[164] Boys and Girls, The Perfect Debate

Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 8:38pm

While this isn’t prompted by a usual headache that spins off into a piece of brilliant insight, I am banking on the fact that I haven’t written anything tantamount to the amount of thinking I find myself doing. I think I’d like to touch on boys and girls, little ones because their skin is so soft, and how they interact with each other. I also what to mete out what I think it would take to be the kind of persuasive person to convey the “ultimate truth” that I think people are happy and well rehearsed in avoiding.

Now I’m sure this will be a hasty generalization, but I find it peculiar that when it comes to how boys and girls, or should I say men and women if you didn’t get my overtly creepy humor, interact with each other, there are major pitfalls in how the women choose to interpret the situation. I used to think it was simply my mother that would make the elaborate stories in her head about my character or intentions, but my recent endeavors with womanly kind is proving my view to be incomplete. I hesitate to say things like “all women do this,” but I don’t think I would be too far gone if I said many, if not most, of them do. I say this for one main reason, and speculative others I’ll elaborate on shortly. The main reason I feel is because of how they relate amongst themselves. Just as men get a kick out of knowing the same things about such cliches as sports or cars, a woman’s rally point is behind the eternal fight against men. If we speak purely about biology, guys are bigger, more domineering, are, historically speaking, the providers and purveyors of their clan or family. All of this doesn’t simply go away because of suffrage and a few hundred years. In light of this recent history, I can at least imagine, if not fully understand and empathize, why women would choose this line of behavior to characterize men and effectively “chalk one up” on the board for themselves.

Now obviously guys do the same sorts of things. They can underestimate women, make lude comments about how they’ll all act when aunt flow is in town, and outright disrespect their bodies in what may be described as immature jesting. So yes, women, I grant you that there are a plethora of reasons that you can mount a defense from and then counter attack to guys behavior. With that said, I think there is much misunderstanding when it comes to differentiating and dignifying the guys who can recognize when they’ve fucked up or mis-characterized you, and “guys in general.” In order to not have to keep restating this, it would be a safe bet to assume that anything I say about most girls or guys can and does go both ways.

I think I will be able to elaborate on my view if I address the notion of “girl talk.” Mr. Bowman and I found ourselves “struggling” to understand the waves of intricate girl understanding wafting through the air when I invited our female friends to engage us in a sample of this talk, or so it may have appeared. When it comes to girls, it seems as if they believe there is this secret that gets passed around with every phrase or utterance. Conversely, guys are about straight talk. When I describe my interactions or friendships with guys who are “on the level” it is because of this implicit understanding that if I call my friend stupid, he’s not going to go home and dwell on my narrow view of his intelligence and then get angry at me for the next hour or day. This kind of interaction does not carry over to women, at least in the same capacity, in my experience. What I feel happens is a projection of that “secret” that girls are passing around gets implemented into whatever comment or question the guy is asking. As if this isn’t a problem enough, girls minds are wired differently, which means they are going to be the ones who make all sorts of elaborate connections and ties to history that are going to immediately reinforce their perception of your statement. In other words, if I get called stupid, I don’t flash back to every instance my friend has called me stupid to then make a case for how he disrespects me or doesn’t care about my feelings. Nor do I think that the comment relates to my attire, relationship with my parents, or physique.

Now this is not to say that there aren’t times when what the guy says is laden with sarcasm, hidden meaning, and ignorant stabs, but the overwhelming majority of times, I assure you, this isn’t the case.

I am a fan of the show The Pick-up Artist. I can understand why many girls would not see it in the same ways I would, nor do I agree with every tactic or method in Mystery’s arsenal. With that said, the show is not designed to teach you how to become a “player.” The comments from the guys when they get booted off the show resound around the idea that it was a life changing experience, not a missed opportunity to get laid. Mystery makes it a point to answer questions about women or his method in the extras in which he does much characterizing of women as a whole. I can see why this would come off as insulting or short-sided to some women, but again, I see him talking from an evolutionary standpoint, and his personal past evidence, not from a pillar of assumptions he’s trying to batter women with. That is at the heart of my problem with this whole thing, these assumptions that go unchecked, and when challenged, rise up in revulsion with a wave of “how dare you.” This is what I feel the real battle is centered on. A perceptional one, with the guys either too lazy or frankly too stupid to care about making the little changes or being accountable, and girls vehemently entrenched in their method and ideals that culminates in a bubble of “womanly understanding” that alienates and demonizes guys whether they deserve it or not.

