Just in case you forgot.
thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com
Follow me.
Showing posts with label Personal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Personal. Show all posts
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Monday, April 23, 2012
Me has a new "blog." It's here:
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
http://thepsychoshaman.tumblr.com/
FOLLOW MEH
Sunday, October 9, 2011
New Graphic
I made an Anarcho-Communist graphic for my cafepress account. Purchase here: www.cafepress.com/pigdisgusting
Thursday, March 31, 2011
My personal website (update #1)
As a follow up post to the previous one. I thought I would keep you updated on how my proposed personal website was progressing.
My ordeal with Just Host and the bad experiences I've had with every host I've tried in the past has led me to one conclusion: I will host my site myself.
Using a professional web host would be way easier, but I'm not willing to risk losing money to pay for a host that I can't even use. I'm dead set on the idea of being my own host. Nothing you say will change my opinion. I'm aware that doing this will require that I learn a lot about all the technical aspects involved, of which I currently know next to none, but I am willing to do the research and actually want to do it. These are things I want to learn eventually, anyway, so I might as well start now.
What this means is, I will not be able to start planning the contents, design, and coding of my website until after I get the hosting worked out. This could take some time. I expect it will take months before I feel knowledgeable and secure enough about being my own host and allowing the whole world to access it. I'm not going to half ass this project. I'm determined to work for it and not stop until it has been completed.
So, until then...
My ordeal with Just Host and the bad experiences I've had with every host I've tried in the past has led me to one conclusion: I will host my site myself.
Using a professional web host would be way easier, but I'm not willing to risk losing money to pay for a host that I can't even use. I'm dead set on the idea of being my own host. Nothing you say will change my opinion. I'm aware that doing this will require that I learn a lot about all the technical aspects involved, of which I currently know next to none, but I am willing to do the research and actually want to do it. These are things I want to learn eventually, anyway, so I might as well start now.
What this means is, I will not be able to start planning the contents, design, and coding of my website until after I get the hosting worked out. This could take some time. I expect it will take months before I feel knowledgeable and secure enough about being my own host and allowing the whole world to access it. I'm not going to half ass this project. I'm determined to work for it and not stop until it has been completed.
So, until then...
Sunday, March 27, 2011
60s + 70s music
I really hate those kids who are obsessed with 60's and 70's music and consider it to be the only good music and think that all the music that came out after the 70's or anything that isn't classic rock, is garbage by default. Don't these kids realize that the 60's and 70's were a period of moral decay and social irresponsibility and the beginning of western civilization's slow, but inevitable descent into oblivion and that all of the musicians they idolize were spending most of their time stuffing their bodies with whatever drugs they could find to escape their tortuous and painfully vapid reality? But then again, that doesn't sound any different than any other period of time.
... But I still hate those kids
...... And the music they listen to
... But I still hate those kids
...... And the music they listen to
Monday, March 21, 2011
How I became an atheist
My journey to atheism is rather uninteresting, but I'll tell it anyway.
I was raised by a family that rarely discussed religion. I still have no idea what my family members believe. For most of my life I had no religious affiliation, but I was not an atheist either, as I had not rejected the belief in the supernatural. There might have been times when I believed in some sort of god, because I used to pray, and I used to fear going to hell. Despite this, I still would not have called myself a christian. I have always felt that the Christian beliefs were hokum.
One of the key events that led me to atheism, happened in the 6th grade. I'm not sure how much this event affected my view of religion, as I had no view on religion and didn't think about it much.
I still think I would have ended up an atheist had this event not occurred, but it would have probably happened later, but that is something I will never know.
The event that took place was an exchange between a student and the teacher.
The teacher was a practicing christian of some sort and would occasionally talk about her beliefs, which I'm pretty sure teachers aren't allowed to do, but whatever.
The student said that he did not believe in god, and the teacher replied "well, we'll talk about why that's wrong later." She wasn't angry and said it nonchalantly. Later on, the same teacher said something along the lines of "atheists don't go anywhere when they die, they just die."
One of my regrets is that I did not challenge her. I wish I had said "and you know this, how?" "Have you died, if not how can you possibly know what happens to people when they die?"
Nothing of significance happened after that point, that I remember, anyway. Perhaps it got me to start thinking about religion and god more. All I know is that I became an atheist in the 7th grade, which is a time when I started to change significantly.
I was somewhat of a passive atheist. I wasn't open about it. I didn't read the works of atheists. I didn't watch debates between theists and non-theists. I was just an atheist. It didn't affect who I was.
Sometime in high school, I saw a video on youtube by a user going by the name "TheAmazingAtheist." From there I was introduced to other prominent youtube atheists. I started to hear the arguments made by theists and non-theists. I started to learn more about atheism, theism, religion, and everything related. I was no longer an atheist without reason. I learned why I was an atheist. I learned why I didn't believe in god or any religion. I was introduced to prominent atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett.
Soon, I evolved from a passive atheist into a militant atheist. I realize now that without these outspoken atheists, I would not be who I am today.
Everyone's beliefs are influenced by other people, whether they be family, friends, society, or people from the other side of the planet. Without atheists forming groups, writing books, making videos, having debates, and generally working to promote the views of atheism and non-theism, atheism will never progress in society.
I was raised by a family that rarely discussed religion. I still have no idea what my family members believe. For most of my life I had no religious affiliation, but I was not an atheist either, as I had not rejected the belief in the supernatural. There might have been times when I believed in some sort of god, because I used to pray, and I used to fear going to hell. Despite this, I still would not have called myself a christian. I have always felt that the Christian beliefs were hokum.
One of the key events that led me to atheism, happened in the 6th grade. I'm not sure how much this event affected my view of religion, as I had no view on religion and didn't think about it much.
I still think I would have ended up an atheist had this event not occurred, but it would have probably happened later, but that is something I will never know.
The event that took place was an exchange between a student and the teacher.
The teacher was a practicing christian of some sort and would occasionally talk about her beliefs, which I'm pretty sure teachers aren't allowed to do, but whatever.
The student said that he did not believe in god, and the teacher replied "well, we'll talk about why that's wrong later." She wasn't angry and said it nonchalantly. Later on, the same teacher said something along the lines of "atheists don't go anywhere when they die, they just die."
One of my regrets is that I did not challenge her. I wish I had said "and you know this, how?" "Have you died, if not how can you possibly know what happens to people when they die?"
Nothing of significance happened after that point, that I remember, anyway. Perhaps it got me to start thinking about religion and god more. All I know is that I became an atheist in the 7th grade, which is a time when I started to change significantly.
I was somewhat of a passive atheist. I wasn't open about it. I didn't read the works of atheists. I didn't watch debates between theists and non-theists. I was just an atheist. It didn't affect who I was.
Sometime in high school, I saw a video on youtube by a user going by the name "TheAmazingAtheist." From there I was introduced to other prominent youtube atheists. I started to hear the arguments made by theists and non-theists. I started to learn more about atheism, theism, religion, and everything related. I was no longer an atheist without reason. I learned why I was an atheist. I learned why I didn't believe in god or any religion. I was introduced to prominent atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett.
