SEX.

Huh... there's no post yet on my abstinence from sex(and similar things) and relationships... K, let's fix this.


I'll look at sex first. There are a couple exceptions: if I am with someone I love in a lasting way, or I feel like I can help someone by doing it- in more than just a temporary way. However, these exceptions are very unlikely. Now, the why. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with sex with people you don't love or something, I don't even believe in inherent morality. It's not because I don't have the urge to either, my body is actually quite annoying about it (thinking about getting my balls removed or something, it's a fucking nuisance and I'm afraid of making a mistake). The real reasons are pride, fear, and a desire to be trusted.

Pride because I see the shit that happens around sex, "players", disrespect and deceit. Disposable relationships, using someone to get in their pants. Rape. Even people I otherwise respect, when it comes to sex it's a whole 'nother game. Which means I can't be satisfied with just a bit of distance between me and them, I want there to be ZERO chance I could ever be confused with that. A perfectly clean history, having never had sex, at least suggests I've never done any of that shit before, and keeps my pride intact. The only insult I actually react to is "Pervert".

Fear because sex is a wonderful focal point for misunderstanding and miscommunication, and having sex with anyone I don't value romantically runs the risk that they somehow do and that I will hurt them. And goddamnit, I REALLY don't like hurting people.

Wanting to be trusted is the most important point, and is closely linked with my pride reasoning. Because bad shit happens with sex, a lot of people have had bad experiences with it. I don't really know how to help, I NEVER know how to help. But, I want to. And for that to happen, they need to trust me. To know that I AM NOT like whoever they've had bad experiences with, that I AM NOT a GUY, but a PERSON; a FRIEND. Proof that perhaps everyone isn't just pretending, that there are at least exceptions.

I guess that's good for sex.

Relationships are much simpler. Well, in the past I had different reasons. Now, it's because I know love, cannot be with and am unworthy of who I love, and anyone else would be a mere replacement unless I come to love another. In which case I would very likely still be unworthy and unable to be with her. I'm fine with this state of affairs as long as I can be near who I love, friends are about as awesome as lovers, I still have my love for her after all. People have questioned me on this before, but I really don't need to be loved, or liked for that matter. Even if you hate me, if I can be near those I'm fond of, I'm happy. I'm even safe from hurting anyone like that. It does make it hard to help, though.

An old writing

Last semester, right at the beginning, Professor Ranger asked us to write a paper about what we thought about philosophy and such. There were a few things we were supposed to cover. The core of what I believe has stayed the same, but there are considerable surface differences, and things I now consider to be horribly worded. Namely, the mention of liberty and when I say "the more you're worth"- I really mean how much you think and how free of biases you are, and that I respect you more. Clearly, I just defined my origin of value, I totally contradict myself with that. There has also been an overall change I can't really explain, but I think I made reality seem too straightforward and centred only on ideas and not emotions. It actually seems a little offensive now, judgmental sounding. Actually, it doesn't make much sense to be talking about this before the essay. Whatever, if you want to, you can refer to it after.

By: Mark Simpson (1002868)

For: Jean-Philippe Ranger

Phil 1013-B

Assignment 1: On Philosophy

Submitted September 11, 2009-09-10

Title: “Philosophy, maybe.”

Philosophy to me has always meant any sort of thought which attempted to divine questions of existence with logic rather than solid evidence, although any confidence I have in that definition only comes from the time which I’ve used it. I’ve labelled all my debates over religion, the creation of the universe, the reality of the real, and even the implications of quantum physics theory as philosophical, and they are what my mind connects to philosophy when I think of it. Some common questions of philosophy I’ve heard are about the meaning of life, the nature of reality, the origin of all things, and justice. There are a lot of people who also count personal beliefs and catchphrases as being a philosophy, but I don’t believe that’s accurate. I can’t count “Don’t worry, be happy” as being philosophical; it’s just a value with no argument behind it to back it up, and the philosophy I know demands some sort of logic. Philosophy is about truth, and truth does not change. Those answers that have been discovered in philosophy shall remain to be true for ever, as long as they are true to begin with.

