i find it personally enriching to dabble in the controversial, and this early morning i discover myself entrenched in a particularly amusing one.
homosexuality: is it a choice, or is it natural?
the amazing essence of this question lies in the very true observation that before one man can even formulate his own thoughts and opinions to derive a strong answer to (i hope) represent his character and moral, he is first flooded with the already heard-of voices of the many who have spoken before. what pains a polemicist like me is not the substance of those opinions, but the blatant illogicity upon which they were designed--the substance behind the substance.
therein lies the stunning enjoyment i derive from this terrible question--it bears no value save for fueling fallacious arguments in a case of homophobes trying desperately to rationalise the undesirable amidst their perceived ideals, in a world that is inherently flawed, vis-a-vis homosexuals who are forced to reply with polar opposite responses in order to defend the state of their sexual orientation in society; to label homosexuality with the word choice definitely implies a possibility for change while to call it nature renders it, perceptively, unchangeable, or at least that there is no reason for such because that which is exterior to the realm of choice is also external to the considerations of morality (ie. because only the unnatural may be immoral).
and so on one hand, they who believe that gayness is a choice are almost surely anti-gay, and they who believe otherwise must surely be gay. this is truth, insofar that there is no reason for providing an answer other than to (1) attempt disparage the other side or to (2) defend your position on one side. make no mistake--both sides are guilty of these idiocies.
this is also truth because almost all arguers are bad arguers. if there's one thing ive learnt about human discussion, it is that people of all opinions are, fundamentally, blundering fools who spew forth seemingly verbose rhetoric that upon simple analysis speaks more to their misaligned state of mind than the related truth and meaning of what is important and at hand.
though i am aware that sexual orientation is resultant of base genetics and factors present in prenatal development, i also know that all sexual behaviour is contingent upon choices by the individual to adhere to or allay these essentially natural proclivities.
this would imply that homosexuality is not immoral per se, because its origin is out of reach of individual choice, but because gay interaction is, then the question of morality applies. in case youre wondering, it is always morally right to act in accordance to one's own nature. additionally, a heterosexual woman must surely have been born heterosexual but it does in no way follow that she must have physical relationships that are heterosexual, for that is surely subject to choice.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
meaning of life part deux
three years ago i wrote about my personal enlightenment about the great meaning from a couple of minutes at the loo.
today i watch an episode of heroes s03e23 and chance upon an albert einstein quote:
"The life of the individual has meaning only insofar as it aids in making the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful."
i pissed my pants.
today i watch an episode of heroes s03e23 and chance upon an albert einstein quote:
"The life of the individual has meaning only insofar as it aids in making the life of every living thing nobler and more beautiful."
i pissed my pants.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind
its 2.24am and i just came back from a stroll in the park. i remember walking around the field on that newly-paved red running track, no, not the polyurethane tartan track weve all been accustomed to see at stadiums, but the more sobering kind i call concrete, and i say i remember because it was just 15 minutes ago mind you--why am i even explaining myself here? its my blog. and you should be asking why im walking around in the dark at 2am in the first place.
the night is cold and breezy. and one thing i always appreciate is the comfort i find in darkness and solitude where i can take in the surroundings and converse with my thoughts. and the grass, oh the grass. i miss the army.
i slap myself.
in the early days of this blog i always found my thoughts circling in the soup of religion and society. and after a two and half year hiatus i am back and i still am fascinated by it. if those two years in the army taught me anything, it was the tempering of my cynical views. tonight i still think about religion with the exception that i see no soup. i see a toilet of messy contents teetering the edge of a hole so deep and welcoming and i find myself beckoned to the call of the flush.
i said i feel like pulling the flush, but even i am a man of reason. i have a faith and im not about to abandon it. its the voice of the world that trouble me, that show me how ugly even the word religion is. a world where people read with some special concern when loooking at the word Muslim, where people see the word Christian and think the annoying Mormon, the bible-selling door-to-door salesman, religio-political activism, hypocrisy, evangelical zealotry, anti-homosexuality and terrible judgement. while i, being a man of independent thought, loathe to subscribe to such blind stereotypicalism, am also a realist. and in the struggle to state my stand i find myself intentionally at a distance: a Christian away from the Christians. you say hypocrisy. i say where is the flush? because the moment i argue from one camp i become but another blind partisan of a battlefield so fraught with bias that i wish for the entirety to be washed away.
