[194] Petty "Exercise"

Monday, August 10, 2009 at 2:27am

I have problems, but who doesn't. I don't even have to allude to things I've written years ago for even a modest reader of my blogs to see. I have problems with trust, friendship, how other people "think," how I'm going to obtain what I expect in life, and then a host of all the stupid little things barely worth mentioning. The important thing to remember is that each person can be a context for their problems. There is a either a debilitating or prospective future for any problem if you are capable of handling it. Thus, when I ask someone who alleges to know all my problems, and accuse me of projections and blindness, I expect as many examples as I can give myself. We are our own worse enemies when it comes to that, and I've stated before you're hard pressed to point out, let alone elaborate on, the things "wrong" with me, to the extent I can. So, this is going to be an exercise taking apart and denoting what an empty accusation sounds like. This is going to be a standing example of how you don't tell someone they are wrong or what's wrong with them. I'm all for constructive feedback. I can take a verbal beating, but I will call you on your bullshit when your projections turn into accusations about me. I would urge anybody moved by this to join in and bash me, either agree with the paragraph or me, and maybe even work this out to a happy conclusion. This is purely for my own entertainment and is entirely oriented around me, so I don't really expect you to care to join, but don't feel like you can't. So let's begin.

The paragraph:

"It is quite annoying how you get upset over nothing... And yes it is nothing... Your emotions control you so much that they rush over the little dam you made for them... how you can never own up to what you really did wrong... and how everyone just let's you do that... you have made it so clear to everyone just to enable you... that that is all they do for you... and when one of them actually tells you what is wrong... you wave it away telling them that they know nothing... like you are surely going to do to this... You push people away when they get to close... You makes up reasons to hate them... and leech of of them... You need to be more happy with yourself... because you project a lot... I don't understand a lot of what you say... because you are telling me how i am suppose to feel... And i don't feel that way... You find a way of making someone's feelings about something wrong... Tho that is unreasonable...
And i just hope that you don't ignore this.... I want to be friends with you... but i can see that not happening... and i don't know why.... I haven't hurt you.... i haven't fucked up... i changed my mind.... and don't see how that is wrong because everyone does that.... even you... so... here it is what you wanted... and i gave it to you.... "

The breakdown:

"It is quite annoying how you get upset over nothing...And yes it is nothing..."

When I get truly upset, I write something. If you read what I write, please tell me if when I'm upset it is over nothing. Recall when we interact and assess how often I appear to be unintelligibly upset, and how little I want to share about it. If this line seems correct, please tell me why because I fail to see an example.

"Your emotions control you so much that they rush over the little dam you made for them..."

I'm really at a loss with this one given how little and how long it takes me to express emotions which entail a propensity to control. Things like love, super anger, sadness...the big ones. If you find me consumed by emotions, please elaborate. I tend to remember and have documented the times in my life where I've been overly or unjustly emotional, so referring to isolated instances or complex situations and draping them over the entirety of my personality seems unfair and incorrect.

"how you can never own up to what you really did wrong... and how everyone just let's you do that... you have made it so clear to everyone just to enable you... that that is all they do for you..."

My resounding problem with this is that it entails no example. I find I'm generally the first one to say what I fucked up and am met with a surprise by divulging too much. If you feel we've had some interaction where I was blatantly at odds or wrong and didn't own up to it or try to see your point of view, please tell me. Also, if you've been part of this "everyone" group who enables me to get away with such doosh-baggery, the blame assessment seems to get a bit more complicated. For the record, I don't feel like you enable me in the sense this is being portrayed.

"and when one of them actually tells you what is wrong... you wave it away telling them that they know nothing... like you are surely going to do to this... "

Now, I don't believe I get into the habit of telling people they know nothing, I'm offering this up as way to show what something empty looks like. You may know a lot of things, about me or otherwise. Knowing how to use them against me, not really how I want to word that but..., is another thing. Identifying and focusing on a common problem is rough, but it can be done, and I'd rather be doing that then "dodging" volleys of air. So, if I've told you I think you're wrong about something, did you get the impression I was saying you knew nothing, waving it away as a childish musing unbefitting my ears? I think I even engage tired religious arguments with undeserved vigor still.


