The word 'a-theist' literally defines itself. The prefix 'a' means 'without', such as the word 'a-symptomatic' which explains a lack of symptoms.
Likewise, an 'a-theist' is without theism (from the Greek word, 'theos' or 'god'). Therefore, one who lacks god-belief or a belief in gods is an atheist, quite literally. This tells us nothing about what views the person holds, whether he or she enjoys long-walks on the beach, prefers fuschia over mauve or is an omnivore or vegetarian. When you discover an atheist, all you know by definition is that person has told you they lack a belief in a god or gods.
Similarly, the word 'a-gnostic' defines itself too. This term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in the late 1800's regarding his personal views about god-claims. Huxley was one of Darwin's most vociferous supporters of evolution and referred to as 'Darwin's Bulldog'.
A-gnostic literally means 'without knowledge', as the word 'gnostic' comes from the Greek, 'gnosis' which is, 'knowledge'.
Some atheists make a distinction between what you can or cannot know empirically, and what you actually believe or disbelieve. Either way, claiming 'not to know' a god-claim logically results in atheism just as positive rejection of said claim would. Let me explain:
If you cannot empirically know a proposition because it doesn't deal in the natural world, then there's no reason to abstain from rejection of that claim. With god-claims, the claim is 'all there is'. Thus, if the claim fails due to internal logical inconsistency or incoherence, then it's safe to reject the claim on its face.
That said, once you've heard a particular claim, you are by definition no longer agnostic, for you know the claim (which is all there is). You can be empirically agnostic about a god hiding behind Venus when we look behind Mars, but that would entail accepting that there even *is* a god who could flit around the Universe at will.
For instance, if I present to you the properties for the Flying Spaghetti Monster...all knowing, all seeing, all noodly, ever-present, mostly good and tasty, you would be forced to deal with the claim on its own merits. You cannot escape into 'agnosticism' because you know the claim now. Ask where it is, and I might tell you it's invisible, undetectable. Ask for measurements, and I would claim it's incorporeal and again, undetectable, and furthermore, lives outside of the known Universe. Of course, how do I know this creature even exists if I admit he is outside the known Universe?
The claim for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as described is ridiculous, and thus can be rejected out of hand. There is no agnosticism, because the claim, which is 'all there is' is now known to you and subject to review.
Thus, 'agnostic' is not a third position as it applies to god-claims. An agnostic as self-described is necessarily 'without knowledge' of a given god-claim and thus cannot ascribe belief to that which he claims not to know. When one calls himself an agnostic, one necessarily embraces atheism by way of lack of knowledge.
Sometimes, the agnostic simply misrepresents his lack of knowledge (purposely or not) even though the ridiculous claims are there for review, and thus is not agnostic about a given claim. If the agnostic holds a belief *in spite* of admitting he 'doesn't know', then he's really a theist who doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'agnostic', which is quite common. This is often why agnostics as self-described are often hostile to atheists, or theists, or both!
A major reason people use this term lies with the demonization of the word 'atheist'. Some dictionaries list atheism as being 'wicked' in a third or fourth definition of the word. The word atheist is misunderstood, slandered and viewed with shocking disdain by the general public, and atheists are often referred to as 'the most hated minority group'. Sadly, this contributes to confusion surrounding this simple, self-defining word, causing some to discard it in an effort to use a 'friendlier' term.
An atheist is not a devil-worshipper, it's not a religion any more than abstinence is a form of sex, it's nothing other than a lack of god-belief. Some atheists, feeling pressure to avoid this term have resorted to 'agnosticism', but some of those think they are somehow agnostics without being either theists or atheists, but this is no different than the person who at once claims neither belief or nor disbelief in invisible pink unicorns...change the claim to something less culturally sensitive and the evasive semantics of self-proclaimed agnostics (who deny atheism) start to become clear.
Atheism or theism simply deals with a rejection or acceptance of god claims. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, but if you've heard the claim of god you're tasked with accepting or rejecting, you are by definition *not* agnostic about that particular god-claim.
If you reject all claims of god, even if you allow for evidence (which any reasonable person would), you're an 'atheist'. If you accept any kind of god idea, whether it's liberal pantheism or fundamentalist young-Earth creationism, you're a believer, a 'theist'.
Either way, the god-claimants have the burden of proof. Maligning the innocent skeptical non-believer doesn't prove any god or further the case of the believer, but thousands of years of oppression have bullied some into a state of silence.
The claims are there. Lean on them with the full weight of your intellect. If an idea has any merit, it will stand scrutiny and those who profess those ideas won't need to resort to slander.
Until then, if you call yourself an agnostic, you're also an atheist. If you have any kind of belief in any kind of god, you're by definition a 'theist'. Anything else is semantic trickery, evasive shell-games and simple ignorance.
-dB-
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Prostitutes
When you go to work in the morning, your time ceases to be your own. Except for a small percent of you who work for yourselves and don't have to answer to anyone, you're basically offering a service (your presence, your brain and your skills) for a price. You even have to fight for space with all the other prostitutes on the freeway, and since companies all tend to keep similar hours, we get to sit in traffic. For those in retail, we're told 'The customer is always right' even if the person is being s slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging jackass asking why there aren't tablesaws in Housewares. 'Sorry sir, just policy sir, I don't make the rules sir'. Nom, nom, nom. You sir, are violating your own sensibilities for 9 goddamn 50 an hour. 'Come again sir'.
Yes, you are a prostitute. We're all prostitutes.
