Let me start with ChatRoullette. I do not go to ChatRoullette. Because I get banned from it in like two or three minutes. I get the message that people found me offensive and banned me. Obviously I am too repulsive and I scare people off, I do not do anything, I just want to find people to talk with. But for the few minutes I was there I seen lots of penises. I see this as a lesson about human nature. Sexuality is one of the primary drives for humans. But people cannot just be sexual all the time. People are confined from acting that way for many reasons. Either because they do not want to be seen as sexual predators. Or it can be because these people find it wrong to be so sexual around other people. Whatever the reasons when people are around others they need to confine themselves from acting sexually how they want to act. But on ChatRoullette there is complete anonymity. And so lots of guys show their penises off. Once all of social values are taken off in anonymity they can reveal their true human nature. And that is what true human nature is. Sex. That is it. Humans are basically just sex machines.
Here is another topic which is a little sexual too. And this got to be one of the most underrated things in the world. Shaking hands with a girl. Shaking hands with a girl is awesome! It feels wonderful. I love it. It is not a guys hand. I would not like shaking my own hands. They are rather rough. But a girls hand is perfect. And they are small. So they fit wonderfully in my hands. When I hold a girls hand to shake it feels like I am holding a Luger P08 in my hands. It feels so right. And so gentle. Oh so gentle. Such soft skin. It really is a wonderful feeling. I do not get to shake girls hands often, but when I do, I really enjoy it.
So it is going to be Thanksgiving soon. And I never been able to understand this holiday. What are Americans supposed to be thankful for? That the Europeans came here, made friends with the Indians, and then brutally massacred them, stole their property, pillaged them, and took over their land? That is an embarrassment. If I set up a country by genocide (which by the way is how nearly all countries formed in history, so much for the "social contract" that people talk about) I would be embarrassed to remember that part of history. But maybe I am ignorant. I never really understand what Thanksgiving was about. And seriously, can we stop eating Turkey? It is disgusting. I cannot understand how people eat that. Every year people make Turkey and every time it is disgusting. And it is not even made well. Because the whole thing is so huge to cook properly that it always feels undone. Even if it is done, it is still disgusting. Who even likes Turkey? It is just a purely symbolic thing. I think it is about time to stop eating Turkey for something that actually tastes good, like fried chicken. Fried chicken and watermelons. That is what I propose. Blacks are a major part of American history. It is about time to make a special holiday treat just for them. The Indians are basically all dead now, so it does not matter if we make it in their honor. There is no one to honor anymore.
I am not a big food guy. But I usually enjoy chicken. That is the only kind of meat I enjoy. Pork. Never eat it. I did not eat it obviously when I was religious. And I still do not eat it. Looks disgusting. Lamb and cow are impossible to chew. First they do not taste well. Second it takes forever to chew that meat. And definitely not fish. Fish is the worst. So repulsive. I hate so much that any food made contact with fish I will not eat. So I just stick to chicken. Most of chicken I eat is homemade. In a few occasions I eat in semi-fast food places. It could be fast food chicken. And sometimes it is like a semi-restaurant. Like they have in Atlantic City or Las Vegas. They have food places that are not so expensive, food is reasonable price, and they give you large portions.
I despise restaurants. I refuse to go to restaurants. You get nothing to eat. You pay over a hundred dollars and get nothing to eat. Big giant plate with a little food in the middle, that does not taste any better than the food you find in fast food place. Waste hundreds of dollars and you leave hungry. With a few dollars they can stuff yourself by eating fast food. What is the point? I cannot understand this. Especially French restaurants. What is the point of wasting so much money on no food? I guess people say to look fancy. But I do not feel fancy. I feel embarrassed being seen in a fancy (French) restaurant. Embarrassed because I am showing myself to be wasting lots of money to get no food at all. Not very bright.
France is now having a lot of protests as all you heard at this point. This was going on for quite a while now. I think to myself, "what a bunch of lazy people". The retirement age in France was 60. The retirement age in US is 65. Other countries have it at like 65 too. Furthermore, French people work a lot less than people in the US. They have longer vacation breaks. Such lazy people. So it is not a surprise why they get all crazy when they find out that their retirement age is going to be 62. Oh my science, work for another two years, three years shorter than most other countries, how dare we work so much!
Enough of France. Let us pick a different topic. Cigarettes. I heard about this by accident because I do not follow the news. The FDA announced that they plan to put scary images on cigarettes. Anyone who thinks they will actually do something in making smokers stop is an idiot. For the past, Science knows how long, years there was a big war on cigarettes. Constant messages about how dangerous cigarettes are. More and more messages on cigarettes about how dangerous they are. And has any of this done anything to stop people from smoking, I doubt it. People know the danger. Everybody knows the danger. If you wave that danger in front of their face nothing will happen. And seriously now, is smoking any more dangerous than fast food? How many people die from being way too fat? I am willing to bet more people die from food than cigarettes. The reason why America is the unhealthiest civilized country in the world is because of all the food. Not the cigarettes. I find it really strange to go after cigarettes in such an insane manner, to the point of trying to put scary images on them, and forgetting about all the food that kills Americans.
