My last blog was about a sophomore at SCS is my study hall and not about ginger.
I do feel like leaving another though.
I am an avid text messager. I go heavily into the thousands each month. I do meet new people through text messaging as odd as it sounds. The first thing someone asks you when you send them a text and they do not know who you are is "who are you."
The very first thing they want is a name. They never ask for your political stance or your beliefs. Never how you feel about child abuse and abortion. It is your name. Out of every single thing to ask a stranger you ask for their identity. This is for an unlimited about of reasons but I will say 2. They need something to associate with or they do not like being in the unknown.
Let us go over the first. We love names. Names is what we categorize by. My phone book is organized by names. Not this is my best friend and this person is crass but their name. Names carry so much though. If I walked into a soda bar and asked for a drink and I never said my name it would not mean anything. I would be a stranger. Anything you hear from me is fine and your life is the same. If I went into that same soda bar and said my name was George Bush the whole thing changes. Now you have questions for me or complaints. The whole difference is my name is associated with something else.
If we did not have names it would be easy to start again as people say. You could go from place to place and you would start from scratch with every new person you meet. People are more focused on our names that they ignore anything else about us.
This blog is because in physiology tuesday I began texting a new person and she only cared about my name and would not talk to me unless I told her my name. I told her about how my dog died when I was 15. That event of my dog dying was one of the top 5 things that formed my mentality and such. She did not care though because she did not know my name. We are so focused on names and everything that comes with them that we ignore what does not involve the name.
The part about us not liking the unknown is fairly straight forward. We like knowing the name but this is also an extremely deep topic that I will speak of in the future.
Do not tell me your name. Tell me who you are. When you die your grave will give me your name so I do not want it until then.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Call of Duty
There is a large misconception with the people of America that the male is supposed to pay for everything. I am going to use an oddly twisted history to prove that this is not the case.
Back in the day prior to World War I women were completely reliant on their husbands. They did not have any money or education so their only chance of surivival was on this. An odd proof would be Mormonism and how their doctrines made back in the 1800s had the woman completely reliant on the male. Biblical times had the male as the provider and women as the home maker.
With this ideology it seems fit that the man pays for everything. Given my age everything encompasses dates and so forth and not so much as bills. The thinking with this mentality would be that it is just establishing the relationship as a dependance from female to male.
That is all fine and good until women get the vote after World War 1. Now they have the same amount of political sway as the male. Then they get the same jobs as males in World War 2. That is due to the war leaving jobs availible but after the war women continued to be a heavy presence in the work place. Then came women joining the military. That is my odd history to prove that women gradually got equality to the male.
Culuturally we shall look at it differently. 1800s you could beat your wife. 1920 you can not longer beat your wife but you can beat your kids. 1970 you cannot beat your kids. Kids grow up thinking beating is repulsive (which it is) so they do not inflict anything upon their kids or wives and thus make them more equal. That is a stretch argument though with little to support it and difficult to put into typed words.
So females want equality and that is fine. In that equality though they need to share everything equal. You cannot get every good side of the world and not accept any of the negative things. Females can join the military but cannot go to war. Females can have the same jobs as males but are not as prone to being fired since they can sue their employer for being sexist.
You cannot have every good thing in the world and not take any of the bad parts and assume it will all work out.
My point is this. Guys should not pay for everything and every date. If you want to be treated like an equal and not an inferior person than you should start paying for more and carrying your own weight. As it is with the common american girl, you have to pay for everything and do everything and feed them with currency and compliments just to keep their finger off the trigger.
If you want to be treated like an equal then balance this equation.
Back in the day prior to World War I women were completely reliant on their husbands. They did not have any money or education so their only chance of surivival was on this. An odd proof would be Mormonism and how their doctrines made back in the 1800s had the woman completely reliant on the male. Biblical times had the male as the provider and women as the home maker.
With this ideology it seems fit that the man pays for everything. Given my age everything encompasses dates and so forth and not so much as bills. The thinking with this mentality would be that it is just establishing the relationship as a dependance from female to male.