Soon, I evolved from a passive atheist into a militant atheist. I realize now that without these outspoken atheists, I would not be who I am today.
Everyone's beliefs are influenced by other people, whether they be family, friends, society, or people from the other side of the planet. Without atheists forming groups, writing books, making videos, having debates, and generally working to promote the views of atheism and non-theism, atheism will never progress in society.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
What is a hacker?
When the majority of people hear the term 'hacker' or 'computer hacker' they invariably think of a pale nerdy neckbeard with a face covered in zits and acne, living in a dark basement, surrounded by empty soda cans, trash, and filth. He is engulfed by numerous computer monitors and is hunched over his keyboard typing away furiously. His glowing LCD screen resembles the green digital rain a la the Matrix series.
Or maybe you have a more attractive picture of what a hacker is and imagine them as a cyberpunk technocrat, living in a lavish abode, surrounded by state-of-the-art technology and computer monitors displaying long lists of intelligible text and source and code. He is probably hacking into a government website or some equally important website and uses his hacking abilities for the greater good of mankind.
Everyone's interpretation of what a hacker is varies, but most people's vision of a hacker revolves around two common traits: intelligence and nihilism.
To most, a hacker is someone with ample knowledge of computers and technology and who uses his/her knowledge to do deleterious things to individuals or organizations for either personal gain or for gratuitous satisfaction.
And that certainly does define a certain kind of hacker, but it in no way is a complete definition of what a hacker is or does or what hacking is.
What is a hacker?
The term "hacker" means different things to different generations. Computer enthusiasts from the 1950s and 1960s who saw their work as innovative, groundbreaking, and challenging to the old paradigms of computer science, know the term hacking to mean an intellectual exercise that has little or nothing to do with exploitation of devastation.
This contrasts sharply with the definition of the term "hacker" that emerged in the 1980s and has since become the prevailing definition of the term. The modern definition of hacker, no doubt promulgated by the mainstream media, would instead be referred to as "cracking" by the earlier generation of computer enthusiasts. One who engages in "cracking" is known as a "cracker."
The very definition of the term "hacker" is fiercely disputed by both people who consider themselves hackers and by people who are not involved in the computer underground and the definition differs from person to person, no matter their area of expertise.
The purpose of this post is not to provide the "correct" definition of hacking/hacker that everyone should ascribe to. The purpose of this post is to provide insight into the culture of hackers and hacking and some of the philosophy behind the terms, in order to change the preconceived notations you may have about hackers and hacking.
The first generation of hackers
The word "hacker" originates from MIT in the 1960s. It was used to describe individuals who were extremely skilled in programming and who had limitless knowledge of computers. The term "hacker" was a positive label used to describe computer gurus.
Most of the original hackers were graduate students at large universities, because prior to the 1980s, most people only had access to computers in a university environment. The work done by the first generation of hackers in these university settings would eventually lead to the birth of the personal computer and launch an entire industry that would drive technological innovation. Many of these hackers would go on to form Silicon Valley start-up companies, lead the open-source software movement, and become some of the most wealthy humans on the planet. If you are reading this blog, you are more than likely using one or more of their products. You are using the products and brain children of the original hackers. Do you think of these hackers as evil people who are only interested in personal gain and disrupting others? Probably not. These original hackers are seen by most as computer geniuses, nerds, savvy businessmen, and great innovators.
The second generation of hackers
Starting in the 1980s, the personal computer was introduced to the market and the technology that enabled hacking became widespread in homes and schools.
The proliferation of personal computers in the general public, transformed a culture that was comprised mainly of male, university students into a culture comprised mainly of suburban youth who were mostly still attending high school. The second generation of hackers were born into a world of computers. Everything in their daily lives were linked to a computer somehow. This austere shift in society was made possible by the corporations and products built by the first generation of computer hackers. Their progeny who had grown up with computers since birth and were immersed in it constantly, began to form their own culture. Their culture expressed a general dissatisfaction with the world and the ways technology was being used. Groups of hackers began to meet, to learn from one another, and to form a subculture, which was dedicated to resisting and interrupting "the system."
The popular culture did not let the hacker subculture go unnoticed. During the early 1980s a new genre of science fiction literature emerged which mirrored the ethos of the hacker subculture. This was the literature of cyberpunk, which would give hackers a set of heroes (or antiheroes) to emulate. One of the most prominent writers in the genre of cyberpunk, William Gibson, would coin the term "cyberspace."
As Bruce Sterling points out, it is the ideal model for disaffected suburban youth culture. Where the suburban landscape provides little of interest for youth culture, the world of computers and networks provides a nearly infinite world for exploration. The typical hacker is a white, suburban, middle-class boy, most likely in high school. He is very likely self-motivated, technologically proficient, and easily bored. Computers became a tool for these youths to alleviate their boredom or angst and explore a world that provided both intellectual challenge and excitement. Meanwhile, the popular media released books and movies that made the image of a hacker inextricably linked to criminality and mischief. Hackers were delighted to go along with this image. What high school kid wouldn't delight in the thought of ruling a universe that their parents, teachers, and most adults did not understand? Hackers had found something they could master, and unlike the usual rebellious expressions of youth culture, it was something that had a profound impact on the adult world.
My personal interpretation
If someone were to ask me, "when did you become a hacker?" I would reply, "I was born a hacker." As outlandish as that may seem, I think it is true. Every hacker I have ever met or have seen or have read about has had a personality like my own. They have all had an intense desire to learn how things work. They have all been individualistic and against unjust authority. They have all been adventurous. They have all been innovative. And they have all had slightly mischievous attitudes. I have exhibited those traits for as long as I can remember. I think having those personality traits is what lead me to the hacking subculture, as well as always having an affinity for technology.
A good general definition of hacking is modifying computer hardware and software to accomplish a goal(s) outside of the creator's original purpose. At a Defcon presentation, one of the speakers defined a hacker as one who creates, improves, explores, and discovers new technology. I very much like that definition and that is how I like to think of myself as a hacker. To think like a hacker means to think outside the box. To think like a hacker means to push the boundaries and explore new frontiers. Yes, a hacker can use his/her knowledge for devious purposes, but a hacker can also use his/her knowledge for righteous purposes. Hackers who use their knowledge for ethical reasons are generally referred to as white hat hackers. On the other hand, hackers who use their knowledge for malicious reasons are generally referred to as black hat hackers. Hackers who use their knowledge for both bad and good are generally referred to as grey hat hackers. Hackers are consistently the forebears of new hardware and software. Hackers are the ones who transform society. The products that we use today, such as Windows, Apple, Linux, or almost any other technology you can think of, were envisioned and built by hackers. I think that viewing hackers as gratuitous criminals who are only concerned with mischief, mayhem, and personal profit, is a huge misrepresentation of what a hacker is. Viewing hackers as bad people also fails to give proper recognition to all of the achievements that hackers have contributed to society. Even black hat hackers can improve technology, by figuring out exploits and security issues within a system, which in turn forces the person or people who are being hacked to improve their technology.