Whether we're gutter sluts working for minimum wage, or higher-priced escorts making a fat packet, we're offering ourselves for money, and we compete for the privilege. The 'service' might end in a seminal emission or a brain-lock but the fact is, service for pay is just commerce, and it's none of our fucking business or the government's business what consenting adults do with their time or money, as long as we're not hurting anyone.
Ok, so some of you will talk about prostitution in the more traditional sense, that is, selling sex for money, is BAD because there are body parts touching. Well, consider massage, physical therapy, chiropractic, etc. You pay someone to touch you. In fact if they don't touch you they can't do their jobs properly. Why is it legal to pay someone to massage you all over but not have sex with you? Why is it legal for porn-producers to pay people to have sex on camera which results in media which is sold legally, but it's not legal for some chick to charge 20 bucks for head? WTF is going on here?
George Carlin summed it up best: 'I don’t understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal, fucking is legal. So, why isn’t it legal to sell fucking? Why should it be illegal to sell something that’s legal to give away? I can’t follow the logic. Of all the things you can to do a person, giving them an orgasm is hardly the worst. In the army they give you a medal for killing people; in civilian life you go to jail for giving them orgasms. Am I missing something?'
If you're a consenting adult, you should have every right to pay someone for sex as you would a massage. Sex is really just another type of massage if you think about it....especially considering that it's legal to have sex for free! It's the height of ridiculosity to think that you can pay for a massage, but not pay for sex. You can pay for chiropractic (hell insurance even covers it) but you can't pay anyone for some kanoodling.
What's the difference? Nothing!
The law would have you arrested in a sting operation, wasting taxpayer money on an army of police trying to 'catch' some guy paying for sex from an undercover cop saying all the right things. Ok, where's the crime? He almost had sex for money?
People spend all kinds of money and resources in trying to get sex or attract mates. Women compete in their own way to get someone's attention and this entails looking-good. There are whole industries surrounding this. Men do the same, and sometimes even fight over women....and fighting is not cheap when you're in the ER, jail or getting sued.
Yes, we all go through a lot of trouble, money and resources to pursue sex and mates, but you can't actually just whip out a Benjamin and pay for what you're after in the most direct sense. I suspect that some sex-crimes are the result of a suppressed sex-drive or inability to find sex.
This is one reason why we see so many 'holy men' involved in scandals. Suppress a natural sex-drive and strange things happen. Just take a look at Ted Haggard. He opposed gay-marriage from the pulpit, but is caught having paid-gay sex with his masseur, Mike Jones in 2006. Funny how that works...even Ted Haggard, who ostensibly opposes his own sexuality based on his religious beliefs, cannot seem to suppress his natural inclination or attraction to men. Simple illegality is not the answer, and despite Ted Haggard's tremendous hypocrisy, we should not be alarmed or shocked when people seek out sex with whatever resources they have with other consenting adults.
Sure, there are downsides to prostitution, but this has nothing to do with the *right* one should have to pursue it, regardless of whether we agree with their choices. Hell, I don't agree with people buying giant fucking SUV's or having 19 kids like the Duggar-factory in Arkansas, but those are choices they've made. It's not my business what car someone drives, how many kids they have or who they have sex with and what it costs them in resources, time or money.
Some people have religious views against prostitution, but you know I've thought carefully about that and decided, well, who cares what your god thinks....nobody's god has ever been proven *ever* and can't even be defined coherently. Religion is irrelevant when it comes to the natural world. Quoting from a 2000-year old collection of anonymously-written fairy tales has nothing to do with anything, anymore than quoting the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster would seem relevant in a sensitive discussion about abortion or stem-cell research.
Think about it. Topic, gun-control. Thoughts?
'The great Fleekeemikmak of planet Sookulsh says ixnay on the unsgay!'.
Correct response: 'You sir, are a fucking moron. NEXT.'
There is zero difference between this example and anything a theist says in reference to a Bible when applied to the natural world. Zero difference. The only difference is the social impetus to 'respect' this belief due to sheer numbers of believers......but the stories are no different in their idiotic appeals to mystery and authority.
The pursuit of sex always costs money, time and resources and as we know, time+resources=money. Some guys choose to get married and get tangled up in expensive divorces...not a choice I would make, but they were willing to gamble and it's their choice. If they think that it's worth half their net-worth to 'secure' a woman, that's them. I think it's a terrible bet considering the more than 50-percent divorce rate, but they are consenting adults....just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to get married.
Likewise, it's none of mine, yours or the goverment's business which consenting adults have sex, or whether a consenting man manages to wrangle more than one consenting woman to participate in his harem. Certainly it's none of our business how much time, resources or yes, money it costs those who pursue mates or just sex because in the end, we're all prostitutes.
-dB-
Yes, you are a prostitute. We're all prostitutes.
Whether we're gutter sluts working for minimum wage, or higher-priced escorts making a fat packet, we're offering ourselves for money, and we compete for the privilege. The 'service' might end in a seminal emission or a brain-lock but the fact is, service for pay is just commerce, and it's none of our fucking business or the government's business what consenting adults do with their time or money, as long as we're not hurting anyone.
Ok, so some of you will talk about prostitution in the more traditional sense, that is, selling sex for money, is BAD because there are body parts touching. Well, consider massage, physical therapy, chiropractic, etc. You pay someone to touch you. In fact if they don't touch you they can't do their jobs properly. Why is it legal to pay someone to massage you all over but not have sex with you? Why is it legal for porn-producers to pay people to have sex on camera which results in media which is sold legally, but it's not legal for some chick to charge 20 bucks for head? WTF is going on here?