That is all fine and good until women get the vote after World War 1. Now they have the same amount of political sway as the male. Then they get the same jobs as males in World War 2. That is due to the war leaving jobs availible but after the war women continued to be a heavy presence in the work place. Then came women joining the military. That is my odd history to prove that women gradually got equality to the male.
Culuturally we shall look at it differently. 1800s you could beat your wife. 1920 you can not longer beat your wife but you can beat your kids. 1970 you cannot beat your kids. Kids grow up thinking beating is repulsive (which it is) so they do not inflict anything upon their kids or wives and thus make them more equal. That is a stretch argument though with little to support it and difficult to put into typed words.
So females want equality and that is fine. In that equality though they need to share everything equal. You cannot get every good side of the world and not accept any of the negative things. Females can join the military but cannot go to war. Females can have the same jobs as males but are not as prone to being fired since they can sue their employer for being sexist.
You cannot have every good thing in the world and not take any of the bad parts and assume it will all work out.
My point is this. Guys should not pay for everything and every date. If you want to be treated like an equal and not an inferior person than you should start paying for more and carrying your own weight. As it is with the common american girl, you have to pay for everything and do everything and feed them with currency and compliments just to keep their finger off the trigger.
If you want to be treated like an equal then balance this equation.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Why Do Right Part 1
Lauren was absolutely right.
I have every intention of atempting to offend 3 types of people in this blog and it is for good cause.
As is it we have people who just do bad things. You can define bad things as you wish because you will most likely be correct. We have the ignored people and we have the people overseeing both.
The bad people at Seattle Christian are stereotypically the more wealthy out of the bunch. They can afford most anything they like so naturally they need to resort to the lower level activities of society to make them content.
The ignored people are the good people who have a couple of few really good friends. They sit alone and are silent if they are not with their friends. No one knows their names. No one knows much about them besides their names if they know it. These are the people that can leave the school and no one notices. These are the people that make up a majority of the world. These are the people that keep the world floating.
There are the over seers. They are called teachers. I have had 4 classes today which showed this 3 times so I am basing evidence as a whole off of a small sampling. These teachers glorify the people fit into the first category. They must know that they are dumb because it is written on their face and the first category seems to try to seem dumb. Yet the teachers continue to glorify them by making them exceptions to rules and being lax. It is in their loose policies that they let these smart people slide more into their own sin but in doing so put the 2nd type of person lower.
The next part is based on a true story witnessed by Lauren Rubio. 4 people failed to do an assignment so they cheated on it and turned it in for full credit. These 4 people are from the first category. They received that full credit. They received a better score than some people that do it on their own. So you have the first group above the 2nd group because they did the wrong thing.
The teachers do not do anything about it. In fact they congratulate the first group at being so good at the assignment they really did not do. So now the opinion of the teacher is raised by the first group and is lowered to the second group because they are not as good.
The first group will most likely advance to a college of more merit than the first group for having superior grades and having more money than the second. This is still based on small samplings and stereotypes.
So here is the question:
Why do good?
What stops the second category becoming more like the first category? Pride? God? Moral law? Conscience? Peers? Fear?
Despite how bad these all sound, it is better to be caught and failed for 1 out of 100 assignments than failed for all the ones you did not do.
The response is that if they are caught and failed they will learn and do better. But here is the thing. The 3rd group has supported ans reinforced the 1st category for so long that they no longer see the harm in which they do and do not want to change.
It is all of our faults and we all fit into a category at some part in our lives. Why why should we do good if you are not going to stop us?
I have every intention of atempting to offend 3 types of people in this blog and it is for good cause.
As is it we have people who just do bad things. You can define bad things as you wish because you will most likely be correct. We have the ignored people and we have the people overseeing both.
The bad people at Seattle Christian are stereotypically the more wealthy out of the bunch. They can afford most anything they like so naturally they need to resort to the lower level activities of society to make them content.
The ignored people are the good people who have a couple of few really good friends. They sit alone and are silent if they are not with their friends. No one knows their names. No one knows much about them besides their names if they know it. These are the people that can leave the school and no one notices. These are the people that make up a majority of the world. These are the people that keep the world floating.