"You push people away when they get to close... You makes up reasons to hate them... and leech of of them... "

As stated in my last blog, I said I think I'm a sociopath to the point of self-preservation. When people fuck you, it's logical to push them away. When people cause you stress, have personalities that are in some eternal conflict with yours, or use being close to you as a way to leverage their feelings, I would hope you push them away. Have you tried to get close to me only to have me push you away for no reason or in glaring contradiction of some earlier game or claim I used to make you believe something different about myself? Not sure if I want that one answered if so lol. Another thing is again, the lack of actual examples here. I make up reasons? Which ones? To hate who? Who do you remember me claiming to hate and do you recall why? What does it entail for you and I to be considered "close" in your eyes, and how have I detracted from that? What reasons did I use if I did? Five questions you answer instantly when you provide an example. The only person I would think I "leech" off of, and I don't agree with the word for my example, would be my dad. His settlement pays my bills and provides the foundation for me to get nicer things than most middle class people. I acknowledge and appreciate that, I don't abuse it like a leech.

"You need to be more happy with yourself... because you project a lot... I don't understand a lot of what you say... because you are telling me how i am suppose to feel...And i don't feel that way..."

I can almost pretty much agree with the first part. There are many things I could do to be happier with myself. I don't believe that a reason I would be unhappy is projecting. Again, what do I project and how? Who onto? For what reason? To me, this sounds like because this person who admittedly doesn't understand much of what I say, they project their confusion as my problem. A strategy I don't agree with. If I'm so confusing, so emotional, misguided, and project, please tell me in this shining example of me trying to remain objective and point out how I reason. When and what do I tell you what to feel about? If you have a shitty family for example, do I tell you should be as indifferent to them as they are angry and scornful to you? I'm sorry, I think this is a helpful suggestion, not mandate. Assume I do tell you how to feel even, does this negate your feelings? Does this disable your thought? Hardly. Can someone tell me what this charge amounts to? All I see is an admission that I can state something factually and have someone pissed off at me because they can't feel or practice what's appropriate.

"You find a way of making someone's feelings about something wrong... Tho that is unreasonable...
And i just hope that you don't ignore this.... I want to be friends with you..."

If I'm being nice, this attempt may be regarded as "friendly," but that's it. If I'm so "good" at finding a way to make your feelings wrong, does that say more about me or your feelings? Ask that question about any scenario where you may remember me doing something like this. It is possible to have unreasonable feelings. Take children. Also try to imagine how hard it is to reason with a child who's behaving as such. I don't like to take the anger of someone I've flip the light on about their feelings; it's unfair. A sentence like "i want to be friends with you" assumes you care or understand who it is I am. If you don't, it's annoying and insulting to hear it. And if you're a friend, who has a genuine argument or example for bettering my character, then it shouldn't feel so easy to show how little you're offering.


"but i can see that not happening... and i don't know why.... I haven't hurt you.... i haven't fucked up... i changed my mind.... and don't see how that is wrong because everyone does that.... even you... so... here it is what you wanted... and i gave it to you.... "

And finally, please ask yourself, can you see why this person can't see a friendship happening? Can you empathize with how little I can work or debate about with here. Was there a sudden flood of "damn whoever wrote this got Nick sooo right it's scary?" I think my belief in that is characterized in my putting this up in the first place. This person hasn't hurt me, but I believe they've fucked up. I don't think that fuck up was by virtue of changing their mind. I can say without hesitation this is exactly what I didn't want and it only served to elaborate on what you sound like when you have nothing to say. That goes for anybody.

I believe that by ignoring the message I would be enabling what I consider horrendous "reasoning." I believe I would be playing into a game I don't agree with and only serves to self destruct. The giant glowing and flashing word I take away from all of this is petty. Pettiness that fuels denial, masks the truth, and wastes effort...if you can call all I've written here that much effort. This is all I know how to do when it comes to explaining how I'll be and how I'll think. Am I truly that fucked?