How do I hack?
Asking a hacker 'how to hack' is equivalent to asking a chef 'how to cook.' There is no way to answer that question, as there are limitless ways to cook. Likewise, there also are endless ways to hack. You do not hack by memorizing a formula or by following a recipe or by running a program. People who think of themselves as hackers, but in reality can do little more than run a program, are known as script kiddies (alternatively, skiddies) and it is a pejorative. In reality, one does not learn how to hack at all. One gains the ability to hack. Yes, there is a big difference between the two.
There is no easy way to gain the ability to hack, sorry. If you want to become a hacker, you must devote a lot of your time to studying. Study computers and technology. Read as much as you can. Learn how everything works. Master your knowledge and use your knowledge. Eventually, you will get to a point where you are able to see through and beyond anything related to technology. Once you have reached that point, you can now (proudly) label yourself a hacker.
More:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/what_is_a_hacke.html
http://mrcracker.com/2009/11/crackercast-episode01-what-is-a-hacker/
http://www.amazon.com/Hacker-Culture-Douglas-Thomas/dp/0816633460/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299769218&sr=8-1
Or maybe you have a more attractive picture of what a hacker is and imagine them as a cyberpunk technocrat, living in a lavish abode, surrounded by state-of-the-art technology and computer monitors displaying long lists of intelligible text and source and code. He is probably hacking into a government website or some equally important website and uses his hacking abilities for the greater good of mankind.
Everyone's interpretation of what a hacker is varies, but most people's vision of a hacker revolves around two common traits: intelligence and nihilism.
To most, a hacker is someone with ample knowledge of computers and technology and who uses his/her knowledge to do deleterious things to individuals or organizations for either personal gain or for gratuitous satisfaction.
And that certainly does define a certain kind of hacker, but it in no way is a complete definition of what a hacker is or does or what hacking is.
What is a hacker?
The term "hacker" means different things to different generations. Computer enthusiasts from the 1950s and 1960s who saw their work as innovative, groundbreaking, and challenging to the old paradigms of computer science, know the term hacking to mean an intellectual exercise that has little or nothing to do with exploitation of devastation.
This contrasts sharply with the definition of the term "hacker" that emerged in the 1980s and has since become the prevailing definition of the term. The modern definition of hacker, no doubt promulgated by the mainstream media, would instead be referred to as "cracking" by the earlier generation of computer enthusiasts. One who engages in "cracking" is known as a "cracker."
The very definition of the term "hacker" is fiercely disputed by both people who consider themselves hackers and by people who are not involved in the computer underground and the definition differs from person to person, no matter their area of expertise.
The purpose of this post is not to provide the "correct" definition of hacking/hacker that everyone should ascribe to. The purpose of this post is to provide insight into the culture of hackers and hacking and some of the philosophy behind the terms, in order to change the preconceived notations you may have about hackers and hacking.
The first generation of hackers
The word "hacker" originates from MIT in the 1960s. It was used to describe individuals who were extremely skilled in programming and who had limitless knowledge of computers. The term "hacker" was a positive label used to describe computer gurus.
Most of the original hackers were graduate students at large universities, because prior to the 1980s, most people only had access to computers in a university environment. The work done by the first generation of hackers in these university settings would eventually lead to the birth of the personal computer and launch an entire industry that would drive technological innovation. Many of these hackers would go on to form Silicon Valley start-up companies, lead the open-source software movement, and become some of the most wealthy humans on the planet. If you are reading this blog, you are more than likely using one or more of their products. You are using the products and brain children of the original hackers. Do you think of these hackers as evil people who are only interested in personal gain and disrupting others? Probably not. These original hackers are seen by most as computer geniuses, nerds, savvy businessmen, and great innovators.
The second generation of hackers
Starting in the 1980s, the personal computer was introduced to the market and the technology that enabled hacking became widespread in homes and schools.
The proliferation of personal computers in the general public, transformed a culture that was comprised mainly of male, university students into a culture comprised mainly of suburban youth who were mostly still attending high school. The second generation of hackers were born into a world of computers. Everything in their daily lives were linked to a computer somehow. This austere shift in society was made possible by the corporations and products built by the first generation of computer hackers. Their progeny who had grown up with computers since birth and were immersed in it constantly, began to form their own culture. Their culture expressed a general dissatisfaction with the world and the ways technology was being used. Groups of hackers began to meet, to learn from one another, and to form a subculture, which was dedicated to resisting and interrupting "the system."
The popular culture did not let the hacker subculture go unnoticed. During the early 1980s a new genre of science fiction literature emerged which mirrored the ethos of the hacker subculture. This was the literature of cyberpunk, which would give hackers a set of heroes (or antiheroes) to emulate. One of the most prominent writers in the genre of cyberpunk, William Gibson, would coin the term "cyberspace."
As Bruce Sterling points out, it is the ideal model for disaffected suburban youth culture. Where the suburban landscape provides little of interest for youth culture, the world of computers and networks provides a nearly infinite world for exploration. The typical hacker is a white, suburban, middle-class boy, most likely in high school. He is very likely self-motivated, technologically proficient, and easily bored. Computers became a tool for these youths to alleviate their boredom or angst and explore a world that provided both intellectual challenge and excitement. Meanwhile, the popular media released books and movies that made the image of a hacker inextricably linked to criminality and mischief. Hackers were delighted to go along with this image. What high school kid wouldn't delight in the thought of ruling a universe that their parents, teachers, and most adults did not understand? Hackers had found something they could master, and unlike the usual rebellious expressions of youth culture, it was something that had a profound impact on the adult world.
My personal interpretation
If someone were to ask me, "when did you become a hacker?" I would reply, "I was born a hacker." As outlandish as that may seem, I think it is true. Every hacker I have ever met or have seen or have read about has had a personality like my own. They have all had an intense desire to learn how things work. They have all been individualistic and against unjust authority. They have all been adventurous. They have all been innovative. And they have all had slightly mischievous attitudes. I have exhibited those traits for as long as I can remember. I think having those personality traits is what lead me to the hacking subculture, as well as always having an affinity for technology.
A good general definition of hacking is modifying computer hardware and software to accomplish a goal(s) outside of the creator's original purpose. At a Defcon presentation, one of the speakers defined a hacker as one who creates, improves, explores, and discovers new technology. I very much like that definition and that is how I like to think of myself as a hacker. To think like a hacker means to think outside the box. To think like a hacker means to push the boundaries and explore new frontiers. Yes, a hacker can use his/her knowledge for devious purposes, but a hacker can also use his/her knowledge for righteous purposes. Hackers who use their knowledge for ethical reasons are generally referred to as white hat hackers. On the other hand, hackers who use their knowledge for malicious reasons are generally referred to as black hat hackers. Hackers who use their knowledge for both bad and good are generally referred to as grey hat hackers. Hackers are consistently the forebears of new hardware and software. Hackers are the ones who transform society. The products that we use today, such as Windows, Apple, Linux, or almost any other technology you can think of, were envisioned and built by hackers. I think that viewing hackers as gratuitous criminals who are only concerned with mischief, mayhem, and personal profit, is a huge misrepresentation of what a hacker is. Viewing hackers as bad people also fails to give proper recognition to all of the achievements that hackers have contributed to society. Even black hat hackers can improve technology, by figuring out exploits and security issues within a system, which in turn forces the person or people who are being hacked to improve their technology.