George Carlin summed it up best: 'I don’t understand why prostitution is illegal. Selling is legal, fucking is legal. So, why isn’t it legal to sell fucking? Why should it be illegal to sell something that’s legal to give away? I can’t follow the logic. Of all the things you can to do a person, giving them an orgasm is hardly the worst. In the army they give you a medal for killing people; in civilian life you go to jail for giving them orgasms. Am I missing something?'
If you're a consenting adult, you should have every right to pay someone for sex as you would a massage. Sex is really just another type of massage if you think about it....especially considering that it's legal to have sex for free! It's the height of ridiculosity to think that you can pay for a massage, but not pay for sex. You can pay for chiropractic (hell insurance even covers it) but you can't pay anyone for some kanoodling.
What's the difference? Nothing!
The law would have you arrested in a sting operation, wasting taxpayer money on an army of police trying to 'catch' some guy paying for sex from an undercover cop saying all the right things. Ok, where's the crime? He almost had sex for money?
People spend all kinds of money and resources in trying to get sex or attract mates. Women compete in their own way to get someone's attention and this entails looking-good. There are whole industries surrounding this. Men do the same, and sometimes even fight over women....and fighting is not cheap when you're in the ER, jail or getting sued.
Yes, we all go through a lot of trouble, money and resources to pursue sex and mates, but you can't actually just whip out a Benjamin and pay for what you're after in the most direct sense. I suspect that some sex-crimes are the result of a suppressed sex-drive or inability to find sex.
This is one reason why we see so many 'holy men' involved in scandals. Suppress a natural sex-drive and strange things happen. Just take a look at Ted Haggard. He opposed gay-marriage from the pulpit, but is caught having paid-gay sex with his masseur, Mike Jones in 2006. Funny how that works...even Ted Haggard, who ostensibly opposes his own sexuality based on his religious beliefs, cannot seem to suppress his natural inclination or attraction to men. Simple illegality is not the answer, and despite Ted Haggard's tremendous hypocrisy, we should not be alarmed or shocked when people seek out sex with whatever resources they have with other consenting adults.
Sure, there are downsides to prostitution, but this has nothing to do with the *right* one should have to pursue it, regardless of whether we agree with their choices. Hell, I don't agree with people buying giant fucking SUV's or having 19 kids like the Duggar-factory in Arkansas, but those are choices they've made. It's not my business what car someone drives, how many kids they have or who they have sex with and what it costs them in resources, time or money.
Some people have religious views against prostitution, but you know I've thought carefully about that and decided, well, who cares what your god thinks....nobody's god has ever been proven *ever* and can't even be defined coherently. Religion is irrelevant when it comes to the natural world. Quoting from a 2000-year old collection of anonymously-written fairy tales has nothing to do with anything, anymore than quoting the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster would seem relevant in a sensitive discussion about abortion or stem-cell research.
Think about it. Topic, gun-control. Thoughts?
'The great Fleekeemikmak of planet Sookulsh says ixnay on the unsgay!'.
Correct response: 'You sir, are a fucking moron. NEXT.'
There is zero difference between this example and anything a theist says in reference to a Bible when applied to the natural world. Zero difference. The only difference is the social impetus to 'respect' this belief due to sheer numbers of believers......but the stories are no different in their idiotic appeals to mystery and authority.
The pursuit of sex always costs money, time and resources and as we know, time+resources=money. Some guys choose to get married and get tangled up in expensive divorces...not a choice I would make, but they were willing to gamble and it's their choice. If they think that it's worth half their net-worth to 'secure' a woman, that's them. I think it's a terrible bet considering the more than 50-percent divorce rate, but they are consenting adults....just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to get married.
Likewise, it's none of mine, yours or the goverment's business which consenting adults have sex, or whether a consenting man manages to wrangle more than one consenting woman to participate in his harem. Certainly it's none of our business how much time, resources or yes, money it costs those who pursue mates or just sex because in the end, we're all prostitutes.
-dB-
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Contact:The Ending
Carl Sagan's movie, 'Contact' was great, and the book that inspired it was amazing. What irks me about this movie is the ending *spoiler alert in case you've just woken from a 12-year coma*.
Ok, so Ellie Arroway hears a signal from the Vega system. It's indepently-verified by countries around the world as a series of prime numbers ending in 101 as the Universal language of math which any decently-advanced human civilization should understand as an intelligent-response signal.
The signal is discovered to contain images, sound, and oh yeah, blueprints for a machine which humans decide to build at a cost of a third of a trillion dollars (and they build two). After the first one is blown up by a religious fucktard (no surprise there), Ellie is selected as the occupant who will ride the second one to wherever it goes.
Then, the ball drops through, and when Ellie seemingly doesn't 'go' anywhere, the people who invested gargantuan amounts of money and who have no idea how this machine works (yet understand how big space is) simple don't believe Ellie's account, and she's basically put on trial.
Ok look numbnuts, it's not like I walked into the woods and came back with a story. We heard a signal, from Vega. That's fucking crazy. It counted through prime numbers which we all verified. Unprecedented. Then, we find structure and plans for a machine. Rich nations of the world and skilled scientists and teams of contractors build this thing for a cost greater than the GNP of many countries. Ok, done. The thing works. Fuckin-A, remember this came from a signal from outer space. We start the thing up and it creates enough energy to shake nearby buildings. Oh wait, did we learn how to build this from a signal that came from outer space? Yes.
We send a human through and she lives and has stores to tell about her experience, and NOW we're all god-damned skeptics!!! Here's a tip, be skeptical BEFORE you spend 2/3rds of a trillion!