There are the over seers. They are called teachers. I have had 4 classes today which showed this 3 times so I am basing evidence as a whole off of a small sampling. These teachers glorify the people fit into the first category. They must know that they are dumb because it is written on their face and the first category seems to try to seem dumb. Yet the teachers continue to glorify them by making them exceptions to rules and being lax. It is in their loose policies that they let these smart people slide more into their own sin but in doing so put the 2nd type of person lower.
The next part is based on a true story witnessed by Lauren Rubio. 4 people failed to do an assignment so they cheated on it and turned it in for full credit. These 4 people are from the first category. They received that full credit. They received a better score than some people that do it on their own. So you have the first group above the 2nd group because they did the wrong thing.
The teachers do not do anything about it. In fact they congratulate the first group at being so good at the assignment they really did not do. So now the opinion of the teacher is raised by the first group and is lowered to the second group because they are not as good.
The first group will most likely advance to a college of more merit than the first group for having superior grades and having more money than the second. This is still based on small samplings and stereotypes.
So here is the question:
Why do good?
What stops the second category becoming more like the first category? Pride? God? Moral law? Conscience? Peers? Fear?
Despite how bad these all sound, it is better to be caught and failed for 1 out of 100 assignments than failed for all the ones you did not do.
The response is that if they are caught and failed they will learn and do better. But here is the thing. The 3rd group has supported ans reinforced the 1st category for so long that they no longer see the harm in which they do and do not want to change.
It is all of our faults and we all fit into a category at some part in our lives. Why why should we do good if you are not going to stop us?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
War All of the Time
I think war is grand. I moved my computer into my room because its just better here. Laptops are so portable. In my room you will see instantly 2 large civil war portraits. Over my bed is Confederate currency and a hand drawn sketch of Gettysburg. I have 30 books on war and some 20 war history movies. I truly do think war is grand.
I do like the battles and such but those bore me now. The battle of war is boring now but the purpose of war is riveting.
War has to be killing people. If war was blowing up cars that is meaningless. Cars can be replaced. Money can be replaced. Anything can really be replaced. People cannot be replaced. You cannot bring someone back from the dead and that is why war is about killing people. It is that loss of life that makes war killing people.
In a love for war I tried to come up with my cure for war. My plan for world peace.
The biggest issue with world peace is that it is truly impossible. See with every war there is a winner and a loser. The loser is then put into shame and then wants to somehow overthrow the winner. Germany tried twice. They were bitter.
It has Marx's belief in 2 classes. The lower will want to overthrow the upper so let us continue thinking like marxists. Let us use Marx's beliefs and make world peace out of it. World peace will come if everyone is equal but not everyone can win because there must be a loser.
So my strategy for world peace is this: Everyone must lose the same way.
If the entire world was hit by a meteor and a lot of people died... no one would care about their wars anymore. If aliens attacked the world people would join together and have world peace because they all lost together. No one is greater than another anymore because everyone lost.
They have to lose the same because if one person lost 1 sheep and another 5 the person that lost 1 sheep was a winner and the person that lost 5 would be jealous.
That plan sounds so completely doable yet it is impossible.
War will not end but in theory aliens can save us.
I do like the battles and such but those bore me now. The battle of war is boring now but the purpose of war is riveting.
War has to be killing people. If war was blowing up cars that is meaningless. Cars can be replaced. Money can be replaced. Anything can really be replaced. People cannot be replaced. You cannot bring someone back from the dead and that is why war is about killing people. It is that loss of life that makes war killing people.
In a love for war I tried to come up with my cure for war. My plan for world peace.
The biggest issue with world peace is that it is truly impossible. See with every war there is a winner and a loser. The loser is then put into shame and then wants to somehow overthrow the winner. Germany tried twice. They were bitter.
It has Marx's belief in 2 classes. The lower will want to overthrow the upper so let us continue thinking like marxists. Let us use Marx's beliefs and make world peace out of it. World peace will come if everyone is equal but not everyone can win because there must be a loser.
So my strategy for world peace is this: Everyone must lose the same way.
If the entire world was hit by a meteor and a lot of people died... no one would care about their wars anymore. If aliens attacked the world people would join together and have world peace because they all lost together. No one is greater than another anymore because everyone lost.