The most important question in philosophy for me is definitely “What gives things value?”, but I am very confident in my answer. There is one trait that I hold has unconditional value, and that is the self, or personality. The inanimate being understands nothing that happens around it, and makes no choices for itself. The digital being can understand some things that happen around it but can make no choices for itself. The animalistic being can understand some of what happens around it and can make some choices for itself. The sentient being can understand more of what happens around it, and can make more choices for itself. In of themselves and not as a tool for humans, the standard value given to each of these would be in the order of inanimate = digital < animalistic < sentient. Therefore, I tend to define potential for personality development as being intelligence multiplied by liberty (both positive and negative). Therefore, what things have worth are those which foster those things. For clarification, although all people have personality, not all is equal. To start with, we are blank slates. For survival’s sake, our initial behaviours were taken directly from those around us and our biology, but as time passes, random chance separates us in what choices we make. Given enough of those random divergences, a self that is separate entirely from everyone else’s will develop, provided there are choices and the intelligence to understand that they’re there. At that point, there is personality, but not a complete one. A complete personality is one which has completely replaced all of their original “code”, and replaced it with their own, customized to them. I don’t actually know if that is possible, but the closer you get, the more I think you’re worth.

This question, and what I understand of the answer, is important to me because it unifies many things for me. I have had the core values of freedom and intelligence for as long as I can remember, I was not able to explain why. I desired to understand myself, and I was eventually able to uncover a rather simple version of this reasoning in me. Why personality gets to be the root value is another, rather large issue, but put in simple terms it’s really just that all subjective meaning, all the values that exist because people put value into them could never exist without those who have the self to place value. Life is more than just me, and my meaning for the world. It’s everyone, with all meanings. The ability to differ, to be unique, is the ability to exist. Otherwise, you’re just a shadow.

I don't THINK this is poetry

So I tagged along to this poetry workshop where I was very disruptive and such, and we didn't do much. The main thing we did was write out for 20 minutes, nouns of things in our lives. Then, some of us read them out. I might as well put mine here.

Residence
University
Friends
Self-improvement
reading
art
blogs
photos
love
food
bed
computer
debate
adrenaline
insomnia
anti-depressants
procrastination
happiness
missing people
laughing
helping
learning
awesome
Facebook
loss (The game)
video-games
nerds
roommate
studiousness
hugs
scissors
perverts
magic
asleep foot
randomness
philosophy
Internet
body
brain
retainer
distraction
necklace
clothes
senses
vitamins
ideas
space
time
reality?
dreams
plans
jokes
strangeness
snow
words
patterns
high-fives
pound-its
punches
profanity
letters
numbers
physics
msn
alcohol (not enough)
music

Blurbs! 2

No is a very powerful word. Normally we water it down with justification, but when you leave it on it's own it provides no room for negotiation and throws people off rhythm. It shouldn't be overused, but it's useful.

So I was having a conversation a while ago and I said something on the spot that I found really was accurate and that I should develop further. What I said was "Humans are like vectors- the direction we're going is part of who we are". I'm just glad I remember what vectors are.

Yesterday I went to a presentation about the dangers and checkered history of ecological engineering, and it was interesting. I thought his best points, aside from actual scientific refutations of why things wouldn't work, were the points about who held that power and what availability of this technology would do to inter-state politics. However, I found this presentation actually made me begin to consider it as an option: a desperation move to be sure, but something to do if it turns out humanity is too stuck on realism to do anything about the problem in time. I find it unlikely that things will improve any other way, as commercialism and population grow faster than green technology can be invented or implemented. This gives us some time to get our act together/ invent artificial ecosystems for colonization. One specific thing he mentioned that I thought was interesting was carbon scrubbers pumping pressurized CO2 underground, and various problems that would cause. I agree, but if there is a fairly simple way to get the O2 out of it, pure carbon is a useful resource. We could build a space elevator with that much.

Philosophy class was interesting yesterday. It had some interesting conversation. However, although most people were pleased with it, one person on Facebook took issue, saying we should stay on topic and not talk about pointless stuff. This seems flawed to me, and much more fixated on a profess-absorb method of teaching,rather than what I heard of as the Socratic method where you actively challenge and think about what you learn. Philosophy is better suited to that kind of method, and is not limited to the curriculum. If we get off topic, as long as we learn, we're doing well.

