Sunday, February 28, 2016

A Blog Post

Man, did you know that the guy who survived the drop from Niagra Falls in a barrel died slipping on a bannana peel moments after? A lot of people think it's an orange peel but who cares he's dead. Speaking of being dead this one time I took a picture in a graveyard and a bunch of floating orbs showed up on the screen and I ran. It's scientifically supposed to be gas from the bodies but I think Casper was creepin or something that night. I just got some pneumonia and these antibiotics are making me think imma die. Everything I eat makes me vomit. Speaking of vomit remember that first silioloqy assignment? That was so gross. I've been listening to the nightcore version of "Just a Dream" on repeat, buds. Such a good song no joke. You know what I'm in the mood for? Burger King. Yo, I know I was talking about obesity a while back but you know Burger King burgers are the bomb. And their fries!! MMMPPPHH! Way better than McDonalds. Actually I think Checkers has the best fries.

I hate cats. They really just freak me out. They remind me of an ex-girlfriend. Not any specific ex.. Just all of them.  The purring too. Gross.

You know what's cool? Red eyes. Always digged that! And white hair.  I love unique stuff. Except bad unique stuff like the Mexican Drug Cartel.

To be honest I don't have much to say,

Thanks for reading

Saturday, February 20, 2016

The Beginner Guide to Gender From Someone Who Thinks It's Bull.

     I'm a man. I identify as male for both my gender as well as my sex. Until fairly recently I figured that gender and sex were synonymous but they are, in actuality, leagues apart. While sex is simply a matter of anatomy, gender is more abstract.


    Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity.

       Nebulous, honestly. See, when people ask about gender i.e. "What's your gender" they're usually talking about "gender identity." 
    Gender identity:
    Gender identity is one's personal experience of one's own gender.
          In less broad terms, gender identity is what you feel like while sex is what your body is physically. Gender identity is completely independent of your sex. If I'm a guy but I act, sound, dress, and feel like a girl then I'm a chick. (It doesn't make sense on a logical basis but it does on a social level. It's a way of saying "have the preconceived notions of a girl in your head when you see me regardless of how I look.") 
        However, the rabbit hole goes deeper. Gender identity assigns something called pronouns. So if I'm a guy who looks, dresses, acts, and feels like a girl then it's polite to refer to me as a "her." The reciprocal is also true. If I'm a girl who looks, dresses, acts, and feels like a guy then it's polite to refer to me as a "he." There's a tangent in this thinking because one can act, look, dress, and, for all intensive purposes, be a guy but want to be called a girl. The reciprocal is also true. It's ok if this is confusing. 
    These people who don't conform to their "gender roles" are called "transgender." 
    1. Denoting or relating to a person whose self-identity does not conform unambiguously to conventional  notions of male or female gender.


      Here's a list of pronouns: 

      NeNelaughedI called nemNir eyes gleamThat is nirsNe likes nemself
      VeVelaughedI called verVis eyes gleamThat is visVe likes verself
      SpivakEylaughedI called emEir eyes gleamThat is eirsEy likes
      Ze (or zie) and hirZelaughedI called hirHir eyes gleamThat is hirsZe likes hirself
      Ze (or zie) and zirZelaughedI called zirZir eyes gleamThat is zirsZe likes zirself
      XeXelaughedI called xemXyr eyes gleam

      "But these aren't applicable to boys or girls." Correct. These are for people who do not consider themselves of male or female gender and would like to be referred to 
      as people outside the boy or girl spectrum. 

      Keep in mind that many of these have been forsaken by all besides their creators.

      The reason for all these assorted pronouns is to cater to those who are either gender neutral or some variation of gender non-conformity. There are also pleas for 
      such things as gender neutral bathrooms and other societal reforms to account for 
      any accidental ostracism of non gender-binary people. 

      After extensive research and non-bias assessment of each side of the argument I 
      firmly believe that all this is nothing more than manufactured controversy. A way to disassociate yourself from the collective while still requesting all the sympathies and acceptance of a normal person. 

      Yes. A normal person. The people who insist that they must be called something than the gender they wee born with are abnormal. In fact, it's a disorder ( 

      Look, I don't want to antagonize myself. I have no problem with these people's character and I'm not a biggoted idiot. I'm positive that being born into the wrong gender is a phenomenon and it's very difficult to deal with. In fact, very difficult is most certainly an understatement. 

      But being born in a bad skin isn't what I have a problem with. It's the following: 

      Many of the activists who fight tooth and nail for the acceptance and rights of these non conformist people insist that it's ok for a man to act like a woman and vice versa. That there's no problem with getting offended when someone mistakes your pronoun and doesn't refer to
      you as "they" or "co". 