They have to lose the same because if one person lost 1 sheep and another 5 the person that lost 1 sheep was a winner and the person that lost 5 would be jealous.
That plan sounds so completely doable yet it is impossible.
War will not end but in theory aliens can save us.
Why Do We Write?
It has been brought to my attention that I write too much. So why do we write at all?
Are we writing to the piece or to the audience?
I cant help and think that Marx wrote to himself and that Mein Kamf was to pass the time but really I do not think changing the world was the authors intention. I think they wrote to you. I do not mean you as in whoever you are. I do not know who reads this. I do not know who will ever read it. "You" are the one person that reads the piece and can understand or relate. You are the person sitting in the front seat of the auditorium while someone practices the piano. You are the reason people write. Yes people do write to help themselves by getting their feelings on paper. Yes people write for money and some write for a bigger purpose. I know I write for you. I imagine Hitler and Marx wrote for you. You. The one person that might listen. You do not have to agree or believe it but you are the one person that reads it and for you we write.
One thing I did not like about today was how people asked questions to the Bible guild but they used their own personal conflict with one person on the board into it. Do not bring your own personal disputes into a public place.
One thing I did wish though was that the guild fighting each other. There was 1 Calvinist 2 Arminians and 1 nondenominational that seemed lost. The Calvinist was by far the wisest. By no means did he agree completely with the other 3. I think it would have been beautiful to see everyone turn and to see this argument among them. All their knowledge battling each other. Attack, attack, rebutle, attack. Debates are chess but more like war.
It was in this personal grievance that I think I know what I wish blogs were. I wish this medium of writing was conducted. You have the piece. The readers can be critics and comments are the place to say how I am wrong. I actually enjoy being told I am wrong. I get really angry. Very angry and it is in that anger that one has 2 choices: defend yourself and prove you are right or stand corrected. It is a great feeling to need a defense or submit.
Write with controversy. Write with the words you wish you could say in person but never could.
Do not write a text message or something someone already knows. If your audience knows what you are going to say it might not be worth writing. Write about that thing that you only know. In person you feel like you would need 200 words to describe an apple and you have always wanted to describe an apple. The blog can be that place to say the things you could not put into words. Do not say things most people already know but describe that apple that only you know about. If you can text it it probably isnt worth publishing. It might take someone 500 words and some 1000 to say what they want and it is fine. As long as you have the idea and the finger strength you have the audience but nobody wants to hear what they already know.
Do mind that this is directed at this people that blog outside of assignments. Assignment blogs and these kinds of things are separate things.
Are we writing to the piece or to the audience?
I cant help and think that Marx wrote to himself and that Mein Kamf was to pass the time but really I do not think changing the world was the authors intention. I think they wrote to you. I do not mean you as in whoever you are. I do not know who reads this. I do not know who will ever read it. "You" are the one person that reads the piece and can understand or relate. You are the person sitting in the front seat of the auditorium while someone practices the piano. You are the reason people write. Yes people do write to help themselves by getting their feelings on paper. Yes people write for money and some write for a bigger purpose. I know I write for you. I imagine Hitler and Marx wrote for you. You. The one person that might listen. You do not have to agree or believe it but you are the one person that reads it and for you we write.
One thing I did not like about today was how people asked questions to the Bible guild but they used their own personal conflict with one person on the board into it. Do not bring your own personal disputes into a public place.
One thing I did wish though was that the guild fighting each other. There was 1 Calvinist 2 Arminians and 1 nondenominational that seemed lost. The Calvinist was by far the wisest. By no means did he agree completely with the other 3. I think it would have been beautiful to see everyone turn and to see this argument among them. All their knowledge battling each other. Attack, attack, rebutle, attack. Debates are chess but more like war.
It was in this personal grievance that I think I know what I wish blogs were. I wish this medium of writing was conducted. You have the piece. The readers can be critics and comments are the place to say how I am wrong. I actually enjoy being told I am wrong. I get really angry. Very angry and it is in that anger that one has 2 choices: defend yourself and prove you are right or stand corrected. It is a great feeling to need a defense or submit.
Write with controversy. Write with the words you wish you could say in person but never could.