but im not running away from this one. i stand aside so i can clearly see the fingerpointing from the hands of the blind. as is with many arguments i try to reason, i find it much easier to find truth when neither pointing nor being pointed at.
from my center i see guilt on both sides. there is no merit in taking at face value the song of an atheist bigot but even in the worst of skewed rhetoric is a poem of truth, and the rhyme within it is derived from the fact of a few if not many Christians who follow their religion blindly. they partake in symbolic rituals that are perfect as such, but greatly flawed applied out of context. they believe in supernatural occurrences that many a time have natural explanations. therein lies the greatest travesty of many Christians who in their blindness (willfully or not) disregard science and substitute in its place their own misinformed interpretations of faith as evidence.
and when those atheists point i find it difficult to rule against them, for i am a man of logic; while science is far from holding all the answers, its very fundamentals encourage for the asking of simple questions that can blow holes through the religious fabric of even the toughest Christians. i describe tough not in the manner of intellectual robustness, but that of being very hard nuts.
when atheists and christians clash christians always lose. because in the field of logical argumentation the man of science is always more well-equipped. the problem i always see is christians desperately trying to bolster their force by supplanting their mere opinions for evidence (when they should be rising to the opponent with the ammunition of the new age) or even disregard the rules in its entirety, thereby only successfully persuading the invisible audience that they are all but terrible at the art of persuasion. when your job is to try to persuade non believers and you are shown to be useless at your job, that is a serious blow to the nuts, bro. on the other hand, the atheist camp can also momentarily step out of discipline when drunk with their general victory. they start spewing anti religious rhetoric that could be easily refuted by the other camp, except the latter is rarely geared for a sound defence. and it pains me because that is so easy to perform, but so easy to botch by a Man of God who has neither a semblance of Logos nor Ethos in an arena outside Bible commentary.
blind Christians, stop embarrassing me. dont let the atheists trample you. the days of martyrdom have long passed. use your God-given brains and let science help you.
the night is cold and breezy. and one thing i always appreciate is the comfort i find in darkness and solitude where i can take in the surroundings and converse with my thoughts. and the grass, oh the grass. i miss the army.
i slap myself.
in the early days of this blog i always found my thoughts circling in the soup of religion and society. and after a two and half year hiatus i am back and i still am fascinated by it. if those two years in the army taught me anything, it was the tempering of my cynical views. tonight i still think about religion with the exception that i see no soup. i see a toilet of messy contents teetering the edge of a hole so deep and welcoming and i find myself beckoned to the call of the flush.
i said i feel like pulling the flush, but even i am a man of reason. i have a faith and im not about to abandon it. its the voice of the world that trouble me, that show me how ugly even the word religion is. a world where people read with some special concern when loooking at the word Muslim, where people see the word Christian and think the annoying Mormon, the bible-selling door-to-door salesman, religio-political activism, hypocrisy, evangelical zealotry, anti-homosexuality and terrible judgement. while i, being a man of independent thought, loathe to subscribe to such blind stereotypicalism, am also a realist. and in the struggle to state my stand i find myself intentionally at a distance: a Christian away from the Christians. you say hypocrisy. i say where is the flush? because the moment i argue from one camp i become but another blind partisan of a battlefield so fraught with bias that i wish for the entirety to be washed away.
but im not running away from this one. i stand aside so i can clearly see the fingerpointing from the hands of the blind. as is with many arguments i try to reason, i find it much easier to find truth when neither pointing nor being pointed at.