Top of Form

Written about 7 months ago · Comment · LikeUnlike

Andrei Vajiac

for some reason, this post made me chuckle...
you should know that at least I don't see your emotions breaking through any "dam" pretty much... uh... ever. if anything, even when confronted by an extreme emotion, you do your best to be rational and logical about the situation at hand, so most people don't even realize that you may have strong ... See Morefeelings about what is going on.
as for enabling... i don't feel that i've enabled you to exhibit any bad traits or anything of the sort... i really don't understand where that comment, in particular, comes from
as for projecting, i don't recall any time where you have projected yourself onto me, so at least that can be cleared up a bit
and if you have the ability to make someone think their feelings are wrong, well obviously they weren't really sure about their feelings in the first place. If a simple conversation is able to make you doubt what you hold so dear, then maybe you need to revamp your feelings.

August 10, 2009 at 8:59am ·

Andrei Vajiac

in particular, i love how you make some very religious people start to doubt their own beliefs. not that i have a problem with religion, it's just that too many things are based on bullshit, and you seem to have quite a talent for showing people that. it's a quality i've appreciated about you for a long while.
as for wanting to be your friend but ... See Morenot seeing that happening, well that's a stupid statement, one that i've heard people say to each other many times in many different situations but that has no meaning whatsoever. friendship is a two-way street. if you want to be someone's friend, you can. if you don't, you can't. simple as that. most of the time friendships fail not as a result of a rational, logical problem between the two people, but because of an irrational thought or belief that makes one of the people an idiot. although i don't know the entire situation, and i have no idea who wrote this to you, this seems to be the case here.

August 10, 2009 at 9:05am ·

Andrei Vajiac

don't worry nick, you're not nearly as "fucked" as this message makes you out to be. in fact, you have many redeeming qualities that all the people who are friends with you can attest to and appreciate. that's why we call ourselves your friends.
we all have our problems, sure. we all have our own internal conflicts and instances where we are, ... See Morerelatively, fucked up... but that's the way this world works. if you can't accept someone they way they are, both the good and the fucked up parts, then maybe you don't understand the meaning of a true friendship (aimed not at you but to the person who wrote you the message). everyone has issues. nobody's perfect (i speak from my own experience) but unfounded accusations get us nowhere.
don't worry. if i ever see a major character flaw in you that threatens the well being of the entire universe, or at least our common group of friends, i'll let you know. Until then, rest assured that you are no more fucked up than any of us.

August 10, 2009 at 9:11am ·

Colin Hampton

Wow. Um. What? Did they read this before they sent it to you? Honestly? I'm baffled.

October 17, 2009 at 1:15pm ·

Bottom of Form

[173] Some People Fill Out Surveys

Friday, February 27, 2009 at 4:12pm

I got bored and tore apart his letter.

Last year I went to some "arbitrary title for god" presentations over a five day period. I got caught up talking to this guy named Tim who shows up at this years rehashing of the same thing. I spent the next few months "debating" this guy and frankly refuse to keep going. He goes nowhere, he doesn't study what he's talking about, and he likes to think that presenting his position with someone else's title above his makes a valid argument. Both he and the main presenter hold these notions about violence and death and this being "the bloodiest century ever" somehow supported by the bible as well. Here's his last email to me after I sent him this video:http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

If you want to find a time waster, please watch the video, read his response, and then ask me why I spent months of my life in correspondence with him.

Hey Nick,

First of all, thanks again for coming to the meetings and speaking with us.

I finally got a chance to look at the Pinker video on Wednesday (recall my slow connection and the fact that I have to view these at the public library).

It was interesting. I agree with him that technology has brought the world together to some extent and that it can (when used wisely) be used for peaceful and cooperative purposes. However, it is not always used wisely. [This statement has no bearing on the point of what this discussion; referring to "20th Century being the "bloodiest"] Both technology and education in and of themselves have not demonstrably solved the core problems of human existence, but have in fact in many instances added to them, i.e. nuclear weapons, technological warfare, computer viruses and internet abuses including pornagraphy and exploitation, etc. Thus the continued need to address the issues of morality . . .[Someone tell me the relevance of porn]

Regarding the issue of the history of violence: Actually very little of his presentation was devoted to provding evidence for his thesis that violence is decreasing.[His entire presentation was predicated on this question.] Most of it was about providing the reasons for why he thinks it is so. [Statistics, graphs, historical figures, all sound like opinions to me.] Where his evidence was lacking was in the extrapolation from a isolated population of a group who was particularly violent and drawing conclusions based upon percentages. [Please tell me what "isolated population" who was "particularly violent" that was used to skew the data] What would be needed would be a more representative cross section of the world population of all cultures and all previous centuries and a shown marked decrease. This was not done.[One, you can't get recorded data in areas of the world and time periods where they don't/didn't record things. Two, the purpose of the percentages is to level the playing field when making comparrisons as well as get a general idea of how and why people were dying in those more remote populations. Three, Pinker does a deliberate job starting from a millenium scale and extrapolating down to show indeed that violence/death do go down. To say this was not done is simply a lie.]