If not a purely speculative one, then at least a smaller part of it is an idea more reinforced from comments I hear about women from women. Apparently there are more self conscious and insecure than then men in general, if not dramatically more so. No, I don't find this as a secret or extremely telling, but I do feel it would help to explain why women mount the type of defense they do. If you don't feel good about yourself, no wonder you feel like the guy in question is attacking that aspect of you, regardless of what he's said. If I can supplement my philosophy on top of this whole issue, I would say that it goes back to people not being honest and intimate with themselves. Not understanding why they fail or what they excel at, and not choosing what framework they are going to implement that keeps it all in, key word, perspective. But that could be a digression for another blog.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Completely switching gears, you may even want to call it a different blog, but this is prompted after the latest debate I watched Hitchens v Wilson, which I’ve posted on my “Some Sources” blog. I’ve watched at least 7-10 debates involving Hitchens, and yet I felt this one came off better than his ones in the past. First, he wasn’t debating a raving lunatic like D’Souza and the format of the debate was conducive to straight question, answer, and clarify like a normal discussion. What was most striking to me was that his examples, which I’ve heard countless times, came off more emotionally impacting than I’ve seen in the past. Essentially, this prompted me to think about my dream debate and why I think it would go over so well. When it comes down to it, there are many complex, confusing, and seemingly contradictory reason why I do and act the way I do. The reason is because there is no other way for me to convey what it is I am in fact feeling or thinking at that moment. I feel like this undermines the integrity of my arguments or statements, but I simply must say so be it, and try even harder and conveying through work and results what it is I’m talking about.

And yet, how to go about this another way? Provide pinnacles of each aspect you see as important to influence as mass group of people. Find a way to portray the overall philosophy that people can feel as justified to identify with in as many ways that they’ve done with modern religion. This is more simply to say, create an all inviting atmosphere with tools people find easy enough to help entrench themselves within it. Christianity works because you can take whatever verse you want, given that it spans the whole of human emotions, and connect in that way. There are all sorts of sects and figures that you can choose from that vibe at your level. So I say, do that for secular ideals and promotion. There are times when I simply want the cool, overtly direct, and masterful use of language the Sam Harris brings to a debate, that I don’t feel some of the others convey as well. Where one may falter, stick in an artful genius to press the point as effectively and far as is able. No opportunity to say “well I’m not a physicist” because Lawrence Krauss is sitting next to you. “I’m not sure if it was Mathew or Mark” can easily be digressed from the point of Rook Hawkins, Dan Barker, or Bart Ehrman.

Just like I consider myself to be the sum of all the parts, be it the people I dignify as friends, the activities I engage in for fun, or my demeanor towards any given person at any time, I think arguments need to be viewed and expressed in this way. I never feel like my meaning is complete by just referring one book or one set of videos, because the essence of the ideals is embodied in everything I’ve learned as well as the process of how I’ve come to learn it. Your arguments and presence should not be constrained by a convergence of your assumptions. Your demeanor should not be a mere retaliation of your strife against others. It may take a relatively long time to come full circle and be able to express true empathy, accept points of contention to better understand an argument, and finally have the will and reason to make necessary changes to your Self and how you express it, but it has to be done. One comment I made the other day resounds through my psyche in one way or another all the time. I really wish everyone could just be happy, informed, expressive, and constructive, but I know I'm not going to have a real choice but to abuse, manipulate, and destroy them. When your "on the level" such a damning fate is impossible. When you understand what it is that I would convey in the perfect debate, nothing more really needs to be said.