I've decided that if they let you go to lectures for free, working in a university cafeteria might be one of the coolest jobs ever. Great environment, access to constant learning, eternal youth... Great stuff. Only the work itself would kinda suck.

So I'm in the middle of a conversation with a friend from Sweden, and I realize we've been talking about the economy, health care, and job experience. A little part of me that considered myself a kid that would never be as boring as my parents died at that moment. Well, I'm still gonna be more interesting than THEM.

It's rare for me to say something bad about technology

I was looking through some incomplete drafts on my blog, hoping to make a complete thought out of one when I saw an entry on efficiency in Capitalism. In the end it hurt my brain too much and I slept, but it has some interesting ideas. Of course, as this is a more specific field those ideas are much more likely to be dead wrong than usual, but whatever.

When I looked over it again I realized something new, about the growth of consumerism and why it won't stop if things continue the way they are now. The post was about the growth of technology and how that would affect the cycle of money flowing back and forth between consumer and corporation. My conclusion was that capitalism is a system of scarcity, in a world of ample supply where goods can be produced with little or no labour, the resources would all gather on the side of corporations and the few with direct control over them. Capitalism would collapse. This conclusion was wrong, I underestimated the power of the market.

It's 4 in the morning as I write this, and I have a doctor's appointment at 9. I'm thinking of just staying up the whole time. Anyway, I thought I'd add to my blog at least as lay awake.

Back near the beginning of the semester, when my Economics and Global Politics were both talking about capitalism, I started to question the nature of efficiency in different systems. Frankly, too much efficiency in capitalism is inefficient. Efficiency is basically just achieving the optimal result with as little resource waste as possible. It's the production/cost ratio. Capitalism is a system of competition where those that are able to do this well grow, and those that don't die. However, the overall system of Capitalism has a much different pattern: Money is only worth anything as it is moved; in capitalism it flows from the consumer to the producers back to the consumer in wages.

Manpower is a huge cost for corporations, so they naturally try to get the job done with as few people as possible. In an age of greater and greater technology and roboticism, it's becoming easier and easier to do this. They cut the cost of wages, to keep more money in the company and for the investors. However, this creates an imbalance of cashflow as jobs are destroyed. All of the money is locked in the corporations, but it quickly becomes meaningless as there are no consumers anymore.

The current solution for the similar problem of simply underpaying outsourced workers has been to compartmentalize industries: goods are produced somewhere with terrible wages, almost all the money goes to the corporation, then all the stuff is shipped to somewhere with decent wages to be sold there. The decent wage places don't produce many goods, but because they have some of the terrible wage's share of money, they can get by on just perpetuating the system moving money around in service industries. How many people do you know make things for a living?

At the time I had some sort of half formed reason in mind for why underpaid workers were different than technological efficiency. It eluded my grasp however, and I soon gave up and went to sleep. Now it seems obvious that there is no difference, they are the same and Capitalism will deal with the new problem in the same way as the old: in the parts where there is money, just move it around. Workers will lose their their jobs at first, but those jobs will be replaced by new ones in the service industry as money begins to move toward the corporations and the people in charge of them look for ways to spend their money. Store clerks, sales, money management, the arts, the sex trade, these and other industries where machines can't really replace people will probably grow as time goes on. Capitalism won't collapse, just shift.

Growing roboticism will eventually make it cheaper for corporations to make use of machines almost entirely without use of an underpaid uneducated group. Should this happen, I do not know whether those people will be left with no possible source of income or whether new industries will grow to account for this vacuum. One option leads to complete economic abandonment of those people and far increased poverty, the other leads to a potential end to poverty, as they would become better suited to become consumers if they were paid, and they now only have use as consumers.

In Capitalism, you NEED a job to get money. When there is no meaningful work left, you need to create for meaningless work.
In Communism, there isn't necessarily any reason to have a job, and a world like this needs few enough people on top that it would probably be enough if you left it up to volunteers.
I don't advocate communism exactly, as I don't know enough about it. It's just an example. The world isn't going to be fixed no longer how long we walk our current path, fucked up status quo remains fucked up status quo. We need to change the actual system somehow. A tech-driven equivalent of whatever the ancient Greeks were like that was driven by slaves might be nice, if that also included the city state part.