Another problem was isolating windows of time and place, i.e. Europe and the Middle Ages. [Please reference this point in the talk to discern for yourself how this was "misleading." One would think that detailing just how misleading it was and how would lend credence to the statement.] Also misleading were the statistics from "deaths from armed conflict" as if this is how all violent deaths occur, and that this provides evidence for general improvement. This is not so. Deaths in concentration camps are not in "armed conflict". Deaths in Siberia and Gestapo or KGB raids, or terrorism are not "armed conflict." [One, "armed conflict" is not what Pinker particularly addresses over death due to violence in general. Two, to isolate "armed conflict" (which after watching the video four times I can't seem to see where he spends a significant amount of time espossing) is to again misrepresent and lie about the presentation. Three, Pinker made very direct points about including the deaths from the World Wars and genocides both past and current in his analysis. Is this man deaf, retarded, or clinically admissable for denial?]

The statement at issue by Justin (and many others) is that the 20th century has been the bloodiest in history (this is not just about war). I didn't find evidence that contradicted this in the video. [Neither Justin or Tim provide evidence of thier claim. They barely "site" examples like the holocaust, the wars, the genocides, etc. to which when directly addressed by Pinker's video, they seem to pretend doesn't work.] Also misdleading was his quoting of Bible passages out of context and mentioning torturous practices of the past. [Tell me jury, when eras of people use the bible to justify they're violence, and a presentation on violence alludes to the same passages used then as are sometimes even used today, is this "out of context?" Also, please grant to Tim that they were used out of context and ask him what the "appropriate" or "right" context therefore is, because he won't tell you anymore than he told me.] As if people don't torture animals for entertainment today! [Torturing animals today because of sick pleasure or mental instability is not the same as making a show in the middle of a French square, laughing and applauding, but this difference is wasted on Tim.] As if the Nazis didn't torture sadistically! As if torture is not common today in certain societies![There is no point in bringing up torture. I never made a claim about torture, the video is not on torture. The only thing that could be said about torture is that the amount of it is assuredly going down, not that it doesn't still exist or should somehow be non-existent if we were getting better as a society. This is what Tim implies, and in case you havn't talked to him whole heartedly believes]

David Fraser noticed some of the same things I did:[Who the hell is David Fraser? I'm not refuting David Fraser]


"This presentation proves that selective use of readily available data can create anything but a history. The pattern of violence (too narrowly defined by Pinker) is more on the order of an inverted U curve: low among hunters-gatherers, much more common among horticulturalists (which are the groups from which his examples came--and even then from the most violent examples among those), peaks in agrarian societies and then begins a gradual, though extraordinarily bloody decline in modern industrial orders. What is missed in his presentation is that the 20th century is the bloodiest century of human history on the scale of killings (the major and minor wars; the civil conflicts; the revolutions; the terrorists). Even norming it by the percentage of population does a disservice to the state-induced killings. One wonders whether 20th century genocides, the deaths from conflicts in the lake region of East Africa, southern Sudan, the "honor" killings in Islamic societies, the violence of the drug trade or the trafficking in human flesh, the forced labor of children, the deaths from toxic pollution by major industrial concerns, the death of women at the hands of abusive husbands -- and whole spectrum of violence was included in his reckoning.
What to say of then of his ethnocentric treatment of biblical material? As though legal statements were enacted practice. Taking texts and even practices out of their socio-cultural context and time and ridiculing them does not amount to proof of levels of violence. How many instances are recorded of any of the provisions of the Mosaic legislation he mentions? What were the customs of the surrounding ancient middle East?
I do not find this presentation to be credible in its argument. It should be titled a brief modern "myth" about violence. Its Euro-centric and ethnocentric presentation of selective data minimizes the extraordinary violence of the present and maximizes the past, unfairly."