I love the movie Contact, one of my favorites of all time, but trying to compare Ellie Arroway's experience to 'mere faith' is a category error. Faith is based on 'all things hoped for' or some drivel, but in contact, humans had verified the Vega-signal all around the world. Humans purportedly found repeated broadcasts, like the 'pong' to our 'ping' and the blueprints designated some kind of working structure that clearly humans wouldn't understand (after all we're not exactly space-faring yet) and...the humans who built it clearly agreed it was worth spending a third of a trillion dollars on....twice.
All of this and Ellie comes back alive. I think in real life, someone would have discovered the 18 hours of footage before Ellie was put on trial, and who would think some electronic gizmo is gonna transmit her voice from freakin' Vega anyway, not to mention modifying the plans sent from interstellar space and putting a seat in, as if a caveman is gonna improve on the Corvette.
In the end, Ellie is exonerated by the 18 hours, but long before that the evidence was crystal mother-scratchin' clear that aliens were talking to them.
I think 'Contact' movie-makers felt they had to treat 'faith' with kid gloves lest all the sensitive Christians piss themselves in anger, but come on, faith is not on par with anything where there's the slightest bit of evidence, because let's face it, in the world of faith anything goes.
That said, 'Contact' is a beautiful movie, and the way they treated the alien-contact made so much sense. Jodie Foster is so believable...perfect choice for the role. It's just too bad they had to make a big deal about Ellie's experience being on par with mere 'faith', because last I checked, nobody's god was sending any kind of signals from anywhere.
-dB-
Ok, so Ellie Arroway hears a signal from the Vega system. It's indepently-verified by countries around the world as a series of prime numbers ending in 101 as the Universal language of math which any decently-advanced human civilization should understand as an intelligent-response signal.
The signal is discovered to contain images, sound, and oh yeah, blueprints for a machine which humans decide to build at a cost of a third of a trillion dollars (and they build two). After the first one is blown up by a religious fucktard (no surprise there), Ellie is selected as the occupant who will ride the second one to wherever it goes.
Then, the ball drops through, and when Ellie seemingly doesn't 'go' anywhere, the people who invested gargantuan amounts of money and who have no idea how this machine works (yet understand how big space is) simple don't believe Ellie's account, and she's basically put on trial.
Ok look numbnuts, it's not like I walked into the woods and came back with a story. We heard a signal, from Vega. That's fucking crazy. It counted through prime numbers which we all verified. Unprecedented. Then, we find structure and plans for a machine. Rich nations of the world and skilled scientists and teams of contractors build this thing for a cost greater than the GNP of many countries. Ok, done. The thing works. Fuckin-A, remember this came from a signal from outer space. We start the thing up and it creates enough energy to shake nearby buildings. Oh wait, did we learn how to build this from a signal that came from outer space? Yes.
We send a human through and she lives and has stores to tell about her experience, and NOW we're all god-damned skeptics!!! Here's a tip, be skeptical BEFORE you spend 2/3rds of a trillion!
I love the movie Contact, one of my favorites of all time, but trying to compare Ellie Arroway's experience to 'mere faith' is a category error. Faith is based on 'all things hoped for' or some drivel, but in contact, humans had verified the Vega-signal all around the world. Humans purportedly found repeated broadcasts, like the 'pong' to our 'ping' and the blueprints designated some kind of working structure that clearly humans wouldn't understand (after all we're not exactly space-faring yet) and...the humans who built it clearly agreed it was worth spending a third of a trillion dollars on....twice.
All of this and Ellie comes back alive. I think in real life, someone would have discovered the 18 hours of footage before Ellie was put on trial, and who would think some electronic gizmo is gonna transmit her voice from freakin' Vega anyway, not to mention modifying the plans sent from interstellar space and putting a seat in, as if a caveman is gonna improve on the Corvette.
In the end, Ellie is exonerated by the 18 hours, but long before that the evidence was crystal mother-scratchin' clear that aliens were talking to them.
I think 'Contact' movie-makers felt they had to treat 'faith' with kid gloves lest all the sensitive Christians piss themselves in anger, but come on, faith is not on par with anything where there's the slightest bit of evidence, because let's face it, in the world of faith anything goes.
That said, 'Contact' is a beautiful movie, and the way they treated the alien-contact made so much sense. Jodie Foster is so believable...perfect choice for the role. It's just too bad they had to make a big deal about Ellie's experience being on par with mere 'faith', because last I checked, nobody's god was sending any kind of signals from anywhere.
-dB-
Friday, August 28, 2009
Rape: A Crime of Violence?
There are some who say that 'rape' is a crime of violence and not sex. Duh. All violent crimes are crimes of violence, but rape is about sex with violence as a means.
If rape didn't require some kind of violence or threat of violence, women (and some men) the world over would simply say 'no thank you, I would prefer to avoid non-consenting sex' and the rapist would have no recourse....aside from violence, that is.
See, violence is the *means* by which someone gets what they want while the other person is resisting or considering it. This is how people make others do what they want right then and there, and it works in law-enforcement too. Don't wanna be arrested? They'll forcibly cuff and carry you to jail. Is it an arrest of violence, or a means to expediently get a perp to jail? Clearly, the latter.
Obviously, I am going to refuse to let some uncouth stranger just have sex with me coz he/she feels like it...so naturally the rapist puts two and two together, predicts this outcome, and shows up prepared, or opportunistically chooses a weak party. If rape were simply about the violence, the rapist wouldn't need to bother adding sex to the equation and would just be really violent.
If you refuse to give up your money to a robber, there's a threat of violence or worse. If you refuse to hand over your car in a car-jacking, there's the fear of getting shot and likewise, some rapes are probably non-violent (aside from the rape itself) simply because the perp has a weapon and is threatening the life of the unfortunate victim.