But yeah, the world is fucked, we need to figure out how to fix stuff.

Note: I'm happy to mix it up a bit from the more emotional stuff I've been doing lately. This is hard on my mind and I didn't actually read it over or complete it to the extent that I wanted however.

Things everyone should know

This was originally something of a first draft. It's too heavy for me to go through now though.

The last year has shown me much more of the realities and pain of people. It's been an enlightening experience, and a saddening one. I don't regret witnessing at all, and if ever I was able help even a little I'm glad. Why are people so apologetic for showing who they are and what their problems are? Perfection is unattainable, you don't need to feel sorry for not being it, or for not knowing the future (stupid Zara...).

I would be honoured to trade my life for anyone I call friend. I care about you. All of you, even if you're creeping this blog and I don't even know you. You are worth something. You are not inferior, you are not a failure of a human. No one is. There are people out there, whether you know them yet or not, who will care for and love you and help you find your path. We are called friends. You don't need to hide yourself if you don't want to; and if you think we will only be bothered by your problems, you are wrong. You are valuable, and we will do our best to help and protect you. We will never feel less of you for showing what you feel. You don't need to bottle everything up inside, you don't need to try and be perfect. Just be you. Don't let anyone judge you, they don't matter.

Everyone is their own individual, a thoroughly unique and complicated piece of art. There is nothing which makes you less than another.

EDIT: Oh! Oh! I'm now contributing to another Blog now! Check it out: http://exposureextraordinaire.blogspot.com/

Geiger counter

There are unlimited ideas in the world, and thus unlimited things for me to write about here, but it still gets hard every now and then.

I guess I'll talk about philosophy, or whatever the stuff that comes from my head is. A big thing for me has always been finding the axioms of my own beliefs: those things with I hold to be unequivocally true which serve as the atomic structure of everything I believe. As time went on it became more and more clear that there was really only one for me. The only things I consider absolute (although they may not be, totally) are the actual rules of what we know as the universe, but my own gut feeling and chaos theory both tell me that the system isn't the only thing which exists: there is free choice, and unlimited potentials for the universe. That means I don't believe in any absolute morality or a preset system of values for things. Where then does value (or meaning)spring from then, as I no doubt feel it? The answer I found was: "Within everyone". For while there is one system which sustains us all and has one definite truth, there exist countless beings which have presence more than physical, a Personality that offers it's own perspective and creates it's own values. To some, God is the sole decider of a value: to Me, everyone is the God of their own universe which only they can see. God's universe is no more special than another's. Value then, is a relative thing to how much it is VALUED. Valuing being an action only beings with Personality can achieve. Personality, being yourself to your fullest, is the best thing you could ever do according to me.

My respect for education, my negative liberty, my Anarchy, and my disdain for what stifles individuals potential all come from this. Which is kinda cool. Any thoughts? Was I unclear on anything? Do you perhaps have a name for what I believe? No matter what it is, feel free to comment.


PS: I've also been curious about Buddhism for a while, and there's a Buddhist place here in Fredericton. They have open houses Wednesday's apparently. I'm gonna do a bit of preliminary research, and then I'm going to go check it out. Next week or the week after probably. Anyone else interested?

Dang it!

So "No Fear" is a brand name. If my roommate hadn't told me, I probably woulda made myself advertising. Now I need to think of a new concept for a tattoo.

I'll write a decent sized post on here sometime soon, but that's all for this time I think.

Gah!

Ok, so my post this time is mostly just a link. To a flamewar. Flamewars aren't my style, and I feel a bit ashamed I was part of one, but when facing elitism continuing to act all polite with insults flying at you just comes off as deference, and deference is not a good way to cure elitism. I do feel like I crossed a couple lines here, but I instigated nothing and they just wouldn't READ what I was saying, which was getting me annoyed.
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#/topic.php?topic=11874&post=46087&uid=263295450604#post46087

The most interesting part of this is that some of you actually know one of the people I was arguing with, so I'm about guaranteed a neutral response.