Regarding empathy: Granted we have impulses of empathy. We also have impulses for self-preservation. What is the third impulse which tells us we should empathize and do the right thing even at our personal peril? [Still empathy, as well as group selection]

Examples: Save the drowning man even though you are endangering yourself.[No one ever qualifies the people that don't in fact try to save this drowing man when they themselves can't swim or will obviously go down with him. Throw somone into Niagra Falls, place Tim on the edge, tell me if this analogy is still workable.]
Wistle blow on the corrupt company though you lose your job and even your family in the process.[Because we knows this happens all the time]



Why have all societies (regardless of religion) recognized adultery and sex before marriage as wrong[STOP. Such an unbearably ridiculous statement shouldn't have to be tolerated in an intelligent discussion/"debate." Most societies, including ones alluded to in the bible through god's will fucked everything that moved as often as they could as early as the girl had a hole to put it in. If anything our modern understanding of sex shows that it is both normal and healthier to have sex when your horny, safely, and often, if your both consenting] when according to evolution [get ready for it] the idea for men was to "spread his seed around" to as many women as possible?[Evolution is the change in species over time. It doesn't say a damn thing about males spreading their seeds in as many women as possible. What mythical air he pulled this from is beyond me. If anything haveing hundreds of bastard children you couldn't take care of would lead to many of them being unprovided for and therefore unfit to carry on your genes.]

Many acts are known to be wrong though they have no bearing [They may and do] on the survival of the individual or the supposed benefit of the race as a whole: To murder [Murder the people who are going to murder you. Methinks this will make you live longer], commit adultery [How this is violent, leads to death, is relevant, or is viewed as wrong in more ways than meager infidelity is still beyond me], steal [If stealing food means you get to eat, your going to live longer], lie,[When you like to the SS about where your hiding your Jews, they get to live longer] or cheat[This word implies you are working within a sustainbale and just system] are all known to be wrong regardless of the ostensible survival benefit for the individual or society as whole.

But why should someone even care about society as a whole if it conflicts with his personal survival or interests? [As a social non-retarded animal, we understand our survival is intertwined with how well our enviornment(society) runs. Who really needs this fucking explained to them?] Where did we get this idea that we should put others before ourselves and not be selfish? [Probably from people who understood the mutual benefit of cooperation, another grotesquely complicated idea I know.]


Indeed, the "benefit of society as a whole" can become very subjective and problematic when moral absolutes are ignored and disregarded.[Or maybe when you impose moral absolutes where none have ever existed.] This is in fact what has precipitated many of this century's bloodbaths.[Of course.] With the disregarding of moral absolutes, power fills the vacuum. Communism, Nazism, and other genocides have all been precipitated upon the idea of "what is good for society as a whole", or the "survival" of the nation or the individual.[Would anyone with even a meager understanding of a social contract or any other "ism" explain that they are not genocides. Also, tied in with any "ism" is a consordium of social factors, psychology questions, extenuating circumstances, misunderstood phenomena, etc that play into the "simple" words of Communism or Nazism] Without an absolute law defining what is evil, it's up to anyone's whim. But many societies still accept the idea of certain moral absolutes and have believed that the nations and individuals who perpetrate attrocites are in fact actually doing evil, regardless of their own excuses for doing so: thus there are war crimes tribunals, international law, etc.[Because we have no other reason to say they are wrong than "because they are wrong" obviously.]

Without moral absolutes, morality is subjective.[Tell me what about our history and individual liveds doesn't tell you this is true to at least some extent especially when considering different circumstances.] When it is subjective, anyone can define it for their own selfish and evil purposes. [As selfish and evil are synonomous] Why should we not be selfish and evil? We've come full circle. Our consciences[Tim's abstract voice in his head that tells him more or less how he thinks is reasonably reasonable to act in certain situations depending on his beliefs about those situations and the people involved not to mention imbued with the "knowledge" that if he is more disposed to certain behaviors an infinate reward is in order] tell us that morality should NOT be subjective, that the Nazis and Communists and Pol Pot and all the rest should have known better[And a wag of my finger to them], that they too know what is right and wrong but chose to do what is wrong.[Again, understanding what is "wrong or right" and doing otherwise doesn't say a thing about moral absolutes the second one and only one person comes to a different conclusion based on the same evidence or situation your theory is refuted. We like to believe we have good reasons to call things like murder right or wrong given the situation. As if we could predict the future...]