Rape is not *just* about violence. Rape is a violent means some criminals choose to pursue dangerous, illegal and unwanted sex.
I feel for the victims of rape, I really do, but let's be honest about this crime and not pretend it's something it isn't, and it can't be much consolation to tell someone a 'rape' is about violence and not about sex, when clearly the sex was the harrowing part of the ordeal, especially in rapes where there was only a *threat* of violence (which most of us would take seriously).
This is just another repeated myth I had to address. I am not really sure why people repeat this notion. It doesn't fix anything and I am sure provides no real comfort to anyone who has been raped. No matter how some might spin it, rape by definition includes sex....whether it's 'only about violence' or not.
-dB-
If rape didn't require some kind of violence or threat of violence, women (and some men) the world over would simply say 'no thank you, I would prefer to avoid non-consenting sex' and the rapist would have no recourse....aside from violence, that is.
See, violence is the *means* by which someone gets what they want while the other person is resisting or considering it. This is how people make others do what they want right then and there, and it works in law-enforcement too. Don't wanna be arrested? They'll forcibly cuff and carry you to jail. Is it an arrest of violence, or a means to expediently get a perp to jail? Clearly, the latter.
Obviously, I am going to refuse to let some uncouth stranger just have sex with me coz he/she feels like it...so naturally the rapist puts two and two together, predicts this outcome, and shows up prepared, or opportunistically chooses a weak party. If rape were simply about the violence, the rapist wouldn't need to bother adding sex to the equation and would just be really violent.
If you refuse to give up your money to a robber, there's a threat of violence or worse. If you refuse to hand over your car in a car-jacking, there's the fear of getting shot and likewise, some rapes are probably non-violent (aside from the rape itself) simply because the perp has a weapon and is threatening the life of the unfortunate victim.
Rape is not *just* about violence. Rape is a violent means some criminals choose to pursue dangerous, illegal and unwanted sex.
I feel for the victims of rape, I really do, but let's be honest about this crime and not pretend it's something it isn't, and it can't be much consolation to tell someone a 'rape' is about violence and not about sex, when clearly the sex was the harrowing part of the ordeal, especially in rapes where there was only a *threat* of violence (which most of us would take seriously).
This is just another repeated myth I had to address. I am not really sure why people repeat this notion. It doesn't fix anything and I am sure provides no real comfort to anyone who has been raped. No matter how some might spin it, rape by definition includes sex....whether it's 'only about violence' or not.
-dB-
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Anty-Intallecshualizm
'Dont loose this blog, its to importent. Your going to need it latter'.
I am sure my fellow Spelling Nazi's are freakin' over my horrid spelling, coz it pains my spleen to read it. I purposely typed it like this to get a reaction from those who know better. Those of you who spell badly might not notice a thing and wonder what I am on about, but we'll get to that.
See, the Interwebs is basically a world of text with pretty pictures. All the bad-spellers of the world may have wished they paid more attention in English and spelling. Your mistakes are out there for all to see, and I am referring to native-English speakers here.
The thing is, does the person with bad spelling know he/she is making these mistakes? Clearly not, otherwise something has to be seriously wrong to know you have a spelling error, but be unable or unwilling to fix it. Bad spelling on the InterTubes™ is sorta like being in the middle of a massive stadium with a piece of toilet paper on your bum. You may be oblivious, but everyone else can see it and will be snickering away whether you know it or not.
Ok, sure, some small percent of you are actually learning-disabled. Some of you talk about being learning-disabled when you're corrected, probably in an effort to shut people up. I don't think 'lazy fucker' has been diagnosed as 'learning disabled' has it? When I correct someone on his spelling, I am doing that person a favor. I mean, I already know how to spell, and I assume others want to improve their spelling since errors are so obvious. I correct people because I find it super annoying...but I really do want to help the person fix a glaring, simple error. It's kinda like seeing a Coke can on the ground, I have an urge to put it in a recycle bin even though it's not my can.
We're not talking typos here, we're talking people who routinely mix up your/you're or there/their/they're or too/to, lose/loose and general spelling mistakes. Spelling, whether we admit this to ourselves or not, has a lot to do with how we're perceived when it's so visible in emails, forums, twitters, blogs, etc. Why *wouldn't* someone want to be as precise as possible?
It's not the spelling-errors themselves which bother me as much as the anti-intellectualism I sometimes see when the spelling is corrected. Here are some of the excuses I've heard:
'You can understand me, right?'
Yes, I fucking understand you, but what I am not telling you as that I have determined that you're uneducated, lack attention-to-detail and are probably not a reader, but I didn't tell you that.
Here's another good one: 'Who cares, you don't spell everything right either' (as they scour months of posts to find the slightest typo, as if that fixes the glaring ignorance leaping off the page from their posts and response to a simple spelling-correction).
Another favorite is, 'it was a typo' when months of logged-conversation show the same spelling mistakes, over and over. Sorry mate, a typo is a mechanical malfunction of your fingers, not a recurring error...that comes from your brain.
Another doozy is, 'I just spell like that to save time'. I see, nothing like typing like a moron to save a little time, learning bad habits which might come through when you really need to spell correctly. Yeah, good thing you saved those collective 2 minutes over the course of your Internet life because we all know you have to catch that private jet to the summit meeting....or maybe PornHub.