My main regret

Empathy, while you might try your hardest, is impossible to achieve fully when you haven't experienced anything like what the other person is feeling. It's sad, and every time someone tells me about something bad they're/they've going/gone through I feel so guilty that my life has been so easy when theirs hasn't, and so ashamed that I reach the limits of what I can do to help so soon just by listening. I abhor each and every time I've had to say "That sucks". And sometimes, it's more than just being unable to help. I... hate emotionally hurting people more than anything else, whenever I stumble in my ignorance it feels so much worse than anything that could happen to me. My fear of death comes only from this.

All my beliefs,everything about me... I wonder if it would have been possible had I lived a less damn sheltered and peaceful life, I can't escape the doubt which wriggles in my mind calling me a hypocrite, saying that the morality I don't believe in and the safety I'd so freely trade away are not the things which are truly petty, but my rebellion which may only be product of a mind which has always been surrounded by safety and morality. I know also that part of me relished in and held onto the pain of my depression, finally there was something which might bring me closer to understanding someone else's pain, and to the end of my self-doubt. I believe my fascination with physical pain stems from the same source.

I don't want to be ignorant and incapable, I want to understand and to help. I seek to understand everything, it hurts that I can't even fully understand something so important as you.

Nihilism!

Ok, So I was in an odd mood and was just about to write a post on religion when an online friend of mine who is really Christian and I debate with a lot comes online and starts talking to me. A short while later: Nihilism. Then: debate! It was pretty interesting, and I got his permission to blog about it. Except, I have the whole conversation here in text and the best way to understand something is to see it firsthand. So I'm pretty much just gonna copy-paste this. It'll be the least work and most material of any blog post I've done so far!

sam:
How goes your blogging?
Link it.

Mark:
http://myarbitrarilyreigningking.blogspot.com/
Fine, I'll help you procrastinate.

sam:
Enabler.

Mark:
Better than the opposite, it's your freedom.

sam:
Not all people are well suited to freedom.

Mark:
Well, you have the freedom to try and restrict your freedom. I won't do it for you.

sam:
Russian Nihilist!

Mark:
no clue what that means!

sam:
I'm not sure if there is anything that distinguishes that categorization from normal Nihilism, but Russians were most susceptible to the allure of Nihilism.

Mark:
Extreme scepticism, maintaining that nothing has a real existence?

sam:
Yeah.

Mark:
Ok.
Whatever I am, I like it. And it is more right than the other answers
because relativism allows for all those other answers as well

sam:
I struggle to decide what philosophy I find to be the most evil, but Nihilism is near the top

Mark:
I make no claim to be a nihilist, and thus won't defend it, but why?

sam:
Because it destroys all value and meaning leaving nothing but emptiness.
It's suitable only for people who only care about themselves.

Mark:
Eww, that is the OPPOSITE of the truth, if you're talking about what I am.

sam:
I'm talking about Nihilism.
You art thou.

Mark:
I still don't feel confident I truly know what nihilism is yet. I just have that you called me one as a clue.

sam:
I did that to tease you.
Your previous statement seemed to be in a such a spirit.

Mark:
Ok.
There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it on the surface though, what do you not like about it?

sam:
If it would to be fully applied it would mean the complete disintegration of order.
Not just a specific order, all order.
Remember the evilness of The Joker in The Dark Knight?

Mark:
What is order and what about it is so great?

sam:
Tell that to your house.
Or huge societal system that brings you food, or lets you go to school, or builds roads.

Mark:
What makes those things good?

sam:
I like my food very much thank you.

Mark:
Nihilism is a radical school of thought, it's made to be different, it makes us question things we take for granted. Nihilists decide there is nothing, and thus nothing has inherent value.

sam:
No, nothing has value... at all
That is the end of thought.
The suicide of the mind.

Mark:
It is still possible to value something as a nihilist.

sam:
I would argue that then one is not a proper nihilist.
I would also argue that valuing at least something is kinda a good idea.