 Billy Bowman at 10:17pm November 27, 2008

Was going to say something cliche about how right that first one was, but then I realized cliches piss me off because they sound retarded and decided to go off on a little tangent before I got back to my original point....

Which was, I agree with your first article, more or less, completely. I expect an uproar (as I'm sure you do) from certain ...  Read More people, but whatever. I'll read an respond to your second article (which I'm now going to call these writings of yours for reasons i could explain if you wish but are rather irrelevant to my point..) some other time.

 Chris Cashel-Cordo at 11:29pm November 27, 2008

"Now I’m sure this will be a hasty generalization"

It is.

 Billy Bowman at 12:23am November 28, 2008

When i first read your comment, cash money, i thought it said (or rather.. meant)...

Now I'll give you a hasty generalization: 'It is'

 Nick P. at 2:51am November 28, 2008

Ah, but by me denoting it as potentially hasty and a generalization I would hope you extracted that I understand the grounds I'm playing on and making sure it doesn't come off as overtly ill informed and presumptuous. By saying it anyways, I express my belief, to that extent, that it is not entirely hasty nor in bad taste by generalizing.

 Chris Cashel-Cordo at 8:58am November 28, 2008

I disagree. Its bullshit to try and base an argument off a base generalization. You do it four of five times in your first three paragraphs, and then it keeps showing up. And then you take these as fact. They are not facts. The question here is an interesting one, but an argument based on generalizations will have a hard time holding up to scrutiny.

 Billy Bowman at 12:04pm November 28, 2008

There are issues with basing an entire argument on generalizations, but I have to go with Nick here and say since he did qualify it, you can take it in stride that this argument applies and is only valid in the general case, and that there ARE exceptions--as many as exceptions as you can find that fail to meet one or more of his presumptions that he applied to the general case.

 Chris Cashel-Cordo at 12:09pm November 28, 2008

Fine. But there are more exceptions than examples that fit his generalizations, combined with the authoritative tone, make the argument simply end up seeming pretentious.

 Billy Bowman at 12:12pm November 28, 2008

Very well, however, in my experience, there are far more examples of this misunderstanding and mischaracterization then i find exceptions... as for the reasons, I don't care to speculate, and the ones listed are as good as any i suppose.

 Nick P. at 2:46pm November 28, 2008

"In order to not have to keep restating this, it would be a safe bet to assume that anything I say about most girls or guys can and does go both ways."

Let's remember that when it comes to a topic like this I don't really have a choice but to generalize and draw from my experiences in the past. It's one thing to talk of these exceptions as if they aren't few and far between, and another to hand me a thousand page book detailing how terribly wrong I am. I never once say "This is a fact" and always say how it seems or appears to me. This is also not really an argument, it's me describing my experiences with an issue that really pisses me off. Overwhelmingly in my experience what I describe has been the case, and take the zeitgeist around Hollywood portrayals of this alone to at least hint I'm not yards off base, and many have noticed the same thing. If you wanted an argument I would've made it specific and drawn up concrete examples and cited articles. Me pretentious? I'll just call it ironic given that I wrote it in opposition to the pretentious tone and look that comes my way when I try to understand why a girl is acting a certain way.

[149 (129) Holy Fucked] Prompted By Debates

Tuesday, September 2, 2008 at 8:39pm

I have to stop watching debates. It sickens me to think that people with Ph D's can reach a level of dishonesty that is frankly sickening. Some of you may not find it surprising that after watching another debate between Dinesh and Hitchens, I still want Dinesh sniped. I only got through about 5 minutes of the opening argument in a debate between Ehrman and Craig, and had to stop because of how ridiculously Craig managed to present the “facts” that “most historians agree” about Jesus's resurrection. It doesn't take a doctorate in biblical studies to read, nor does it take a genius intellect to fact check. Those are the only skills I practice, and they allow me the privilege of becoming angry and sick when the amassed bullshit comes spewing from their putrid gullets. Dinesh, no surprise, did his usual dance around questions and has seemingly forgotten the words “yes” and “no” are still legitimate and understandable ways of conveying an answer. Craig manages to find extra biblical sources written 5-7 years after Jesus's alleged resurrection (despite not a single document placing the event any less than 40-70 years afterward, let alone confirming its truth), and maintains an extremely vague and naively formulated notion of what “evidence” means. I shouldn't be unable to contain myself in yelling at my Ipod when someone is speaking. I can't fathom the reasons someone would put themselves in a debate, when a meagerly interested layman who can use The Google, can gather more than enough real evidence to silence the lies.

