Read first. Post later. Simple enough.

• 27Nov 07

  The Fallacy that is Love

  All right, here is another one of my blogs but this one will border on the absurd by much more than any of my other blogs ever will. Here in this blog I would like to explain to anyone remotely interested why I would choose not to fall in love in with anyone, date or anyone look for anything that so much as resembles a mate or engage in a relationship with anyone. What this will touch base upon is my line of thinking when it comes to love and the mind, expenditures (from this word alone, one can already tell just how blasted absurd this going to be) and finally occupancy in terms of time. So here comes a whole spew of what one would consider to be **** or "the ravings of a mad man (of which this blog may in fact confirm.

  The first point that I will make is the most important one, and that is in related to the mind and how love can obscure logic, reasoning etc etc. When love is brought into a situation it can obscure the line of thinking towards many situations. The first thing that it will do is (in some shape or form depending on how long a couple has been with each other) is to instill some form of loyalty and reduce the mind to slavish obedience, the likes of which can go against what a person wants. I figure that's the thing about love, according to the layman's answer, an important part of Love is supposed to be sacrifices and conpromises, but from what I can decipher, sacrifice can be affiliated with destruction (I will not put it lightly and say compromise for by saying compromise it means that there is some integrity to what's retained within the person). Destruction in the sense that it can ruin what a person was what he/she was once, by placing the mind into a state of preoccupancy where the thought of a singularity (the mate, the girlfriend, boyfriend or whatever have you) infects the minds and obscures the lines of thoughts and reasoning. But how does it specifically obscure the lines of thought? Well, you iknow when somebody pledges to do "anything for the person? That right there is a means of surrendering yourself to the likes of somebody else but to achieve what means? Is it to ensure that the person loves you or will love you? For sex? Just so that you can be noticed? Is it really justified to reduce yourself to the whims of another person just for these things. What I do daresay, is that it is not worth the effort in any way whatsoever.

  Ok, thus far my paragraphs are not within the confines of my standard when it comes to writing these blogs so do bear with me and my fragmented points. Love can also be called a distraction. Some who read this can in fact relate to their parents who were upset with you dating somebody during your years in school. The reason why they say this is because they fear that the "love" or whatever temporal state of infatuation you share with somebody will in fact distract you from real academic activities, and will have the dangerous potential of destroying the well being of your future. In fact they could not be more correct. Love or whatever the blasted hell you call love can in fact pre-emptively establish the means of destroying what the outcome of your future is because of the fact that love will draw you away from what really matters, and what really matters is that you ensure your own security and well-being. Love proves the risk of being highly contrary to that and can in fact have you whiplashing in the opposite direction of your original academic or general intents and may prove contrary to your original ideals and goals. It can therefore be assumed that love destroys.

  Are you still reading this? Well surely if you were reading that last sentence then I can easily conclude that yes. Yes you are in fact still reading the lunacy of a would-be mad man. The third and final point is related to love and its potential to establish yourself to be far more vulnerable then you were beforehand. How? Think of all the breakups and/or divorces you ever had. How did it feel? Like the whole world is against you and nothing else matters? Was it something along the lines of not being compelled to live any longer because your life (i.e. your boyfriend and/or girlfriend) has left you therefore you do not have any more reason to live? Well that is the third problem of loving somebody else. You are establishing the foundation and building yourself a means to get shot down and hurt in the end. If you did not truly love anyone or have never loved anyone before, just imagine: in theory, that should have never happened if you did not find anyone to love at all. Better to deal with the empty hole that is your heart then th fill it up and long for it again, if you ask me.

  I hereby conclude, that love is dangerous, love is risky, love is not worth your time, and of course love is just not worth the effort. Better to leave a more clear sharper mind without love then to obscure your sense of logic, thought, intelligence then to indulge yourself into the triviality that is your mate. Also just for the record. All of these things that I have typed does not truly reflect my views in anyway whatsoever, regardless of how "compelling" you feel that my argument is. The real purpose behind this article was merely to play the devils advocate and see how well I do in bringing up points that are contrary to who I am.