Mark:
In the end, what difference is there really between reality and all-pervasive illusion? It's more of a different view on life than anything else.

sam:
Take a step back from that thought and ponder it's implications.

Mark:
Then you are flawed in your thinking.
The inability to value is not part of nihilism.

sam:
But I can put value on things
In fact, I put a hell of a lot of value on things
Whether it is true or not, the Nihilistic way of mind is ultimately the most destructive way of thinking
It is also the most ego-centric

Mark:
I disagree, and your words stink of fear

sam:
Of course they do.
Because I know what it does to me when I succumb to it.
I know that without my faith I would have to give in to complete Nihilism as the only rational thing and therefore take my life.
This I will never do.

Mark:
Nothing has meaning does not equal nothing exists, nor does it equal morality does not exist.
It only equals meaning does not exist, and I would guess you'd be more susceptible to that than a nihilist

sam:
I don't want to live without meaning, morality or reality thank you very much

Mark:
Reality I've given up to uncertainty, morality is much better off acknowledged as relative, and meaning there is an endless supply of.

sam:
Perhaps my faith is but an imaginary shield defending me from the crushing weight of nothingness. Or it is the truth defending me from the crushing weight of nothingness. I cannot know.

Mark:
Say, for a second, that god did not exist. Rather than crush you, would this not lift you? For everything you felt in yourself throughout your life that you took to be god definitely existed. Just, it was you.

sam:
No, definitely not.
It would mean there was nothing behind what I felt, that it was empty, hollow. What I feel has value because I believe it comes from somewhere.

Mark:
And when you are god, or on equal footing with god, then your own meanings surely carry the weight of a universe with them as well? Whatever you value has value, simply because you value it?

sam:
If I was to be God, what a worthless God I would be.

Mark:
What does having travelled through a channel or two do to make value more valuable?
Why must it come from somewhere else and not you?

sam:
Because I am obviously such a fallen thing, Because I sense something greater outside of myself.

Mark:
Worthless? now I see the true heart of this issue.
Of course, without worth attributed to yourself, you would need to latch on to something else. You don't trust yourself, so you instead become a parasite on god's arm. You are the true nihilist, reality and morality are there for you maybe, but you as a being cannot believe in you.

sam:
I guess that is one way to look at it
But I do give myself worth
In fact, I give myself endless worth
Just as you say, worth from God
You say that everything in relative, then there must be something definitive

Mark:
Hah! You take God's worth, that is only as I have said
Everything is relative to the perspectives of every being out there. Every being is equal to god, we all are endless springs of value and creation
God may have been first, and he may be smarter and more powerful, but the only things with value are what are given value by beings capable of valuing. And he no longer has a monopoly on that.

sam:
And I shout for joy since I may. What all mankind has failed to do by themselves, I let God do for me

Mark:
And thus you are a nihilist. A scared one, who casts bridges of light and shadow to avoid looking too closely at it. Whether god exists or not, whether you know this or not, you are a nihilist

sam:
Yeeeeeeeaaaah
And you too, sound afraid
Afraid that God really exists, afraid that something above you is really out there.
So there we go, I believe in nothing so I believe in God, you believe in everything so you don't believe in God.

Mark:
Heh, I want god to exist.

sam:
I don't buy that.

Mark:
I don't need god, and his existence as a crutch annoys me. But I want him to be there for the sake of my friends, I want them to be able to exist forever if they want to.
God is the only way there can be an afterlife.

sam:
Well, good luck with the idea of yourself.
I shall now leave the digital prison that holds me captive.

Mark:
Goodbye, and sorry if I offended you.

sam:
Remember, the soul is fed by looking outward with love upon others.
Of course you didn't ^^
Elementary atheism is about as offensive as a glass of milk
Or humanism or whatever you call it
Neither of us progressed this conversation beyond where it was a century ago
We were just repeating the arguments of millions before us. Neither of us budging an inch. Quite juvenile of us both ^^

Mark:
Well, I don't know about any of those conversations, so...
I figure I was quite original

Interesting, huh?

PS: I totally can't remember how to change text colour...

As awesome as a penguin in a tophat would be...