See, the response to 'Hey you spelled that wrong, here's how you spell it right' should NOT be more fucking ignorance. This just makes the person look ignorant and on top of that, militantly-ignorant. If someone points out a piece of crap on my car, do I scream at them about their car being dirty, and does that help my piece of crap? Should I distract them saying I am 'cleaning disabled' even though my car looks pretty good otherwise? Or, do I secretly wipe the dung off and pretend it was never there? NO.
I'd thank them, take care of the issue and move on. Spelling corrections (like any valid corrections) should be welcomed. Acknowledge it, fix it and never make the mistake again ever (unless you have the memory of a fucking gnat).
What bad spelling says to me, straight away, is much more than a simple mistake. It's the person not being observant, not being a reader (or they should notice correctly-spelled words being different than their own) and not pursuing accuracy. When that person is corrected and they react with ridiculous ruses or more ignorant distractions it just shows an inability or unwillingness to learn or improve. Somehow it seems like this would carry over into other areas of life and should be a red-flag.
With some jobs there is little room for error, and certainly no room to coddle mental-weakness or intellectual dishonesty. Sure, if you work in the business of religion, you're used to suspending your brain and not letting facts get in the way, but if you're a rocket-scientist you better fucking get it right, metric or imperial better be understood, you better get those decimal places right and don't act like a retarded asshat when a colleague corrects you (especially when you know he's right).
If one cannot accept the correction, then one is simply hiding from the truth and it's obvious. The person is embarrassed but chooses to react with anger in a silly attempt to distract the correcting party, and the distraction is obvious. In addition, the hostile reaction often does not result in any type of research and correction of said spelling and thus the person is clearly too dense to deal with simple words they use commonly, or too apathetic and lazy to bother.
I used to spell 'equation' like 'equasion'. Not an egregious error, but when discussing this in an email, I immediately noticed someone responding with 'equation'. I noticed their word didn't match mine so I looked it up. Yep, I was wrong, and had been spelling it wrong for 20 years! I fixed it and never spelled it wrong again since (barring typos). See? It's that simple. If you live long enough your spelling should be near perfect by the time you die of natural-causes, right? Shouldn't an observant person who cares about accuracy fix spelling pretty much the minute they notice others spelling it differently, assuming there's something to correct?
Words affect how people perceive you and effective language will let your thoughts flow better. Bad-spelling is confusing and/or distracting.
Here's an example:
'I had to much dessert!'.
OMG it's a trap! The word 'to' is used as a preposition, but in this example it's meant as an adverb to describe 'too much'. I was all ready for a preposition but it was a bait and switch! I had to backtrack and re-read the trick-sentence with the correct meaning. Sprinkle enough of these in a few paragraphs and it's annoying and distracting to the reader. The lack of effort and accuracy will quickly annoy people and could make them take their ideas less-seriously.
What also gets me is 'there, their, they're'. These are common words. Someone who is 30 had 20+ years to get this right. I mean, these are COMMON words. How difficult is it to get it right, and what is the downside of getting it wrong? Is it wrong to think someone is a fucking retard, lazy, unobservant, etc. when he/she gets this wrong *consistently*? Harsh, I know.
When one is corrected about spelling, and it's verified as a good correction but the person continues the bad spelling...that is not just a mistake. It's anti-intellectual, plain and simple. Sadly, it seems fairly common nowadays, and not just with spelling.
/rant.
If you find any spelling errors, please let me know because I will thank you. Seriously.
-dB-
I am sure my fellow Spelling Nazi's are freakin' over my horrid spelling, coz it pains my spleen to read it. I purposely typed it like this to get a reaction from those who know better. Those of you who spell badly might not notice a thing and wonder what I am on about, but we'll get to that.
See, the Interwebs is basically a world of text with pretty pictures. All the bad-spellers of the world may have wished they paid more attention in English and spelling. Your mistakes are out there for all to see, and I am referring to native-English speakers here.
The thing is, does the person with bad spelling know he/she is making these mistakes? Clearly not, otherwise something has to be seriously wrong to know you have a spelling error, but be unable or unwilling to fix it. Bad spelling on the InterTubes™ is sorta like being in the middle of a massive stadium with a piece of toilet paper on your bum. You may be oblivious, but everyone else can see it and will be snickering away whether you know it or not.
Ok, sure, some small percent of you are actually learning-disabled. Some of you talk about being learning-disabled when you're corrected, probably in an effort to shut people up. I don't think 'lazy fucker' has been diagnosed as 'learning disabled' has it? When I correct someone on his spelling, I am doing that person a favor. I mean, I already know how to spell, and I assume others want to improve their spelling since errors are so obvious. I correct people because I find it super annoying...but I really do want to help the person fix a glaring, simple error. It's kinda like seeing a Coke can on the ground, I have an urge to put it in a recycle bin even though it's not my can.
We're not talking typos here, we're talking people who routinely mix up your/you're or there/their/they're or too/to, lose/loose and general spelling mistakes. Spelling, whether we admit this to ourselves or not, has a lot to do with how we're perceived when it's so visible in emails, forums, twitters, blogs, etc. Why *wouldn't* someone want to be as precise as possible?
It's not the spelling-errors themselves which bother me as much as the anti-intellectualism I sometimes see when the spelling is corrected. Here are some of the excuses I've heard:
'You can understand me, right?'
Yes, I fucking understand you, but what I am not telling you as that I have determined that you're uneducated, lack attention-to-detail and are probably not a reader, but I didn't tell you that.
Here's another good one: 'Who cares, you don't spell everything right either' (as they scour months of posts to find the slightest typo, as if that fixes the glaring ignorance leaping off the page from their posts and response to a simple spelling-correction).
Another favorite is, 'it was a typo' when months of logged-conversation show the same spelling mistakes, over and over. Sorry mate, a typo is a mechanical malfunction of your fingers, not a recurring error...that comes from your brain.