I'm still debating what aspects of the debate format I truly hate the most. We can start with the ten minute rants the persistently ignorant debater may go on. A Dinesh rant can drift so far from any established topic, you wonder if he even listens to the opposition before he opens his mouth. Or maybe I am disgusted with the idea that granting someone the opportunity to “rebut” somehow redeems the previous bullshit they've attempted to pass off. Let's not forget that generally debates are open to the public, so one of the most redeeming factors must be that a mass of, perhaps ill-informed people, can now walk away with a song in their hearts and a tear in their eye after having been touched by Dinesh, yay. Maybe its the complete ignoring of what it means to commit a logical error, phonetic faux pas, quote mine, and mischaracterization. Of course I could just as quickly mention the manner in which Dinesh's tone goes beyond presumptuous and pious onto something his fervently flapping lips and flailing arms are struggling to mimic. It could all just boil down into the vote at the end about who “won” that really got me, but this feels more like that despicable icing on an ever growing and disgusting cake. These debates have done little more than make me agonize for the guys on the other end of the table, and clench my brow in baffled disdain for the pathetic conductor weaving such a masterful train wreck.

Evidence is not something we take to be true until something new comes in and trumps it. Evidence comes AFTER and in SUPPORT of the question at hand. With that said, when a fucking idiot says the evidence for Jesus's resurrection is the gospel accounts, indeed actually written no less, by Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John, I don't care if they are a Ph D, they are emphatically wrong. They are not wrong because I say so, they are wrong because they choose to accept an outright destructive and backwards notion of the methodology behind drawing conclusions and formulating arguments. How ridiculous would I look if I said something like “evolution is true because Dawkin's says so in The Ancestor's Tale”? This is exactly what those who fight for religion do. The presuppose, they already have their answer, everything needs to be forcibly packed within the confines of the story whether it makes sense or not. Why do we grant ourselves the right to give up thinking because someone is a “noted scholar and department head” of some name dropped university. Titles do not depict the character of an honest, and dare I say capable, person to wrestle with any given issue at hand. The mere facts alone that Dinesh has no training in biology, no training in physics, no training in textual criticism, and hasn't even grasped the notion of properly quoting someone who is sitting five feet from him, should be enough to automatically disqualify him as someone deserving your respect as a Crusader for the faith.

It is granting these kinds of concessions to characters like Dinesh that are slowly eating away what our country's founders fought and died for. It is when we give a platform to someone so adamantly stupid and dishonest, from which to practically corral the curious yet uninformed masses, that we compile our problems and fuel the rate of our destruction. Pat Condell is one of the most outspoken Youtubers on what's happening in Britain when Muslim ideals, namely treating women like property, executions, hate speech, and ignorance, are going to become exempt from criticism. The Muslim community can be governed my Sharia Law instead of the laws of the country. Do you understand what this means? I've linked to his talk about it HERE. Whether there are suicide bombers within Christianity or not, does NOT detract from the real issue of doing anything, absolutely anything, because of unsubstantiated faith claims. It isn't the mere facts of the Crusades and Inquisition that make Christianity wrong. Dinesh loves the phrase “atheist regime” as if it makes any fucking sense whatsoever to call the absence of something the motivation for anything. By doing so he makes the argument about body count, not process or reason, alluding to only a few thousand (50-80, not “6 a year” as he'd so non nonchalantly tell you) dead in the past, compared to the millions dead at the hands of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, etc. who of course did all those things because they didn't believe in God. It wasn't totalitarianism, communism, psychotic mental dispositions, or a litany of other factors and pressures, it was because they didn't have God. Of course, no one would ask where God was while the ovens were heating up, but that's because they all know the answer. Next time I punch a baby in the face, just know it's because I found out the truth about Santa Claus.