from my center i see guilt on both sides. there is no merit in taking at face value the song of an atheist bigot but even in the worst of skewed rhetoric is a poem of truth, and the rhyme within it is derived from the fact of a few if not many Christians who follow their religion blindly. they partake in symbolic rituals that are perfect as such, but greatly flawed applied out of context. they believe in supernatural occurrences that many a time have natural explanations. therein lies the greatest travesty of many Christians who in their blindness (willfully or not) disregard science and substitute in its place their own misinformed interpretations of faith as evidence.
and when those atheists point i find it difficult to rule against them, for i am a man of logic; while science is far from holding all the answers, its very fundamentals encourage for the asking of simple questions that can blow holes through the religious fabric of even the toughest Christians. i describe tough not in the manner of intellectual robustness, but that of being very hard nuts.
when atheists and christians clash christians always lose. because in the field of logical argumentation the man of science is always more well-equipped. the problem i always see is christians desperately trying to bolster their force by supplanting their mere opinions for evidence (when they should be rising to the opponent with the ammunition of the new age) or even disregard the rules in its entirety, thereby only successfully persuading the invisible audience that they are all but terrible at the art of persuasion. when your job is to try to persuade non believers and you are shown to be useless at your job, that is a serious blow to the nuts, bro. on the other hand, the atheist camp can also momentarily step out of discipline when drunk with their general victory. they start spewing anti religious rhetoric that could be easily refuted by the other camp, except the latter is rarely geared for a sound defence. and it pains me because that is so easy to perform, but so easy to botch by a Man of God who has neither a semblance of Logos nor Ethos in an arena outside Bible commentary.
blind Christians, stop embarrassing me. dont let the atheists trample you. the days of martyrdom have long passed. use your God-given brains and let science help you.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
dear pope, i hope your house has good security.
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached...God is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."
a statement made by Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos to some fictitious Persian dude a long time ago. by the way, the word byzantine reminds me of the colour orange, but that is besides the point, of which includes the fact that Palaeologus is a definitive bigot in today's terms.
of course you would have read or heard that the pope quoted this string in a lecture, which would indubitably cause blood to boil. my God, Pope, sir, whyfor would you do this?
today's controversy is due to the fact that this statement is a very powerfully sweeping one that stereotypes Islam unfairly, and the matter is made worse when a great leader of another religion cites the message with intent to change the very group that mocks it. how naive. there are certain flaws in the Pope's grand plan, and i have found these hairline cracks to be such:
1. Terrorism does not seek to convert non-muslims to muslims
2. All terrorists are religion-less
though it is true that in the past there were wars due to clashes in religious ideals, the Pope was making an irrelevant link to what is actually happening today, i.e. terrorism. Osama bin Laden does not want the Americans to become muslims. he wants blood for blood. for the Pope to draw a link between abhorrent pratice of terrorism today and the early instances of Islamic warring (of which were crucial points in muslim history; also the point in time when there was actually real jihad going on) is a fatal error undeserving of the guy who sits on the Vatican's boss chair.
because of this apparently false logic, certain muslim clerics then come up with their own arsenal of bullshit arguments. it is then raised that Christianity too is not free from the fact of the Crusades (circa 11-14th Century AD). whats funny is that these crusades in the name of christendom were usually sanctioned by the Pope (lol not Pope Benedict you dumbass. i know he's old but he's not that old. the Pope who was in office at that time, duh.)
anyhoo, this is how the current Christian-Muslim debacle unfolds in today's newspapers. the Christian boss says something stupid, and the Muslim bosses, not to be outdone, says something slightly less stupid but still stupid nonetheless. fuck, the whole brouhaha is stupid because it is about something that happened almost 1000 years ago and has NOTHING to do with terrorism. fast forward a few days and the Pope has apologised not once but twice and may go for a third because some guys just cant accept that the Pontiff has not fallen on his arthritic knees and begged for divine forgiveness.
dear Pope, you made a fatal error and it's not that i dont empathise with your current situation. you play with fire and you get burned! still though, i might still raise an impressed eyebrow at the fact that a few words from you can cause the very people you talk about to fulfill the accusation you make from those words.
within days of the controversial lecture, two churches were burned down.