Blessings,

Tim

[120] Take The Good With The Bad

Sunday, August 17, 2008 at 2:09am

For the life of me if I come across another one of these “This is my first moment trying to be deep” blogs with fifteen “omg omg omg I never knew you were so insightful!” comments I'm going to shit.

Here's my problem. It isn't that these kids are finally thinking, or at least thinking “out loud” for others to agree with. It isn't even really that others feel “inspired” or uplifted by the blog. My problem is that I can't find a single stitch of something that feels personal, original, or really coming from that daunting place in that persons head.

“Life has its ups and downs, and all we can do is try to stay as happy as possible.”

I've read damn near 5 versions of this sentence, some paragraphs long, followed by a congregation of comment applause and tears. I'd like to use my No Shit stamp before the comma, and for the latter, a question. Do you have any clue how much more can be said about happiness, and the pursuit thereof, that isn't summed up so nicely in your overtly cliché and empty adage? I think what really gets to me the most isn't the tepid self-help book words, but how quick and easy the readers fall in line. I'm bothered that these people don't find themselves thinking as “deeply” as what they've just read. I'm amazed at how much time can be spent flapping about the awesomeness of new babies and lilies in the field, and the “bad stuff” is just that. A little bone thrown to the idea that the world is just as shitty as always despite today you feeling like its the best place ever. When happiness comes at the shunning, and almost complete disregard for reality, I'm annoyed.

“I wonder why that distended* stomach kid doesn't swat that the flies in his eyes....O what a beautiful sunset!”

This is all that mantra teaches. I don't think enough people are getting angry. I want more people to have an opinion that wasn't handed down to them by parents or a required reading book. Become cognizant of the fact of objectivity and form real opinions that stand for something because you know they're right and don't just feel good going down. I just got done ranting about girls not getting treated well in relationships. I wonder if they have a set understanding of what “good” and “bad” really mean to themselves before they end up in a relationship. I'm sure there's an abundance of “relationships can be tough, if you really love the person yada yada bullshit.”

Did you know when gas went to 80 instead of 40 cents per gallon, people rioted in the streets all over the country? What's happening in our society? There's talks of restricting and policing the Internet. There's the patriot act. Some people are getting chips implanted in them. Religious fanatics are ready send us to God. Our fucking atmosphere is getting destroyed, and our ice caps our melting. Species are going extinct at insane rates; species that can provide cures to the panoply of diseases that are set to wipe out the human race. And all the while people can barely work out the fight they're having with their boyfriend over where to go on Valentine's Day.

I say be constantly aware of the downs in the proverbial ups and downs of life and make yourself sick over them. How can you grow as a person only using half of the equation for life? What happens when all you ever are is maddeningly positive and disillusioned of your circumstances? My first thought is an extremely naive religious person. You know “hehe, God will fix it, sit pretty and pray...” those types. Meanwhile the world remains in shambles. You don't appreciate the significance of something by noting it in the margin of your ever-so-pleasant world view.

Please stop getting in lines to swallow your spoonfuls of life. Stop ignoring the real starting points of insight.

9 comments

Updated about 3 months ago

Julie Ann Stelzer (Merrillville Senior High School) wroteat 2:48am on August 17th, 2008 How's this for insightful... 'You're an ass.' What makes you think that people care anymore about your opinions than you do about theirs and their insights?? Huh?? Report - Delete

Nick P. wroteat 2:51am on August 17th, 2008 They may not, I'll try to refrain from tearing up. Delete

Julie Ann Stelzer (Merrillville Senior High School) wroteat 2:58am on August 17th, 2008 Unless you are planning on personally repairing the ozone, curing world hunger, and fixing our corrupted govt, my suggestion to you is to lighten up. Do what u can to help but its not something one or even a handful of people can fix in a blink of an eye. Dont lose sleep over something that is quite frankly, out of your control. Stop and smell the flowers my friend. Help where you can but dont forget to live your own life along the way. Report - Delete