Do not write a text message or something someone already knows. If your audience knows what you are going to say it might not be worth writing. Write about that thing that you only know. In person you feel like you would need 200 words to describe an apple and you have always wanted to describe an apple. The blog can be that place to say the things you could not put into words. Do not say things most people already know but describe that apple that only you know about. If you can text it it probably isnt worth publishing. It might take someone 500 words and some 1000 to say what they want and it is fine. As long as you have the idea and the finger strength you have the audience but nobody wants to hear what they already know.
Do mind that this is directed at this people that blog outside of assignments. Assignment blogs and these kinds of things are separate things.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Marxist Relations
I would say that relationships are marxist. Not love relationships but more like the relationship between workers or a student teacher relationship.
It has what Marx is talking about.
teachers are above the student and they keep it that way. They maintain order and discipline so that the class can progress. Yes it progresses but to the amount that the person in charge allows.
Lets look at another place in which people learn. Small groups. I do not have a small group nor do i intend on joining one but let us look at the ideology of it. Small group has a leader but that leader is part of the group. He is not above the group nor below the group but rather a part of the group. I do not know how well this works or if people follow it exactly but this is another method of teaching.
Marxist teaching has pros and cons. It does maintain order quite well so it is the most functional. You can meet deadlines and standards quite easily but you can create suppression. If the teacher is above the class then equality cannot happen and this leads to favorites. Teachers have favorites. Bosses have favorites. This creates classes. You have the teacher and then the favorites then the normal kids then the undesirable ones.
I say nothing about the class being good or not because the teacher controls that so it can vary.
A small group session may have the leader but he is one of ten. That leader may have a favorite but they are all one of ten. No one has more authority than another so progress can occur. You may not meet standards or deadlines easily because you will not have much order in this method but hopefully you are trading off for a better understanding.
Now I will bluntly attack those people that feel that they need to rule with authority with an iron fist. You are not better than me nor am I better than you. You are only qualified to hold your position because you were born first. Because you were born first you went to college first and thus are teaching but that does not mean you are better. No one controls when they are born. The moral is you can be in authority because that is the style you have chosen to rule by but once you have used that power to say I am better than you for this and that you have created classes.
How this is marxist must be quite obvious. The lower class will eventually overthow the upper class. Workers will quit their jobs and leave their bosses empty handed. People will rise up and overthrow the government. Students will act rebelliously to upset the teacher.
It is all quite marxist. Just be careful how you treat the people below you.
It has what Marx is talking about.
teachers are above the student and they keep it that way. They maintain order and discipline so that the class can progress. Yes it progresses but to the amount that the person in charge allows.
Lets look at another place in which people learn. Small groups. I do not have a small group nor do i intend on joining one but let us look at the ideology of it. Small group has a leader but that leader is part of the group. He is not above the group nor below the group but rather a part of the group. I do not know how well this works or if people follow it exactly but this is another method of teaching.
Marxist teaching has pros and cons. It does maintain order quite well so it is the most functional. You can meet deadlines and standards quite easily but you can create suppression. If the teacher is above the class then equality cannot happen and this leads to favorites. Teachers have favorites. Bosses have favorites. This creates classes. You have the teacher and then the favorites then the normal kids then the undesirable ones.
I say nothing about the class being good or not because the teacher controls that so it can vary.
A small group session may have the leader but he is one of ten. That leader may have a favorite but they are all one of ten. No one has more authority than another so progress can occur. You may not meet standards or deadlines easily because you will not have much order in this method but hopefully you are trading off for a better understanding.
Now I will bluntly attack those people that feel that they need to rule with authority with an iron fist. You are not better than me nor am I better than you. You are only qualified to hold your position because you were born first. Because you were born first you went to college first and thus are teaching but that does not mean you are better. No one controls when they are born. The moral is you can be in authority because that is the style you have chosen to rule by but once you have used that power to say I am better than you for this and that you have created classes.
How this is marxist must be quite obvious. The lower class will eventually overthow the upper class. Workers will quit their jobs and leave their bosses empty handed. People will rise up and overthrow the government. Students will act rebelliously to upset the teacher.
It is all quite marxist. Just be careful how you treat the people below you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