How do I hack?
Asking a hacker 'how to hack' is equivalent to asking a chef 'how to cook.' There is no way to answer that question, as there are limitless ways to cook. Likewise, there also are endless ways to hack. You do not hack by memorizing a formula or by following a recipe or by running a program. People who think of themselves as hackers, but in reality can do little more than run a program, are known as script kiddies (alternatively, skiddies) and it is a pejorative. In reality, one does not learn how to hack at all. One gains the ability to hack. Yes, there is a big difference between the two.
There is no easy way to gain the ability to hack, sorry. If you want to become a hacker, you must devote a lot of your time to studying. Study computers and technology. Read as much as you can. Learn how everything works. Master your knowledge and use your knowledge. Eventually, you will get to a point where you are able to see through and beyond anything related to technology. Once you have reached that point, you can now (proudly) label yourself a hacker.
More:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/09/what_is_a_hacke.html
http://mrcracker.com/2009/11/crackercast-episode01-what-is-a-hacker/
http://www.amazon.com/Hacker-Culture-Douglas-Thomas/dp/0816633460/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299769218&sr=8-1
Thursday, January 20, 2011
On religion and morality (continued)
If this post is too long, skip to the conclusion. You should know this by now.
Animals do show that they adhere to a moral code of sorts and animals can form hierarchical societies as well. Yet these very same creatures are said to be soulless according to the Abrahamic religions.
If god gave humans the gift of morality and knowledge and made us with special interest, then why do all of the other “lesser” animals partake in actions that are supposedly limited humans, just in a more elementary form?
Chimpanzees can not only learn sign language, they can also create new words based off the words that they have learned. This demonstrates that chimpanzees are intelligent enough to do thinking past simple memorization.
The very term ‘pecking order’ as a synonym for hierarchy is derived from the system of social organization observed in poultry.
Just google anything along the lines of “animal morality” and read what you find. That way I won’t have to make you read more than you already have.
God’s law vs man’s law:
Even if we knew that the moral teachings of the Abrahamic religions were from god, does that mean we should follow them? Yes, god created us and we are supposed to worship him and do everything he commands us to do, but are the moral guidelines, created in his infinite wisdom, really the best moral guidelines to follow?
Here is a short list of the rules and regulations of the Abrahamic faiths, in all their glory and wisdom:
1. genital mutilation (encouraged and considered a rite in Islam and Judaism.)
2. slavery (the bible condones it, the quran is neutral to it, and many of the major prophets were slave owners.)
3. pedophilia (muhammad fucked a 9 year old. child marriages happen most often in muslim countries.)
4. adultery (adulterers are to be killed. killing adulterers by stoning is common in muslim countries.)
5. rape (rape goes mainly unreported in muslim countries, as a woman needs four male witnesses to convict a man of rape. the punishment for rape in the bible is for the rapist to marry his victim, but only if the girl is not engaged. LOL)
6. dishonoring parents (death.)
7. worshiping the wrong god(s) (burn in hell for eternity.)
Now let’s contrast these issues with the modern secular response to them:
1. genital mutilation (condemned by most. only practiced for non-religious reasons in the United States.)
2. slavery (condemned and illegal in countries that aren’t shit holes.)
3. pedophilia (condemned. pedophiles are imprisoned and they are closely monitored once they get out of prison.)
4. adultery (neutral if outside of marriage. within marriage adultery is grounds for divorce which can end up being a huge punishment to the adulterer.)
5. rape (condemned.)
6. dishonoring parents (neutral. the punishment of disobedient children is dependent on the parents.)
7. worshiping the wrong god(s) (no punishment. people are free to believe whatever they want.)
So there you have it. God’s law vs man’s law. Which do you prefer? Are the rules and regulations of god really the best for society to follow, or are the moral guidelines created by humans a far better alternative than the ones created by the all-knowing all-wise god of the Abrahamic faiths? And is it right to follow god’s teachings, for the sole purpose of being obedient little sheep that get a reward in the end?
Conclusion:
1. Morality is subjective.
2. Morality can be explained scientifically and there does not need to be god to explain it.
3. Morality is not unique to humans.
4. Every individual has a different moral code.
5. Values which nearly all humans believe to be right do have exceptions.
6. Even if the moral teachings laid out in the texts of the Abrahamic religions were from god, they would still be inferior to modern, man-made morality.
Let me know what you think. Debate is encouraged.
Animals do show that they adhere to a moral code of sorts and animals can form hierarchical societies as well. Yet these very same creatures are said to be soulless according to the Abrahamic religions.
If god gave humans the gift of morality and knowledge and made us with special interest, then why do all of the other “lesser” animals partake in actions that are supposedly limited humans, just in a more elementary form?
Chimpanzees can not only learn sign language, they can also create new words based off the words that they have learned. This demonstrates that chimpanzees are intelligent enough to do thinking past simple memorization.
The very term ‘pecking order’ as a synonym for hierarchy is derived from the system of social organization observed in poultry.
Just google anything along the lines of “animal morality” and read what you find. That way I won’t have to make you read more than you already have.
God’s law vs man’s law:
Even if we knew that the moral teachings of the Abrahamic religions were from god, does that mean we should follow them? Yes, god created us and we are supposed to worship him and do everything he commands us to do, but are the moral guidelines, created in his infinite wisdom, really the best moral guidelines to follow?
Here is a short list of the rules and regulations of the Abrahamic faiths, in all their glory and wisdom:
1. genital mutilation (encouraged and considered a rite in Islam and Judaism.)
2. slavery (the bible condones it, the quran is neutral to it, and many of the major prophets were slave owners.)
3. pedophilia (muhammad fucked a 9 year old. child marriages happen most often in muslim countries.)
4. adultery (adulterers are to be killed. killing adulterers by stoning is common in muslim countries.)
5. rape (rape goes mainly unreported in muslim countries, as a woman needs four male witnesses to convict a man of rape. the punishment for rape in the bible is for the rapist to marry his victim, but only if the girl is not engaged. LOL)
6. dishonoring parents (death.)
7. worshiping the wrong god(s) (burn in hell for eternity.)
Now let’s contrast these issues with the modern secular response to them:
1. genital mutilation (condemned by most. only practiced for non-religious reasons in the United States.)
2. slavery (condemned and illegal in countries that aren’t shit holes.)
3. pedophilia (condemned. pedophiles are imprisoned and they are closely monitored once they get out of prison.)
4. adultery (neutral if outside of marriage. within marriage adultery is grounds for divorce which can end up being a huge punishment to the adulterer.)
5. rape (condemned.)
6. dishonoring parents (neutral. the punishment of disobedient children is dependent on the parents.)
7. worshiping the wrong god(s) (no punishment. people are free to believe whatever they want.)