Freedom of speech should not entail an ordained right to be considered correct before you present your case, yet this is what we concede. For example, when someone is introduced as Father or Pastor so-and-so, they are automatically granted a higher status when it comes to understanding “faith” affairs, or even when it comes to giving advice or guidance. I find it quite obvious that if a leader like that tells you to pray and read the bible more in response to financial or relationship troubles, they're frankly stupid. For whatever reason, and I've been mulling this one over for a while now, when you start a sentence with “my personal conviction, opinion, or view” it somehow makes you feel like you are exempt from being made fun of, being wrong, and being made a fool of. “According to me” only says to me “I have no clue what anyone else may have to say.” This is just sad and pathetic. Consequently, this is something we frequently see during debates. Some useless story about where the presenter is coming from and their path towards faith, is manifested as “evidence” behind the “truth” and “facts” they are getting ready to lie about. Dinesh is not only a fan of this, but he also throws mud at his opposition, attacks positions not on the table, and interjects random factoids, all of which are laced with half truths or outright lies.

I'm convinced that we are going to go down in flames, maybe much sooner than I had previously speculated. Are their fighters for reason and rationality, of course. Do they get a voice in public policy? No. Do they have the answers that can be packaged and shipped like the sound bites of religion and Republicans? No. Are there even enough of them to switch strategies and induce a violent uprising that would force natural selection upon those who enjoy rotting their brains and wallowing in complacency? Maybe with enough planning...

Some of my predictions for this lifetime:

1. America will be threatened with a nuclear bomb by an Islamic nation who is both willing and able to launch it.
2. More and more people will coalesce around religious or “spiritual” ideals as a result of their seemingly inexplicable combativeness with nihilism and reality, rendering them helpless and panic prone when faced with a life threatening problem.
3. Technology will drive us to always look for a new “fix” under the guise of words like “economical,” “environmentally friendly,” and “new and luxurious” all the while ignoring and never realizing what actually causes happiness.
4. A lesser tragedy will invoke the same kinds of responses we had to 9/11 that will further extinguish once sacred rights and privileges.
5. People will become exponentially ignorant, lazy, and afraid as the growing problems refuse to wait for us to become comfortable with solving and understanding them.

The less you care, the quicker these things will happen. Keep pretending you live in a bubble and watch as your reality changes day by day. Are you going to wait until you turn on the television to see a mushroom cloud before you stop worrying about getting your feelings hurt by learning something you didn't want to know? I await the day some new illness, who's greatest foe is stem cell research, starts wiping out the world because pandering to religious groups has stifled its progress. It was one too many when the first kid died because the parents believed in prayer and not going to the hospital. It is one too many who does not appreciate what it means to vote and be able to criticize the many many problems that will never get better without action.

These bullshit religious texts aren't saving us from global warming, no god posted a bulletin saying anything about what a fetus can or can't feel during an abortion, it is not a loving act to fuck alter boys in the ass, cover your women in black cloaks, tell your children they aren't capable of being good without a threatening god, persecute gays, execute by way of holy edict, deny horrors of totalitarianism, destroy your planet, pretend to love those who are evil, or martyring yourself for others “sins” that need to be acknowledged and grown from, not excused. ALL of these things come from faith, bias, ignorance, denial, delusion, fear, laziness, complacency, guilt, spite, immaturity, and piety, not revealed truth. From a universal perspective, you aren't even bacteria, yet you feel you are entitled to eternal happiness and perfect love. You seek this by way of opposing everything that fought to give you such an ego. Your faith brings nothing to the table. Your faith will be what kills you, and if I could sit back and watch you burn without resenting my own existence, I would.