So, I want a tattoo. Thus, I will get one. I've been thinking of what I want for a long time, but the only sort of artistic thing I wanted, a wolf blended with a scorpion from a dream I had once and have since regarded as what my familiar would be if I could have one, I have been totally unable to transfer from my brain onto paper. I finally figured out what I want other than that though, I just need to work out a couple details. The words "No Fear" on the back of my right shoulder is basically optimum. I'd like to keep it fairly stark, but things like font and such I don't know yet. Black.

Fear is... Annoying. Sometimes when you want something, you need to chuck out whatever the consequences are and just take it. I guess it's just that I'm big on freedom, and fear is the hardest oppressor to get rid of. "Stop worrying, just jump out of the plane already, haven't you ever wanted to fly?" ...That kind of thing.

The same day, just for fun, I might do something stupid like my hair. Like dye it purple. Also, if it wasn't too expensive for me to bother, I'd get a lipring to wear for that one day. Not one of those centre of the lip ones though. It would be cool to freak people out. Oh, and maybe some of those really colourful contacts too.

Opinions?

Blurbs!

A collection of random short thingies. It may become a series.

Ok, so I was randomly thinking about words again earlier. I haven't actually checked it out yet, but I think the two most common phrases for keeping your weight down and your strength up are now off limits for me. Think about it, Getting in "Shape" puts a lot of emphasis on appearance rather than strength, and staying "Fit" really sounds like it's about clothes sizes. As I don't believe either word properly demonstrates the real benefits of working out and only stresses the shallow pressures of society subliminally, I now need to figure out how function without those two common words. Any replacement suggestions?

Two random quiz things which sort of stuck in my mind despite their silliness are: a breakdown of your elemental (fire, earth, wind, water) composition, and a quiz about which of the seven deadly sins you are. I find the first makes an excellent personality test, and the second was just weirdly accurate and seemed to have one that applied to one person more than the others each time. For the record, I consider myself 55% wind, 35% earth, 9% fire, and 1% water approximately. I'm also obviously sloth.

If you know me long enough, you'll probably at some point hear me make a reference to "Applesauce". It's from one of the sequels of my favourite book ever, Idlewild. I was rather disappointed with the book itself, but I found this one thing to be entertaining. The main characters are cryogenically un-freezing a huge number of people. They decide to unfreeze everyone, even though the majority of those who could afford the freezing were really rich corporate assholes. However, it was decided that just leaving it at that was far too risky for the health of the new world, and a secret project by some of the main characters was put into effect: locating the potential "bad apples", and putting little bombs in their heads. The codeword to activate the system to explode one of them was "Applesauce". It is now one of my favourite words, although that should not be taken to mean that I agree with the way they did things in the book.

Finally, a question. Pen and paper roleplaying games are really really fun. Do any of you play? And if so, what kinds?

I REALLY hate getting yelled at for no good reason

What exactly is the relationship between parents and children? It seems I and most of the rest of the world have different views on this. First of all, it's a relationship between people: meaning friendship, hate or any other human emotion is possible between them. Love cannot be bought, nor can it be earned by hours spent, love between parent and child is not automatic. Secondly, it's a relationship of teacher and student: parents are just about the only rolemodel for children in their most vulnerable state of their lives, and are there throughout much of the child's life. Most parents like this fact. Thirdly, it's a relationship of Sponsorship. You have this kid, and you like him, so you give him what he needs to do well. Or, you don't like him, and the government takes him on instead. It's not a partnership, as the kid never had any say in this from the start, and it's not a relationship of complete deference by the kid: as again the kid never had any choice and that's just unfair. All money spent by parents on their children is 100% their choice.

That is the extent of the relationship between parents and children. If both parties are unsatisfied with this and wish to negotiate a FURTHER agreement such as the child letting the parent live their life in exchange for more sponsorship, this is acceptable. It is not acceptable for the parent to provide extra sponsorship and THEN complain that the child isn't living their life the way the parent wants. EVERYONE'S life is ONLY THEIRS to live. Why is it that for something treated as common sense by most people, there are so many exceptions perceived around it?

EDIT: I tried adding "reactions" to my blog, but it didn't really work. The bottom option that's half cut off says "misguided".