So there you have it. God’s law vs man’s law. Which do you prefer? Are the rules and regulations of god really the best for society to follow, or are the moral guidelines created by humans a far better alternative than the ones created by the all-knowing all-wise god of the Abrahamic faiths? And is it right to follow god’s teachings, for the sole purpose of being obedient little sheep that get a reward in the end?
Conclusion:
1. Morality is subjective.
2. Morality can be explained scientifically and there does not need to be god to explain it.
3. Morality is not unique to humans.
4. Every individual has a different moral code.
5. Values which nearly all humans believe to be right do have exceptions.
6. Even if the moral teachings laid out in the texts of the Abrahamic religions were from god, they would still be inferior to modern, man-made morality.
Let me know what you think. Debate is encouraged.
On religion and morality
If you don't read this post in its entirety, you're gay.
You may think that because I’m an atheist, I have the same haughty and arrogant attitude toward religion that many other atheists have. Well, you’re wrong. I still believe that all religions are man-made and that their teachings regarding the supernatural were made up out of whole cloth. Nevertheless, many religions have teachings that are good and moral, such as that ten commandments thingy. You know, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, blah blah blah. Yeah, that’s all well and good and I’m fine with it, but many religions also have teachings that are the opposite of good (in my opinion) such as the bible endorsing slavery or islam teaching that it’s okay to kill disbelievers. I know some muslims will dispute this. Theists often claim that morality is objective and comes from god. Thank god this isn’t actually the case, because if it were, things like stoning adulterers and performing genital mutilation would be commonplace … oh wait.
I realize that this post thus far has completely contradicted my first sentence. Don’t point it out.
Subjective morality:
Morality is subjective. Why else would morals change from nation to nation, region to region, culture to culture, and person to person? Every individual person has a different sense of morality.
There are some things that nearly all humans regard as morally true, such as that killing is wrong and you shouldn’t do it. The people who don’t consider killing wrong are usually psychopathic and you should avoid them.
Death penalty and abortion:
Actually, now that I think about it, I take back what I said previously. It’s more complicated than that. Take for instance, the death penalty and abortion. Both of those result in the killing of someone or something that was going to be someone. Both the death penalty and abortion are acts of killing, yet many people regard either as morally acceptable.
On this issue, I have a standard liberal viewpoint. I’m against the death penalty, but I am pro-choice. The reason why I’m against the death penalty is not because I value the life of a murderer, I don’t, but because if you execute someone who was wrongly convicted, there is no going back.
I’m pro-choice because there are many instances where I think there is a legitimate reason to have an abortion, such as if the mother’s life is threatened or if the child will be born with a defect that makes its would-be life miserable. I also think there is something wrong with making a woman who was raped give birth to the rapist’s child and then have to either raise it or give it up for adoption.
Since I’m not religious, I don’t believe in a soul. That is the main reason why theists are against abortion, because to them, all life is sacred and life starts at conception.
I would like to ask people who believe that this question: if abortion is murder, does that make a miscarriage manslaughter? Think about it.
In the beginning of Freakonomics, it discusses how Roe v Wade drastically lowered the crime rates in America during the 90s. I’m not sure if this is true, but it seems logical. Women who want to get abortions do so mainly because they believe that they won’t be able to raise the child adequately or that the child will be hindrance to their life. If a woman does give birth to child and does not raise it properly or can’t raise it properly, the child will be more likely to be a criminal than a child who was raised properly, because of Roe v Wade, women were able to have abortions and an entire generation of potential criminals were weeded out from existence. That sounds really harsh, but it’s true. And I know that not all of those children, or even most, would have been criminals, but surely some of them would.
Subjective morality:
Enough about that. Wait, what was I talking about? Oh yeah, how some things are regarded as moral by all people.
All normal people consider killing someone for no reason wrong, except in the case of abortion. All normal people also consider rape to be wrong. All normal people consider child abuse to be wrong. All normal people consider molestation to be wrong. I could go on, but you get the idea: there are many things that all humans believe to be morally wrong.
This is where theists and atheists differ. A theist believes that our morality was ingrained into our being by god. An atheist believes that there is a natural explanation to our morality, such as evolution.
I believe the latter for various reasons.
Case against objective morality:
If morality were objective and from god, then why do different religions have different moral codes? Even religions that are similar, such as Islam and Christianity, have different moral codes. A practitioner of a religion could make the claim that the other religion’s moral codes were altered from the original and that the moral code of their religion is unchanged and is thus true, but that claim would have little evidence to support it.
The morality that theists believe is objective is actually subjective and based on the morals of the people who crafted them.
How do I know this? Well, I don’t have 100% certainty.
But I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t god who came up with the idea of infant circumcision and I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t god who endorsed slavery in the bible and the quran. (Muslims claim that Islam taught people to treat their slaves humanely and that it led to the decline of slavery, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does not say outright that slavery is wrong.)
*It’s especially hard to believe that the previous came from a god who is omniscient and loving*
Morality can be explained scientifically, there does not need to be a god to explain why humans have a sense of right and wrong. Humans have the second largest brain-to-body size ratio, one of the largest neocortex ratio of any animal, and one of the highest numbers of neocortical neurons (possibly the highest.) The neocortex is the part of the brain that is responsible for higher functioning activities like language and conscious thought. This explains why humans are the most intelligent animal. Carl Sagan’s book “The dragons of Eden” is a great foray into the natural evolution of the human brain. I highly recommend it.
That being said, humans are not the only animals with a sense of morality. True, ours is much, much more sophisticated than any other animal, but we are not alone with this. A lot of other animals show signs of having a moral code and some animals even have hierarchies in their societies, just like people do.
Certain theists, such as practitioners of the Abrahamic religions, believe that animals have no soul and no sense of morality. This simply isn’t the case.
—-To Be Continued—- (yes, there's more)
You may think that because I’m an atheist, I have the same haughty and arrogant attitude toward religion that many other atheists have. Well, you’re wrong. I still believe that all religions are man-made and that their teachings regarding the supernatural were made up out of whole cloth. Nevertheless, many religions have teachings that are good and moral, such as that ten commandments thingy. You know, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, blah blah blah. Yeah, that’s all well and good and I’m fine with it, but many religions also have teachings that are the opposite of good (in my opinion) such as the bible endorsing slavery or islam teaching that it’s okay to kill disbelievers. I know some muslims will dispute this. Theists often claim that morality is objective and comes from god. Thank god this isn’t actually the case, because if it were, things like stoning adulterers and performing genital mutilation would be commonplace … oh wait.
I realize that this post thus far has completely contradicted my first sentence. Don’t point it out.
Subjective morality:
Morality is subjective. Why else would morals change from nation to nation, region to region, culture to culture, and person to person? Every individual person has a different sense of morality.
There are some things that nearly all humans regard as morally true, such as that killing is wrong and you shouldn’t do it. The people who don’t consider killing wrong are usually psychopathic and you should avoid them.