Nick P. wroteat 3:17am on August 17th, 2008 Ah, then perhaps you may understand where I see the real problem. "No single rain drop thinks it is responsible for the flood." We're good at contributing to disaster and then trying to hide. I conversely want this to work in a positive direction. I don't believe people can get to the mental point necessary to tackle humanity's issues by sedating their thoughts with cliches and comforting speeches. That's all my thing is. We've never really hung out, but while my writing might not reflect it, I assure you I'm quite light in the heart. Delete

Billy Bowman (Bloomington, IN) wroteat 8:51am on August 17th, 2008 'There's talks of restricting and policing the Internet.' Thankfully the FCC shot down bandwidth restrictions. And did you mean distended stomach kid? I think if someone had a distilled stomach.. uh.. well nevermind I know how you feel about these silly people thinking they'rer deep, but at least they are thinking. About nothing mind you, and coming to all the wrong conclusions, but it is a start. --on a random note, my power just blinked off, but by the grace of the Firefox 3 programmers, my response was saved when i finally powered my computer back on and started up Firefox-- 'Take the good with the bad' isn't a brilliant philosophy, it's a fact of life. There is good and there is bad in the world, if you don't take them together, you're fucked. The only way to avoid it would be to kill yourself... which i wouldn't mind happening with the great majority of people. The real problem is when people do start thinking, they get satisfied with themselves, they think they've figured something out, and they stop, when in reality, they've figured nothing out. And even if they had, why stop thinking? There's some more of that good with the bad.. sure, they started thinking.. but they stopped.. Ah well i could go on an on but i'll start repeating myself no doubt, and facebook is about to throw on it's comment limit.. Report - Delete

Nick P. wroteat 12:04pm on August 17th, 2008 That's basically it Mr. Bowman. It's almost as if thinking is abused to make yourself happy, then put on the back burn as if the burden is too great, or no reason is left, to go on. You said the only way to avoid taking the good with the bad is to kill yourself, and I think that's exactly what's happening. I struggle to find informed personal opinions and insights. The abilities for honest introspection and accountability appear all but dead. I don't even expect these people to be brilliant philosophers you know? I just wish that if your going to travel a road, you come prepared with perhaps reading of the "brilliant" philosophers or reflections on a trying situation. Why sound obvious and typical? Delete

David M.L. Jaffe wroteat 2:10pm on August 17th, 2008 From a economic standpoint (I sure do view things in that way a lot), you must remember, blogging is becoming a HUGE trend. It's turning into "do it or you're lame." Not only that, but there's people blogging just for the sake of money. They spew out bullshit they don't believe in, or chances are in this case, don't even understand, stick some advertisements on it, and hope that they make some money, which they won't. So then they stop, bye bye fake deep thoughts. Then we have the people who are truly TRYING to think deep, but just fail, the people you were talking about I presume. In my opinion, they're realizing how shitty the world is becoming, and want to give themselves false hope, or even try to show themselves off when they really have nothing. They think "well I'm depressed, I'll think of ways to fix the world," or "shit, I'll turn religious and pray to God for the lulz." They'll believe they're geniuses, and brag about it on blogs. Deep thinking in this aspect is just fucking ridiculous. It's like faking your thoughts (does that happen to be a sin? If so, then IRONY!!) With that said, it's hard to say exactly how to think deep. IMO, it's like something you just need to discover how, kind of like how the religious ones say to "become enlightened." I have my deep thought situations once in a great while. I don't really know how it happens, it just does. And I don't brag about them, I just kind of think "huh, that's a pretty sweet idea," and go on with my life. The really big problems in the world... I honestly think it's too late to save them. Unless the worlds greatest minds can join up and research and think. Which will probably lead to arguments over which country has the better mind, related to what you said about people fighting over stupid things. Summed up, it just seems people are becoming more and more fake. That's all there is to it. Report - Delete

David M.L. Jaffe wroteat 2:11pm on August 17th, 2008 P.S. Off topic: You had a bit more room to go Bowman :p. I'm moving in on Friday, lets get some food that weekend, as you're already there. Report - Delete

Billy Bowman (Bloomington, IN) wroteat 2:15pm on August 17th, 2008 Yea i guess i did.. haha, i just got so used to it kicking in when i'm commenting on Nick's posts that i was expecting it.. and sure, food sounds good.