a statement made by Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos to some fictitious Persian dude a long time ago. by the way, the word byzantine reminds me of the colour orange, but that is besides the point, of which includes the fact that Palaeologus is a definitive bigot in today's terms.
of course you would have read or heard that the pope quoted this string in a lecture, which would indubitably cause blood to boil. my God, Pope, sir, whyfor would you do this?
today's controversy is due to the fact that this statement is a very powerfully sweeping one that stereotypes Islam unfairly, and the matter is made worse when a great leader of another religion cites the message with intent to change the very group that mocks it. how naive. there are certain flaws in the Pope's grand plan, and i have found these hairline cracks to be such:
1. Terrorism does not seek to convert non-muslims to muslims
2. All terrorists are religion-less
though it is true that in the past there were wars due to clashes in religious ideals, the Pope was making an irrelevant link to what is actually happening today, i.e. terrorism. Osama bin Laden does not want the Americans to become muslims. he wants blood for blood. for the Pope to draw a link between abhorrent pratice of terrorism today and the early instances of Islamic warring (of which were crucial points in muslim history; also the point in time when there was actually real jihad going on) is a fatal error undeserving of the guy who sits on the Vatican's boss chair.
because of this apparently false logic, certain muslim clerics then come up with their own arsenal of bullshit arguments. it is then raised that Christianity too is not free from the fact of the Crusades (circa 11-14th Century AD). whats funny is that these crusades in the name of christendom were usually sanctioned by the Pope (lol not Pope Benedict you dumbass. i know he's old but he's not that old. the Pope who was in office at that time, duh.)
anyhoo, this is how the current Christian-Muslim debacle unfolds in today's newspapers. the Christian boss says something stupid, and the Muslim bosses, not to be outdone, says something slightly less stupid but still stupid nonetheless. fuck, the whole brouhaha is stupid because it is about something that happened almost 1000 years ago and has NOTHING to do with terrorism. fast forward a few days and the Pope has apologised not once but twice and may go for a third because some guys just cant accept that the Pontiff has not fallen on his arthritic knees and begged for divine forgiveness.
dear Pope, you made a fatal error and it's not that i dont empathise with your current situation. you play with fire and you get burned! still though, i might still raise an impressed eyebrow at the fact that a few words from you can cause the very people you talk about to fulfill the accusation you make from those words.
within days of the controversial lecture, two churches were burned down.
Monday, July 10, 2006
spam! the bane of the internet!
do you want a bigger penis? do you? huh, punk? hey ladies, i'm asking ya, want a bigger dick? no? well, question wasn't meant for you anyway. so...you looking for a relationship?
for every spam email you receive there are another five million delivered to our sad internet friends. out of the 5 million, 50,000 are expected to be opened, much to the dismay of the younger generation. of this, 500 noobs will actually follow the links and be raped internetically. wow, new word.
spam is retarded, its insanity exceeded only by those who are hooked by its cheap tactics. the only reason it exists today in Schwarzenegger proportions is due to its dependence on human stupidity (a very reliable foundation of science). and because it relies on retards to ensure its commercial viability for the spammer, the amount of outgoing emails number in the millions.
that is why i received over 10 emails per hour on my previous hotmail account. 'previous' because i abandoned it 4-5 years ago. deleting crap emails was a chore. beside, it was a good reason to dump the account because telling it to friends was an embarrassment. speaking of embarrassing email names, you might agree why you wouldn't want to admit to strangers or place on your name-card 'handsome_dude_81@yahoo.com', 'kissmyass@hotmail.com', 'ilovesex@aol.com' or 'backstreetboy_jonathan@msn.com'.
(gal online): hi, 21/F/Singapore.. asl?
(dude online): lolz hi. 22/m sembawang hahahax
>>>fastforward 2 hours of chatting>>>
(gal online): so..it was nice chatting with ya. exchange emails?
(dude online): wah. just mit tmr here same channer same time lorh.. u bz ah?
(gal online): hail_chan@hotmail.com
(dude online): uhh.. realy muz have my email ahh?