Now time for a completely unrelated topic, but it really disturbs me. That is gender-positive language, or whatever it is called. Instead of saying "for the good of all men" you need to say "for the good of all men and women" or "for the good of all people". Which sounds awful. Adding "and women" at the end of every time you say "men" sounds terrible. It ruins the flow of whatever you are trying to say. Saying "people" is better but it does not sound as poetic as saying "men".
So I do not use gender positive language. You probably noticed at this point. I say "he" not "he or she". That sounds way too awful. In fact, it is not fair to trannies. It should be "he or she or it". Which sounds even more terrible. What is up with all of this correctness. It is getting crazy at this point.
Gender positive language ruins good song. Take for example, my favorite song, Battle Hymn of the Republic. Such a beautiful song. My favorite part of the song is the ending:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea.
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me.
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free!
Now let us see how this changes with gender positive language:
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea.
With a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me.
As he died to make us holy, let us die to make all free!
I do want to give credit to using "us" and "all". Because saying "men and women" would just sound so terrible. But even the "us/all" addition ruins it. It is just not the same. Because "men" is repeated twice. Using "us/all" switches the words. And it looses its powerful statement.
And I do not even see the point of trying to be politically correct with Battle Hymn of the Republic. Because not everyone is a Christian. You are concerned about being politically correct about a song with sings praises to Christ? It is like trying to redo the Mein Kampf to be Jew friendly. It cannot be done.
I will continue to keep on saying "men" because it sounds better and more poetic. Until someone can invent a good word that will automatically apply to men and women. But that never happened. And until it happens I will continue to be politically incorrect.
You're wrong about the smoking thing, actually. The campaign over the last half-century has been enormously successful at more than halving the rate.
ReplyDelete"You're wrong about the smoking thing, actually. The campaign over the last half-century has been enormously successful at more than halving the rate.":
ReplyDeleteI am not much persuaded by statistics. What you said is a good example of why I am not much convinced by stastistical arguments.
One of my problems with statistics is that, as you obviously know this, correlation does not imply causation. So statistics is a big correlative discipline. (As opposed to science, which is able to fix their variables and get causation. Social science, which is not really a science, such as economics or sociology, cannot do this, so it cannot be a science). Correlative obsercations are fine as long as you do not inference causation.
I am sure, I agree with you, that the number of smokers have greatly reduced over 50 years. But you say it is because of the anti-smoking campaigns. I do not see how you can say that.
People have became more knowledgable about the harms of smoking. So fewer people want to start smoking. That is a factor in reducing the number of people who smoke.
Cigarettes have also became more expensive over the years. So fewer people have an incentive to smoke, and those who smoke have more of an incentive to stop smoking. That is a factor in reducing the number of people who smoke.
What I think is the main factor, actually, is none of what I said. The main factor is that the smoking population is dying out, they are getting old. And they are dying out faster because they smoke. The younger generation is not so into smoking because they know it is generation. So the rate of smokers of increasing is less than the rate of smokers decreasing. Hence, the numbers will drop until they hit equilibrium.
Putting scary messages and pictures on cigarettes are just one of the many variables. I am saying that the other variables I listed above are probably the real reason why smoking rates have declined. You seem to believe that scary messages, such as "smoking kills" and pictures of dying people is what will do the difference. I do not see how you can possible come to that conclusion.
You may not be persuaded by statistics (on this occasion) but I feel that you may have been a trifle dismissive of “Jewish Atheist’s” comment on your blog.
ReplyDeleteThe real test of these arguments is to have a look at the world as a whole and not just the so called “free” world.
Unless I am mistaken – in countries where tobacco companies have had free rein and smoking is on the increase – deaths from smoking related illnesses are also on the increase. E.g. China, India and Africa.
In the West - all the “variables” you listed - except for the anti-smoking campaigns – applied equally during all previous generations. Therefore – that being the case - then if there has been any marked reduction in the number of deaths (allowing for such adjustments as filter tips / low tar etc) then this should be due to said campaigns been at least partially effective.
As a “Christian Atheist” (and great admirer of Richard Dawkins) I do find your blogs extremely interesting and informative. However, I do feel that some of your conclusions are not particularly objective or based on your characteristic razor sharp logic.
"You may not be persuaded by statistics (on this occasion) but I feel that you may have been a trifle dismissive of JewishAtheist’s comment on your blog":
ReplyDeleteI am in general not persuaded by statistics at all. I have various problem with using them to determine what is true and what is not. They are nice to use in a college paper, but they do not impress me. Part of the reason is that statistics does not seperate correlation from causation, something scientific tests are able to separate.
---
I dismissed what JewishAtheist said because there is no way to conclude that from what we know. Just because anti-smoking movements correlates with reduction in smoking does not mean that the anti-smoking movements were responsible in eliminating smoking.
Besides, you probably missed my entire point. I got no problem with anti-smoking movements. Nor do I have a problem with smoking (I do not smoke and never plan to myself). I am sure that if there is a movement that makes people more knowledgable about the dangers of smoking the number of cigarette related deaths will drop. What I am saying is different. I am saying that putting scary images on cigarette boxes will hardly do anything at all. The reason way people give up smoking is by being knowledgable about the subject, not by seeing some scary images.