Another doozy is, 'I just spell like that to save time'. I see, nothing like typing like a moron to save a little time, learning bad habits which might come through when you really need to spell correctly. Yeah, good thing you saved those collective 2 minutes over the course of your Internet life because we all know you have to catch that private jet to the summit meeting....or maybe PornHub.
See, the response to 'Hey you spelled that wrong, here's how you spell it right' should NOT be more fucking ignorance. This just makes the person look ignorant and on top of that, militantly-ignorant. If someone points out a piece of crap on my car, do I scream at them about their car being dirty, and does that help my piece of crap? Should I distract them saying I am 'cleaning disabled' even though my car looks pretty good otherwise? Or, do I secretly wipe the dung off and pretend it was never there? NO.
I'd thank them, take care of the issue and move on. Spelling corrections (like any valid corrections) should be welcomed. Acknowledge it, fix it and never make the mistake again ever (unless you have the memory of a fucking gnat).
What bad spelling says to me, straight away, is much more than a simple mistake. It's the person not being observant, not being a reader (or they should notice correctly-spelled words being different than their own) and not pursuing accuracy. When that person is corrected and they react with ridiculous ruses or more ignorant distractions it just shows an inability or unwillingness to learn or improve. Somehow it seems like this would carry over into other areas of life and should be a red-flag.
With some jobs there is little room for error, and certainly no room to coddle mental-weakness or intellectual dishonesty. Sure, if you work in the business of religion, you're used to suspending your brain and not letting facts get in the way, but if you're a rocket-scientist you better fucking get it right, metric or imperial better be understood, you better get those decimal places right and don't act like a retarded asshat when a colleague corrects you (especially when you know he's right).
If one cannot accept the correction, then one is simply hiding from the truth and it's obvious. The person is embarrassed but chooses to react with anger in a silly attempt to distract the correcting party, and the distraction is obvious. In addition, the hostile reaction often does not result in any type of research and correction of said spelling and thus the person is clearly too dense to deal with simple words they use commonly, or too apathetic and lazy to bother.
I used to spell 'equation' like 'equasion'. Not an egregious error, but when discussing this in an email, I immediately noticed someone responding with 'equation'. I noticed their word didn't match mine so I looked it up. Yep, I was wrong, and had been spelling it wrong for 20 years! I fixed it and never spelled it wrong again since (barring typos). See? It's that simple. If you live long enough your spelling should be near perfect by the time you die of natural-causes, right? Shouldn't an observant person who cares about accuracy fix spelling pretty much the minute they notice others spelling it differently, assuming there's something to correct?
Words affect how people perceive you and effective language will let your thoughts flow better. Bad-spelling is confusing and/or distracting.
Here's an example:
'I had to much dessert!'.
OMG it's a trap! The word 'to' is used as a preposition, but in this example it's meant as an adverb to describe 'too much'. I was all ready for a preposition but it was a bait and switch! I had to backtrack and re-read the trick-sentence with the correct meaning. Sprinkle enough of these in a few paragraphs and it's annoying and distracting to the reader. The lack of effort and accuracy will quickly annoy people and could make them take their ideas less-seriously.
What also gets me is 'there, their, they're'. These are common words. Someone who is 30 had 20+ years to get this right. I mean, these are COMMON words. How difficult is it to get it right, and what is the downside of getting it wrong? Is it wrong to think someone is a fucking retard, lazy, unobservant, etc. when he/she gets this wrong *consistently*? Harsh, I know.
When one is corrected about spelling, and it's verified as a good correction but the person continues the bad spelling...that is not just a mistake. It's anti-intellectual, plain and simple. Sadly, it seems fairly common nowadays, and not just with spelling.
/rant.
If you find any spelling errors, please let me know because I will thank you. Seriously.
-dB-
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Out Campaign: A is for atheist.
I've decided to come out of the closet. No, I'm not gay, but some of my best friends are. ;)
Instead, I'm posting on my blog as an atheist, with 'atheist' in the title even though it's visible to prospective clients or employers. Shows to go ya how hated a minority we are when gay people are out without (much) incident, but atheists are still heavily closeted. I am all for equal-rights too and I am glad to see social-progress, but it sucks being in what is likely the world's most- hated minority group.
It's kind of a big deal, because I always have the fear that clients/employers will run screaming from the hills when they discover my atheism, though I'd taken great pains to hide it in the recent past.
The 'Out Campaign' was started by Richard Dawkins as a way to get atheists to come out and be seen, especially by other atheists who might come out as well. This could trigger an avalanche of awareness and acceptance similar to the gay movement. As more atheists leave their hiding places more people will realize that we're everywhere, and that's hard to ignore.
Atheists comprise a huge minority, and the fastest growing one in America. 16% in the U.S. alone are atheists or non-religious which is a staggering 49 million Americans. This outnumbers other minority groups like Catholics, Jews, even black people (not all of you are from Africa, I know). ;) We're your brother, sister, father, mother, friend, doctor, teacher and your video game artists specializing-in but not-limited to characters, specifically modeling and texturing.
Atheists have been so closeted and disorganized that we haven't been able to flex our political might to get merely equal treatment. In the vacuum of oppression, some have stepped in to try and foist religion into government and into our rights, and yes, even the rights of other believers. A better-organized group of un-closeted non-believers would be more effective at resisting religous tyranny, if nothing else, at the grass-roots level, because conversations do change minds (that's how I became an atheist in the first place). But, the first step is coming out. To that end, I urge fellow non-believers to check out Richard Dawkins's Out Campaign.