  • Posted Nov 27, 2007 2:59 pm GMT
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 30Oct 07

  My stance on the global warming issue

  
  

  All right, so as it stands right now, global warming, which is responsible for the major warming process of the world has now been subject to some form of exposure to the media that has (or at least should) be known to many of citizens of the known free world (can I be so sure if the damn communist would actually bother to subject their citizens to such an ethical issue?). As it stands, the media pants a horrific and ghastly image of a world where the major and key points in the world are subjected to flooding temperature rises, and vicious imbalance in farming caused by dehydration or mass flooding, Most importantly the media attributes this to man-made anthropogenic which according to them releases a vast amount of CO2 which currently stands as being greatly responsible for the causes of global warming and its ravages across the world. The "compelling" evidence for this lies in two benefactors (some would consider a third to be in the form of a particular politician) the first one being the IPCC (International Panel for Climate Change) who is supposed to be a panel of top scientist that provides the evidence that global warming is indeed manmade, and the media who provides this data and simplifies the data down to the summary of the issue (none of us like wading through hundreds pages of what is supposed to be called evidence) and simplifiy it down to the most comprehensible level. The third benefactor in this (if you did not quite catch it, t'was Al Gore who I was making reference to) had been responsible for a very popular documentary which acts to support the IPCC and recently he has just won a nobel prize for his works. I am here to currently decry the aforementioned benefactors AS NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF BULLOCKS.

  Despite their being very compelling evidence from scientist that postulates that global warming is not man made (university professors have openly expressed their skepticism over man made global warming) I will only bog down the evidence to the most simplest thing and perhaps the most compelling of all evidence( to believe it or not is your call). The simplest of evidence is as follows. Co2 levels are not directly linked to the anthropogenic that mad have introduced into the atmosphere. As a matter of fact the real data suggest that temperature levels will in fact lag behind C02 levels by 800 years. However scientist in the IPCC would not (to my understanding) be willing to bring such a fact into consideration, because it refutes their "claimed" data that they are so keen to uphold as fact. Also, please keep in mind that warming within the world and throughout its history has been oh so glaringly present even before the Industrial Revolution. There is two major warming periods that I can recall on the top of my head. The first one happened some point IIRC between 2500-100 BC ( a large gap I'm well aware of but do feel free to rectify that) where it was believed that the Sahara was once full of vegetation, but do to vicious solar activities during that period (the once habitable region had turned into what is now known as the Sahara desert. Another period of warming may also be mentioned in the middle ages where the abnormally warm temperatures proved anomalous to the temperature patterns throughout that time. If indeed anthropogenic were highly determinant in global warming, then what the hell do you make of those two periods of abnormal warming where CO2 emissions by man were pretty much non-existent. Finally, mankind is not a significant contributor to global warming. Fact of the matter is, emissions prove to be one of the smaller causes of C02 emissions, far behind, dead compost and oceans. Now what in the hell can one make of that?

  More or less, the global warming debate is far more political then it is scientific. But surely why would they (being the global warming alarmist) ever bother to cause this much panic throughout the world and post up false data on global warming if it is indeed beyond their control? At the very least this much is beyond me, but given the fact that it's my blog, I am at my right to post my opinion on this matter. The fact of the matter is, the resources of this world are running low that a means to preserve needs to be in order. The prices for Oil are getting higher; population growth has already hit an absurd rate of development, and a scramble for alternative fuel sources are well in order. Coinciding with that is the rising temperatures over the world (you have to be an absolute idiot to claim that global warming does not exist at all) which is causing alarm and panic. So what could be better than to use that factor and benefactor to create a surge in the market by introducing "green alternatives" where compromises can be made in terms of performance of a product in favor of reducing the amount of resources used per product while further justifying higher price tags in order to save the environment. But perhaps that is just me; perhaps I'm just illicitly paranoid to the point that I need to complain about science being terribly convoluted to the point of blatant exaggeration in the hands of the panel of a group of "scientist" that claim to produce evidence that global warming is man-made. Perhaps I'm just some pawn representative of the Oil industry who is being paid to write this blog so as to convince readers to not buy green products or to convince them to continue using fuel inefficient cars. That's for you to decide, and for you to decide if I support the oil industry while being hell bent on nuking Greenpeace.