Death penalty and abortion:
Actually, now that I think about it, I take back what I said previously. It’s more complicated than that. Take for instance, the death penalty and abortion. Both of those result in the killing of someone or something that was going to be someone. Both the death penalty and abortion are acts of killing, yet many people regard either as morally acceptable.
On this issue, I have a standard liberal viewpoint. I’m against the death penalty, but I am pro-choice. The reason why I’m against the death penalty is not because I value the life of a murderer, I don’t, but because if you execute someone who was wrongly convicted, there is no going back.
I’m pro-choice because there are many instances where I think there is a legitimate reason to have an abortion, such as if the mother’s life is threatened or if the child will be born with a defect that makes its would-be life miserable. I also think there is something wrong with making a woman who was raped give birth to the rapist’s child and then have to either raise it or give it up for adoption.
Since I’m not religious, I don’t believe in a soul. That is the main reason why theists are against abortion, because to them, all life is sacred and life starts at conception.
I would like to ask people who believe that this question: if abortion is murder, does that make a miscarriage manslaughter? Think about it.
In the beginning of Freakonomics, it discusses how Roe v Wade drastically lowered the crime rates in America during the 90s. I’m not sure if this is true, but it seems logical. Women who want to get abortions do so mainly because they believe that they won’t be able to raise the child adequately or that the child will be hindrance to their life. If a woman does give birth to child and does not raise it properly or can’t raise it properly, the child will be more likely to be a criminal than a child who was raised properly, because of Roe v Wade, women were able to have abortions and an entire generation of potential criminals were weeded out from existence. That sounds really harsh, but it’s true. And I know that not all of those children, or even most, would have been criminals, but surely some of them would.
Subjective morality:
Enough about that. Wait, what was I talking about? Oh yeah, how some things are regarded as moral by all people.
All normal people consider killing someone for no reason wrong, except in the case of abortion. All normal people also consider rape to be wrong. All normal people consider child abuse to be wrong. All normal people consider molestation to be wrong. I could go on, but you get the idea: there are many things that all humans believe to be morally wrong.
This is where theists and atheists differ. A theist believes that our morality was ingrained into our being by god. An atheist believes that there is a natural explanation to our morality, such as evolution.
I believe the latter for various reasons.
Case against objective morality:
If morality were objective and from god, then why do different religions have different moral codes? Even religions that are similar, such as Islam and Christianity, have different moral codes. A practitioner of a religion could make the claim that the other religion’s moral codes were altered from the original and that the moral code of their religion is unchanged and is thus true, but that claim would have little evidence to support it.
The morality that theists believe is objective is actually subjective and based on the morals of the people who crafted them.
How do I know this? Well, I don’t have 100% certainty.
But I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t god who came up with the idea of infant circumcision and I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t god who endorsed slavery in the bible and the quran. (Muslims claim that Islam taught people to treat their slaves humanely and that it led to the decline of slavery, but that doesn’t change the fact that it does not say outright that slavery is wrong.)
*It’s especially hard to believe that the previous came from a god who is omniscient and loving*
Morality can be explained scientifically, there does not need to be a god to explain why humans have a sense of right and wrong. Humans have the second largest brain-to-body size ratio, one of the largest neocortex ratio of any animal, and one of the highest numbers of neocortical neurons (possibly the highest.) The neocortex is the part of the brain that is responsible for higher functioning activities like language and conscious thought. This explains why humans are the most intelligent animal. Carl Sagan’s book “The dragons of Eden” is a great foray into the natural evolution of the human brain. I highly recommend it.
That being said, humans are not the only animals with a sense of morality. True, ours is much, much more sophisticated than any other animal, but we are not alone with this. A lot of other animals show signs of having a moral code and some animals even have hierarchies in their societies, just like people do.
Certain theists, such as practitioners of the Abrahamic religions, believe that animals have no soul and no sense of morality. This simply isn’t the case.
—-To Be Continued—- (yes, there's more)
On gay marriage
To me, gay marriage is a non-issue. It is such a trivial issue, people should just stop caring about it altogether, but since we have certain people (read: theists) in our society who make it a bigger deal than it is, I thought I would share my opinion of it.
The argument that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage is laughable. Since when was marriage ever sacred? I’m sure most married people would agree with me.
Marriage is just one of those things we do because we feel like we have to. People don’t do it because they really want to … I’m exaggerating, but I think you know what I mean. It’s just one of those things we do in life.
Go to school. Get a job. Get married. Start a family. Grow old. Die.
That’s life for most people.
And I don’t mean to befoul marriage, because I think it does help keep society orderly. And I am a STRONG proponent of family values. I think without strong family values society would crumble. Europe is heading toward oblivion because of the lack of family values and because of their low fertility rate.
I also think children who are raised by two responsible parents will almost always fare better than children who are raised by one parent or two irresponsible parents. There are probably some statistics out there showing a positive correlation between delinquency and bad parenting, but I’m too lazy to look it up. Just take my word for it, okay?
Back to the issue at hand.
Gay marriage is harmless. If gay people are allowed to get married, big whoop. It doesn’t make everyone else’s marriages less meaningful or worse in any way. It doesn’t make them less sacred. It doesn’t effect them. at all.
I just want to know why gays want to get married. I know there are legitimate reasons, like adoption and what not, but seriously, marriage sucks. Why would you want to do something that sucks?
Homosexual men are stereotyped to be sexually promiscuous and this stereotype exists for a reason. Why would a group of people who have many sexual partners even consider marriage? Makes no sense to me, but whatever, like I said earlier, I couldn’t care less.
One of the arguments used against gay marriage is the slippery slope argument ie if gays can get married then what’s next, humans and animals getting married? a person and a corpse getting married? where does it end??
This argument is a logical fallacy and no one should take it seriously.
I should also point out that I couldn’t care less about a person getting married to an animal or a corpse or an animal corpse even.
Conclusion:
1. Gay marriage doesn’t matter.
2. Gay marriage effects no one, except for gays who get married.
3. Marriage sucks.
Let me know what you think. Debate is encouraged.
The argument that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage is laughable. Since when was marriage ever sacred? I’m sure most married people would agree with me.
Marriage is just one of those things we do because we feel like we have to. People don’t do it because they really want to … I’m exaggerating, but I think you know what I mean. It’s just one of those things we do in life.
Go to school. Get a job. Get married. Start a family. Grow old. Die.
That’s life for most people.
And I don’t mean to befoul marriage, because I think it does help keep society orderly. And I am a STRONG proponent of family values. I think without strong family values society would crumble. Europe is heading toward oblivion because of the lack of family values and because of their low fertility rate.
I also think children who are raised by two responsible parents will almost always fare better than children who are raised by one parent or two irresponsible parents. There are probably some statistics out there showing a positive correlation between delinquency and bad parenting, but I’m too lazy to look it up. Just take my word for it, okay?
Back to the issue at hand.
Gay marriage is harmless. If gay people are allowed to get married, big whoop. It doesn’t make everyone else’s marriages less meaningful or worse in any way. It doesn’t make them less sacred. It doesn’t effect them. at all.