We're here. We're atheists. Get used to it.
-dB-
Instead, I'm posting on my blog as an atheist, with 'atheist' in the title even though it's visible to prospective clients or employers. Shows to go ya how hated a minority we are when gay people are out without (much) incident, but atheists are still heavily closeted. I am all for equal-rights too and I am glad to see social-progress, but it sucks being in what is likely the world's most- hated minority group.
It's kind of a big deal, because I always have the fear that clients/employers will run screaming from the hills when they discover my atheism, though I'd taken great pains to hide it in the recent past.
The 'Out Campaign' was started by Richard Dawkins as a way to get atheists to come out and be seen, especially by other atheists who might come out as well. This could trigger an avalanche of awareness and acceptance similar to the gay movement. As more atheists leave their hiding places more people will realize that we're everywhere, and that's hard to ignore.
Atheists comprise a huge minority, and the fastest growing one in America. 16% in the U.S. alone are atheists or non-religious which is a staggering 49 million Americans. This outnumbers other minority groups like Catholics, Jews, even black people (not all of you are from Africa, I know). ;) We're your brother, sister, father, mother, friend, doctor, teacher and your video game artists specializing-in but not-limited to characters, specifically modeling and texturing.
Atheists have been so closeted and disorganized that we haven't been able to flex our political might to get merely equal treatment. In the vacuum of oppression, some have stepped in to try and foist religion into government and into our rights, and yes, even the rights of other believers. A better-organized group of un-closeted non-believers would be more effective at resisting religous tyranny, if nothing else, at the grass-roots level, because conversations do change minds (that's how I became an atheist in the first place). But, the first step is coming out. To that end, I urge fellow non-believers to check out Richard Dawkins's Out Campaign.
We're here. We're atheists. Get used to it.
-dB-
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Kathy Griffin's on my A-List
Kathy, I know you love your gays, but I think you should be asking, 'where are my atheists at' too, coz girlfriend you crack me up. *A-snap*.
Kathy Griffin loves to ruffle feathers, and we're not talking about gentle ribbing....she has a way of pointing out the ridiculous with unflinching directness and a sharp wit. Nobody is immune, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, the Olsen Twins, the Catholic church and yes, even mother-scratchin' Jesus.
Thank goodness some celebrities out there have the gumption to be openly-non-religious or at least, mock religion. Religion has slandered everyone for thousands of year without restraint. I can't say Kathy is a non-believer (she calls herself a fallen-Catholic), but you can bet non-believers love her schtick, and I am one of them. I especially love when she calls the kid-fuckers out...it's pure comedy gold.
Award shows should not be a place for believers to force a captive audience to listen to their fairy-tale explanations of how a superbeing blessed them with the award, to the exception of other qualified candidates. It's the height of arrogance to dismiss the efforts of musicians, record companies, managers, agents, promoters and even the street team as the simple act of some invisible space-monster. So what is it, you can't win an award through your own talent and efforts?
Kathy Griffin refreshingly broke this trend. Here is her Emmy-acceptance speech, which was purged from the telecast-version:
'"A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now."
Fuckin-A that was ballsy, and it's no surprise that sensitive-space-pixie worshippers yet again will censor dissent. It's about time someone told it like it is. Kathy didn't just refrain from mentioning a diety like others who don't preach during acceptance speeches or believe in such a thing, she explicitly said a diety, namely 'Jesus' had nothing to do with the award. Mad props.
Kathy, and you're on my 'A' list. Thanks for having the courage to be different and make this atheist laugh in the process. The Catholic League might be some schmuck behind a computer, but atheists in this country exceed 33 million based on the latest poll figures. We outnumber the Kid-Fuckers™!.
You are not alone, and thanks for telling it like it is!
-dB-
Kathy Griffin loves to ruffle feathers, and we're not talking about gentle ribbing....she has a way of pointing out the ridiculous with unflinching directness and a sharp wit. Nobody is immune, Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, the Olsen Twins, the Catholic church and yes, even mother-scratchin' Jesus.
Thank goodness some celebrities out there have the gumption to be openly-non-religious or at least, mock religion. Religion has slandered everyone for thousands of year without restraint. I can't say Kathy is a non-believer (she calls herself a fallen-Catholic), but you can bet non-believers love her schtick, and I am one of them. I especially love when she calls the kid-fuckers out...it's pure comedy gold.
Award shows should not be a place for believers to force a captive audience to listen to their fairy-tale explanations of how a superbeing blessed them with the award, to the exception of other qualified candidates. It's the height of arrogance to dismiss the efforts of musicians, record companies, managers, agents, promoters and even the street team as the simple act of some invisible space-monster. So what is it, you can't win an award through your own talent and efforts?
Kathy Griffin refreshingly broke this trend. Here is her Emmy-acceptance speech, which was purged from the telecast-version:
'"A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus. Suck it, Jesus. This award is my god now."
Fuckin-A that was ballsy, and it's no surprise that sensitive-space-pixie worshippers yet again will censor dissent. It's about time someone told it like it is. Kathy didn't just refrain from mentioning a diety like others who don't preach during acceptance speeches or believe in such a thing, she explicitly said a diety, namely 'Jesus' had nothing to do with the award. Mad props.
Kathy, and you're on my 'A' list. Thanks for having the courage to be different and make this atheist laugh in the process. The Catholic League might be some schmuck behind a computer, but atheists in this country exceed 33 million based on the latest poll figures. We outnumber the Kid-Fuckers™!.
You are not alone, and thanks for telling it like it is!
-dB-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atheist Angle RSS Feed