  • Posted Oct 30, 2007 3:54 pm GMT
  • 1 Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 25Jun 07

  The Fallacy of Using Game mechanics in Versus Debates

  
  

  It is surprisingly common that in many versus debates where characters or factions from games are involved, that most people decide to use game mechanics in order to support their native character or race. The end result is a naive and unsubstantiated amount of exaggeration that puts a given unit or race at levels of feats that barely exist and are subjected to change with every patch that is released. This common tactic in debating is actually the worse method of debating that has ever been witnessed by anyone who so much as participated in a versus debate, especially by those who have participated in the versus debates for an extremely long time. It's misguiding, incorrect and simply put: plain stupid. Game mechanics in the use of versus debates is a fallacious tactic due to the fact that game mechanics are: subjected to change, used not in it's entirety and generate an incorrect consensus.

  Like all game mechanics, come next patch for every game, every unit and/or structure is subjected to a certain amount of change in stats in order to continue the quest for a balanced game. Stats are reconfigured, units are either buffed or nerfed in order to meet requirements with the occasional severe compromise in a unit that used to do well(reference: Dawn of War: Horror squads switch to anti-infantry to anti-tank). Due to this inconsistency and this constant shifting to every unit's ability which effects their performance in-game, one can already notice the first reason as to why game mechanics in a versus debate are a bad technique in debating. This common amount of shifting of game balance results in a shift of unit powers that are used in debates. Because of this inconsistency which also causes an inconsistency in the debate forums, it safe to say that without any real ground to base it off of, basing unit strength off of stats are at best false because of arbitrary changes that occur. In order to illustrate this, I will make up some game units so as to better grasp the situation better: Unit X is able to kill 3 unit Z's as of the 1.00 patch. Fans tote these numbers as if it were fluff and say that unit X is able to kill 3 unit Z's before going down making them appear to be highly capable. A month later, patch 1.10 is released and Unit X has hit the nerf bait. He is now only able to kill 1 of unit Z. Now the fans are forced to use the "kill only one of unit X before going down stats" and their argument for unit X is rendered useless because of the nerf bait. However some would argue to simply use the most recent patch as the most relevant piece of fluff, which is still untrue because later on in the future, that current patch and all its changes will be updated later on.

  Another thing that should be noted, and this is also the most important one, is the common practice of using only the parts of a game that would for some reason or another justify their claims.(i.e zealots can kill a mob of marines while their shields soak up damage). They automatically assume that it is fluff and that it is what a zealot is capable of. However, what many fail to note is that if you consider something like unit X can kill this many unit Y while withstanding big giant shots from Unit Z, then you also concede that you are saying that everything else in their, every game mechanic in there is also part of the same canon. Which means that almost practically every air unit out there in any game is absolutely stupid enough to hover only a mere few hundred meters off the ground so as to put themselves into position of all kind of anti-air rounds or even worse, standard gunfire. It's even worse in a science fiction game, especially if there are ships with FTL and space capabilities, which would equate to, sheer stupidity. In other cases, especially the older games, a unit would require near point blank visual confirmation in order to start firing at something. And finally, a unit with a ranged weapon sees a horde of melee units moving towards them, they will not use their common sense and will not move back until their commander from high above tells them to do it. Some will just simply ignore those mechanics and say that the game is just meant to represent what they are capable of doing in real life. Again , this is an inane and absurd argument to make at best, because if it did really represent what they did in real life, then it would only further say that everyone is an idiot that needs to shoot at near point blank ranges, not move and remain in a fixed position unless ordered to move even when there are hordes of units moving towards them, and will have air units stupid enough to only hover several hundred meters of the ground. If you accept the stats, then you accept the game mechanics where the stats exist.

  Another fundamental problem is, is that there is enough people to actually use these stats, it will only encourage further stupidity and encourage other people to use these stats. Remember, if more people use it, it does not equate to fact. It merely means its the more popular thing to do. However one might wonder, what kind of fluff must be used if the games cannot be used? Common sense dictates that rather then use game mechanics, use novels and cinematics which are far more fixed and consistent then game mechanics will ever be (which is also subjected to bugs). Written manual fluff will only count if there is no other novels or cinematic which actually quantify anything in the manual in terms of ranges and firepower yield.

  It is suffice to say that I should however conclude with this statement: Only an idiot would use game mechanics to justify their argument.

  • Posted Jun 25, 2007 12:21 pm GMT
  • 2 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet

See Previous Blog Posts »