(dude online): ok lor.. pornoboi_84@hotmail.com
(gal offline): <[user disconnected]>
(dude online): harlow?
well then, the only reason anyone would use pornoboi as an email name would be if it was used as a dummy account to sign up for crappy websites which are slightly useful to you but not worth the trouble to use your real email for. dummy accounts. among the most useful lessons for a net user is dummy email accounts to collect all the spam you wouldn't want going into your "real" inbox. thank you neopets for teaching me that lesson. bloody hell. 'Click Me And Get Free 500 Neopoints!'. More like 'Sign up, get your email address sold for half-a-cent, and then six months later wish you were burning in a vat of boiling tar! And also free 500NP...'
i have a dummy email account with yahoomail, and its composed entirely out of numbers. nobody judges numbers. nobody will look at you funny if you told them your email was 0834915200@yahoo.com. but they will definitely judge you to the inner circle of hell should you write pornoboi@mail on your namecard.
then again, i shouldn't have to go through all this trouble to create dummy accounts for the safety of gregmatic@hotmail (prrreecciiiiiiousssssss). it should be the spammers doing the extra work. i hope they have hard lives. i hope they get caught and sued and put in prison, where the inmates have large penises and are looking for relationships. good luck and have fun then, assholes!
for every spam email you receive there are another five million delivered to our sad internet friends. out of the 5 million, 50,000 are expected to be opened, much to the dismay of the younger generation. of this, 500 noobs will actually follow the links and be raped internetically. wow, new word.
spam is retarded, its insanity exceeded only by those who are hooked by its cheap tactics. the only reason it exists today in Schwarzenegger proportions is due to its dependence on human stupidity (a very reliable foundation of science). and because it relies on retards to ensure its commercial viability for the spammer, the amount of outgoing emails number in the millions.
that is why i received over 10 emails per hour on my previous hotmail account. 'previous' because i abandoned it 4-5 years ago. deleting crap emails was a chore. beside, it was a good reason to dump the account because telling it to friends was an embarrassment. speaking of embarrassing email names, you might agree why you wouldn't want to admit to strangers or place on your name-card 'handsome_dude_81@yahoo.com', 'kissmyass@hotmail.com', 'ilovesex@aol.com' or 'backstreetboy_jonathan@msn.com'.
(gal online): hi, 21/F/Singapore.. asl?
(dude online): lolz hi. 22/m sembawang hahahax
>>>fastforward 2 hours of chatting>>>
(gal online): so..it was nice chatting with ya. exchange emails?
(dude online): wah. just mit tmr here same channer same time lorh.. u bz ah?
(gal online): hail_chan@hotmail.com
(dude online): uhh.. realy muz have my email ahh?
(dude online): ok lor.. pornoboi_84@hotmail.com
(gal offline): <[user disconnected]>
(dude online): harlow?
well then, the only reason anyone would use pornoboi as an email name would be if it was used as a dummy account to sign up for crappy websites which are slightly useful to you but not worth the trouble to use your real email for. dummy accounts. among the most useful lessons for a net user is dummy email accounts to collect all the spam you wouldn't want going into your "real" inbox. thank you neopets for teaching me that lesson. bloody hell. 'Click Me And Get Free 500 Neopoints!'. More like 'Sign up, get your email address sold for half-a-cent, and then six months later wish you were burning in a vat of boiling tar! And also free 500NP...'
i have a dummy email account with yahoomail, and its composed entirely out of numbers. nobody judges numbers. nobody will look at you funny if you told them your email was 0834915200@yahoo.com. but they will definitely judge you to the inner circle of hell should you write pornoboi@mail on your namecard.
then again, i shouldn't have to go through all this trouble to create dummy accounts for the safety of gregmatic@hotmail (prrreecciiiiiiousssssss). it should be the spammers doing the extra work. i hope they have hard lives. i hope they get caught and sued and put in prison, where the inmates have large penises and are looking for relationships. good luck and have fun then, assholes!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)