we solve this crisis?!?!
Ohhhh dear
Hello, my name is Claudia and I’m a Freudian.
I think.
I agree with most of his bigger ideas, like his theory of the id, ego, and superego, his ideas of defense mechanisms, and yes, even partially with his theories of psychosexual development. Jung, though, who branched off from Freud’s theories, is another theorist whom I follow.
I think.
Ugh. It’s too early to be doing this.
I’m Plato!
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?
(does anyone really care? I don’t.)
If a roommate plays their country music at 140 decibels and no one is around, does the idiocy in the room still rise?
If a person having computer problems goes to a Freudian for help, are their computer problems ultimately their mother’s fault?
If a geophagist “bites the dust”, will anyone really take notice?
(this is my favorite!)
If a Claudia rambles on for an infinite time for an infinite number of blogs, will she eventually get a comment?
(doubtful)
Okay, I’m done. Hope you likey!
…I likey.
What I come up with on a bus at midnight
What happens when you dance but you’ve got no pants and then you’ve got a fire in your pants and your legs burn and you’re scarred with awful 3rd degree burns that ruin your chances for being a sock model (unless the socks are long enough that they cover the scars, which is unlikely) and you feel desperate so you go light your dog’s pants on fire and it’s not until it’s too late that you realize that your dog isn’t wearing any pants so in truth you set your dog on fire and the police come and the firemen come and the animal police come and you’re forced to “spread ’em, punk!” in front of the whole neighborhood who has just come to the conclusion that you’re some awful dog-burning pantsless hooligan and you’ve just realized that you don’t really care for chocolate ice cream?
Don’t even freakin’ ask, man. Don’t even freakin’ ask.
Wondering…
Does anyone else ever wonder whether or not they’ve changed extremely since the beginning of school (preschool, kindergarten)? I have thought of these things for quite a few years now, and I’ve always wondered. Of course, none of you have known me for that long, and I don’t have contact with anyone who has.
So I asked my mom. She said that I used to be more social (I don’t remember this) and that I used to have more self-confidence (I don’t remember this, either.
I think that I have much more self-confidence then people think…I just feel that if I’m not the best person in the world in something, then I’m just not worth too much. Always strive for the best, right?
Well, the good thing was that my mom didn’t think that I’ve conformed to fit society’s “norms” and that peer pressure hasn’t really gotten to me.
Just a bunch of reminiscing about things past. Hm…
Do you guys wonder about this stuff?
Thinking about the infinite
That’s all I’ve got to say…very profound stuff.
Oh, and the senior party sucked…at least in my opinion. Really boring.
Meh.
Random crap
HOLY CRAP IT’S FINALS WEEK!
Okay…now that that’s said, here are a few random dingy-bobbers that are occurring/being pondered/continuously going through my mind:
1) I am a geek. This has already been proven, but I figure the fact that I give people nicknames due to whether or not their initials make up a symbol of the Periodic Table of Elements (examples: Aneel would be Arsenic (As), I would be Curium (Cm), and you-know-who would be Lead (Pb). Nerdy nerdy geek freak.
2) I like fajitas (despite the fact that I have never had one).
3) I’m really friggin’ thirsty right now. For chocolate milk. Dang.
4) Pedro is hot.
Can you tell I’m bored as hell? I’m bored as hell.
Eigenblogger 