I just want to know why gays want to get married. I know there are legitimate reasons, like adoption and what not, but seriously, marriage sucks. Why would you want to do something that sucks?
Homosexual men are stereotyped to be sexually promiscuous and this stereotype exists for a reason. Why would a group of people who have many sexual partners even consider marriage? Makes no sense to me, but whatever, like I said earlier, I couldn’t care less.
One of the arguments used against gay marriage is the slippery slope argument ie if gays can get married then what’s next, humans and animals getting married? a person and a corpse getting married? where does it end??
This argument is a logical fallacy and no one should take it seriously.
I should also point out that I couldn’t care less about a person getting married to an animal or a corpse or an animal corpse even.
Conclusion:
1. Gay marriage doesn’t matter.
2. Gay marriage effects no one, except for gays who get married.
3. Marriage sucks.
Let me know what you think. Debate is encouraged.
On Israel
(note: if this is too long, skip to the conclusion at the bottom. Also, watch "the doomsday code.")
Here is my opinion of Israel/Zionism/Palestine:
I can understand the Zionists and their viewpoint and I can also understand the Palestinians and their viewpoint. They both have valid reasons as to why they support their countries. However, the Israeli government is causing the genocide of innocent Palestine people and that cannot be excused. I also condemn the killing of innocent Israelis by groups such as Hamas.
I support a two-state solution. I think it is the most humane solution to benefit both groups of people.
I don’t think they should kick out all the Jews and send them back to wherever their ancestors emigrated from, nor should they continue the genocide of the Palestinians. They should try to coexist peacefully.
I can also understand why Jews want to preserve their people from extinction and have a homeland, considering they are such a small segment of the world’s population.
History:
Historically, it is not easy to determine who the land should rightfully belong to. That land has been occupied by many different people and empires over the course of thousands of years. Jews do have ties to the land, as do the Palestinians. Heck, even Italians have ties to the land, seeing as that land was occupied by the Roman empire over 2,000 years ago. In my opinion, it is illogical to say someone has more right to live somewhere than someone else just because their ancestor may have lived their before someone else’s ancestor.
The whereabouts of a Jewish state were in question since the beginning of Zionism. It is a known fact that many Zionists contemplated creating a Jewish state in other parts of the world, notably America and South America. In fact, many of the first Zionists were secular. They couldn’t give a fuck about the “holy” land.
Colonization:
Colonization happens, sorry. Humans have been doing it since, like, forever. I would be a hypocrite if I said that the Jews have no right to live there, as their ancestors were immigrants, because as an American, my ancestors were immigrants too. It would not be feasible to send all the non-Native Americans back to their ancestral lands.
If the Native Americans started to attack non-Native Americans and tried to expel all non-Native Americans from America, I would fight against them. This is why I can see the Zionist/Jewish viewpoint.
American-Israeli relations:
I am opposed to America’s unrepentant support of Israel and I am leery of pro-Israeli lobbies, because of the power and influence they wield. Most politicians are on the payroll of some pro-Israeli lobby. They are tools.
America should NOT be giving Israel billions of dollars in aid annually. This is a violation of tax payer’s rights, and the American people should not support it. I saw a picture that said “Real Americans defend Israel.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. Real Americans should defend America, not a foreign country. The billions of dollars in aid we give Israel should instead be used for the benefit of America and Americans.
It should be a MAJOR concern to all Americans that a foreign country, Israel, has so much influence on America. I just cannot understand these neocons who claim to be patriotic Americans, yet will bend over backwards for Israel. They are fools and tools. Foolish tools.
If the Israeli government wants to keep up its campaign of genocide against the Palestinians, Americans should have no part in it. We should not be funding genocide.
Evangelical Christians:
One of Israel’s biggest group of supporters are the evangelical Christians. They support Israel because they believe it is fulfilling a biblical prophecy and because Jews are, supposedly, god’s “chosen” people. A great documentary on the subject, which I encourage everyone to watch, is: The Doomsday Code. You can watch the entire thing on google video.
Since I’m an atheist, you can pretty much guess what my opinion of these people is. They are idiots (not to mention bloodthirsty and homicidal.) They are eagerly waiting for the Armageddon. Why do they want the apocalypse to happen so badly? If they want to die so badly, they should just kill themselves. Oh wait, that will send them to hell … well, I would be glad to do the honors for them and send them to heaven faster. Life on this earth would be much better (not to mention less stupid.)
This earth was not made by god for us (humans.) The universe was not fine tuned for our existence. I am lucky to be alive and writing this and you are lucky to be alive and reading it. And god did not grant any land to any group of people nor did he show favoritism to any group of people. Period.
As a final point against evangelical christians, I would like to point out that many Palestinians are CHRISTIAN. Both groups think they’re worshiping the same god. Do you, evangelical christians, think Israel should kill them too? Or just the heathen Muslims?
PS. Pat Robertson is an ass.
Conclusion:
1. America should NOT fund Israel, whatsoever.
2. The Israeli government should stop its campaign of genocide against the Palestinians.
3. Palestinian groups should also stop attacking innocent Israelis.
4. American politicians who are in bed with pro-Israel lobbies should be hung for treason.
5. The Israelis and Palestinians should coexist peacefully (two-state solution.)
6. No one has more right to live somewhere because of their supposed ancestry.
7. Colonization happens. All major powers have done it, all humans have done it. It sucks to be the loser, but that’s life.
8. Evangelical Christians are idiots.
Let me know what you think. Debate is encouraged.
Here is my opinion of Israel/Zionism/Palestine:
I can understand the Zionists and their viewpoint and I can also understand the Palestinians and their viewpoint. They both have valid reasons as to why they support their countries. However, the Israeli government is causing the genocide of innocent Palestine people and that cannot be excused. I also condemn the killing of innocent Israelis by groups such as Hamas.
I support a two-state solution. I think it is the most humane solution to benefit both groups of people.
I don’t think they should kick out all the Jews and send them back to wherever their ancestors emigrated from, nor should they continue the genocide of the Palestinians. They should try to coexist peacefully.
I can also understand why Jews want to preserve their people from extinction and have a homeland, considering they are such a small segment of the world’s population.
History:
Historically, it is not easy to determine who the land should rightfully belong to. That land has been occupied by many different people and empires over the course of thousands of years. Jews do have ties to the land, as do the Palestinians. Heck, even Italians have ties to the land, seeing as that land was occupied by the Roman empire over 2,000 years ago. In my opinion, it is illogical to say someone has more right to live somewhere than someone else just because their ancestor may have lived their before someone else’s ancestor.
The whereabouts of a Jewish state were in question since the beginning of Zionism. It is a known fact that many Zionists contemplated creating a Jewish state in other parts of the world, notably America and South America. In fact, many of the first Zionists were secular. They couldn’t give a fuck about the “holy” land.
Colonization:
Colonization happens, sorry. Humans have been doing it since, like, forever. I would be a hypocrite if I said that the Jews have no right to live there, as their ancestors were immigrants, because as an American, my ancestors were immigrants too. It would not be feasible to send all the non-Native Americans back to their ancestral lands.
If the Native Americans started to attack non-Native Americans and tried to expel all non-Native Americans from America, I would fight against them. This is why I can see the Zionist/Jewish viewpoint.
American-Israeli relations:
I am opposed to America’s unrepentant support of Israel and I am leery of pro-Israeli lobbies, because of the power and influence they wield. Most politicians are on the payroll of some pro-Israeli lobby. They are tools.
America should NOT be giving Israel billions of dollars in aid annually. This is a violation of tax payer’s rights, and the American people should not support it. I saw a picture that said “Real Americans defend Israel.” This couldn’t be further from the truth. Real Americans should defend America, not a foreign country. The billions of dollars in aid we give Israel should instead be used for the benefit of America and Americans.
It should be a MAJOR concern to all Americans that a foreign country, Israel, has so much influence on America. I just cannot understand these neocons who claim to be patriotic Americans, yet will bend over backwards for Israel. They are fools and tools. Foolish tools.
If the Israeli government wants to keep up its campaign of genocide against the Palestinians, Americans should have no part in it. We should not be funding genocide.
Evangelical Christians:
One of Israel’s biggest group of supporters are the evangelical Christians. They support Israel because they believe it is fulfilling a biblical prophecy and because Jews are, supposedly, god’s “chosen” people. A great documentary on the subject, which I encourage everyone to watch, is: The Doomsday Code. You can watch the entire thing on google video.
Since I’m an atheist, you can pretty much guess what my opinion of these people is. They are idiots (not to mention bloodthirsty and homicidal.) They are eagerly waiting for the Armageddon. Why do they want the apocalypse to happen so badly? If they want to die so badly, they should just kill themselves. Oh wait, that will send them to hell … well, I would be glad to do the honors for them and send them to heaven faster. Life on this earth would be much better (not to mention less stupid.)
This earth was not made by god for us (humans.) The universe was not fine tuned for our existence. I am lucky to be alive and writing this and you are lucky to be alive and reading it. And god did not grant any land to any group of people nor did he show favoritism to any group of people. Period.
As a final point against evangelical christians, I would like to point out that many Palestinians are CHRISTIAN. Both groups think they’re worshiping the same god. Do you, evangelical christians, think Israel should kill them too? Or just the heathen Muslims?
PS. Pat Robertson is an ass.
Conclusion:
1. America should NOT fund Israel, whatsoever.
2. The Israeli government should stop its campaign of genocide against the Palestinians.
3. Palestinian groups should also stop attacking innocent Israelis.
4. American politicians who are in bed with pro-Israel lobbies should be hung for treason.
5. The Israelis and Palestinians should coexist peacefully (two-state solution.)
6. No one has more right to live somewhere because of their supposed ancestry.
7. Colonization happens. All major powers have done it, all humans have done it. It sucks to be the loser, but that’s life.
8. Evangelical Christians are idiots.
Let me know what you think. Debate is encouraged.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Heading off to Boone
Mother f*ckin' Devo and Shpongle are gonna be there!!!!
This means I won't be making new posts for a couple of days. When I get back, posting will resume as normal.
And I wish you all a happy Samhain!
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Pre-200 followers celebration
That's right lads. In (probably) a few hours I should reach 200 followers. Hooray. 9 days ago I only had 100 followers. 23 days ago I had none.
That means the rate of new followers per day has increased by ~3 since I got 100 followers.
I hope this growth keeps up. The more followers the better. Otherwise I'm just talking to myself.
I guess you want something in return. Here are some funny/cool pictures:
That means the rate of new followers per day has increased by ~3 since I got 100 followers.
I hope this growth keeps up. The more followers the better. Otherwise I'm just talking to myself.
I guess you want something in return. Here are some funny/cool pictures:
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Oh happy day!!!
Today is good for many reasons:
1. I got my internet back! My reason for living!
2. I just got 100 followers sometime last night, and I've only been blogging since the 9th.
I need to give back to the people who made this all possible, YOU! (Unless you're not following me, in which case, click on the little button at the top of the screen that says "follow.")
So to give back to you, I felt that an emanation of tits was in order. Let us rejoice.
1. I got my internet back! My reason for living!
2. I just got 100 followers sometime last night, and I've only been blogging since the 9th.
I need to give back to the people who made this all possible, YOU! (Unless you're not following me, in which case, click on the little button at the top of the screen that says "follow.")
So to give back to you, I felt that an emanation of tits was in order. Let us rejoice.
Slow posts
I apologize in advance for the slow posting rate lately, but my internet bill hasn't been paid and they disabled it a few days ago. My laptop has wifi and there's one unsecured network that I'm able to connect to sometimes, but it's not a reliable network, sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't and even when it does work, it's quite slow.
So bare with me. Right now I'm not at my regular home. When I'm back up there I should have the internet as usual and ergo new posts as usual.
So bare with me. Right now I'm not at my regular home. When I'm back up there I should have the internet as usual and ergo new posts as usual.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Ads not showing up
I was making the rounds of the intarwebs, the way I always do. When I noticed something peculiar: no ads. Not only were there no ads on my blog, there were no ads on anybody's blogs. "WTF?" I said to myself. "Is this a problem on my end or did google decide to remove adsense from all the blogs I happen to be following?"
So I checked my adsense overview. And low and behold, I had actually made a few Shekels that day! But how? The only way I could have acquired adrev is if I had ads on my blog, but when I view my page, I see none nor do I see any on anybody else's blogs. Weird.
I can't pinpoint the problem. Are any of you having the same problem? Can you see ads on my blog? And what do you think is the problem?
So I checked my adsense overview. And low and behold, I had actually made a few Shekels that day! But how? The only way I could have acquired adrev is if I had ads on my blog, but when I view my page, I see none nor do I see any on anybody else's blogs. Weird.
I can't pinpoint the problem. Are any of you having the same problem? Can you see ads on my blog? And what do you think is the problem?
Friday, September 10, 2010
Something bloggers should be aware of
If you have a monetized account you might have noticed something called "CTR." CTR stands for "clickthrough rate." Simply put, CTR is: clicks/impressions.
Clicks are the number of times someone has clicked an ad on your blog. Impressions are the number of times an ad was delivered on your blog.
Google has a tendency to disable accounts that have a CTR that is too high. (I guess that is their way of making sure people aren't abusing the system) To stay safe always monitor your CTR. If your CTR is 15% or above REMOVE ADVERTISEMENTS FROM YOUR BLOG. To lower the CTR ask for views only.
Keep that in mind. It would suck to have "the man" shut down your blog just because it's doing well.
Clicks are the number of times someone has clicked an ad on your blog. Impressions are the number of times an ad was delivered on your blog.
Google has a tendency to disable accounts that have a CTR that is too high. (I guess that is their way of making sure people aren't abusing the system) To stay safe always monitor your CTR. If your CTR is 15% or above REMOVE ADVERTISEMENTS FROM YOUR BLOG. To lower the CTR ask for views only.
Keep that in mind. It would suck to have "the man" shut down your blog just because it's doing well.
Follow this blog if you aren't already doing so.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)