      Question: How does a guy act? How does a girl act? Apparently a man who identifies as a girl acts like a girl. I know girls that are more masculine than many of my guy friends. Is it unfathomable to think that we can choose how it feels to be a boy or girl without a label
      having to be shoved down your throat? What if you are just a feminine guy? What if you are just a masculine girl? The pronouns that contradict your sex seem to do nothing more than enforce the societal standards you fight so hard to unravel with your non-conformist attitude.

      If this movement was really about changing society then they wouldn't ostracize themselves
       with confusing pronouns and emotional gender baggage that no one with a life has any time for. The only way to change society isn't to seperate from it but to mold it from an understandable focal point. If you ask people to call you "ze" or "co" or "they" then they will most likely will be already fed up with your shit. Show society how dynamic a person can be by being a man who acts, sounds, dresses, and looks like a woman. Destroy the preconceived notions about gender roles by being a female who is indistinguishable from a male! But if you call yourself a man then it defeats the purpose. "I can't act like a guy if I'm a girl unless
       I'm referred to as a guy." This line of thinking is strengthening the gender roles you work so hard to change. But if they do that then society would have an easier time accepting them.

      Let's be real. Many of these people don't want acceptance. They want to be the misunderstood underdog special snowflakes that the world shuns for their uniqueness. You think any sane person actually expects to get a job as a surgeon or lawyer if they insist on being called "ne" professionally?! Hell no.

      In conclusion, my opinion is that anyone who goes by the gender pronouns above and gets offended when it is not adhered to accordingly simply wants attention and is ignorant of their own cause.

      Thanks for reading

Friday, February 19, 2016

The Question

A question to ponder the old masters. A question to make or break the very foundation of our universe.

Which came first, the chicken and the egg?

It has perplexed humanity since Ancient Greek times. While it seems to be a philosophical question in nature history seems to have twisted it into a literal inquiry.

Scientists are split totally down the middle. Some scientists believe the chicken came first because of a special type of proton found in the egg that could only exist if formed inside a chicken. ( While others say it's the egg that came first due to prehistoric evidence dating back to the presidency of the egg before the chicken.

Alright. Let's start from the top.

We've got one animal that came before a chicken (let's call it a pre-chicken) and another animal in the same species. They lit some candles and followed the rose petals to the bedroom before getting to business.

Now this is where people get kinda butt hurt.

You see, some people believe that after the deed is done and the egg begins to form in the pre-chicken  that the ensuing egg is not a chicken egg but rather a pre-chicken egg that through a mutation in the formation of the zygote birthed a chicken. So the chicken came first and birthed the first
"chicken egg."

It all boils down (get it?) to the interpretation of the question that's leaving people's brains scrambled.

What exactly does the question consider the "egg?" Does it mean the first chicken egg or the first pre-chicken egg?

And furthermore, how can we know what event is "first"? Is it asking which one came out first or which one developed inside the pre-chicken first?

Let's crack this wide open.

In terms of development the "egg" comes first in the formation of the chicken. However! It was not a chicken egg until a mutation occurred in the zygote cell and transform the pre-chicken fetus into a traditional chicken fetus.

So it's a tie? No. If both the chicken and the egg gained their respective identities at the exact same moment than a developmental "first" is impossible.

The only way to properly answer this is to see which one came out of the pre-chicken first. And the answer is... exggcellent

The egg, due to providing a protective covering around the chicken, came out first.

The winner is the egg!

I whisk I could talk about this some more but my brain is fried. Look at the sunny side though, at least the yolk's not on me. Then I'd really have egg on my face. I don't mean to ruffle feathers but that's a wrap.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Let's Talk About God

Let's Talk About God.


 <--------- This guy right here. 

*I'm gonna get crucified for this one. All the resources for my claims can be found at the bottom of the blog.* 

Before we talk about God I would like to talk about the books he's written in. 

Thee three main books we're gonna be focusing on are the Qur'an, Bible, and Tanakh. 

The Tanakh [or Tanach], (Jewish book of worship) contains 24 books. (The Torah, the main focus of the Jewish religion, contains only the first 5 books) while the Catholic Bible contains 73 books and the Protestant Bible bears 66.  The Qur'an mentions stories told in The Bible and gives great admiration to the Torah but seems to be a separate cannon as it skips and changes events in both the Tanakh and Bible, offering a greater emphasis on Islamic moral ideas and rules rather than the actual events themselves. 

The Qur'an and The Bible seem to be at odds in many regards, actually. (According to the Qur'an Jesus wasn't crucified and the immaculate conception might not have been exclusive to Mary.) There's plenty of other contradictions but let's not get off topic.

All of holy books claim that they are conceived (at least in part) from divine inspiration. So how can they be different? Well, either the writers are full of crap and they're each are telling their own story of the same events, (meaning there's no God required) or history has molded the original scripture so many times that we have multiple interpretations on our hands. Both seem equally plausible. 

So is God real? If so then where the hell is he?

So the older the person the better the chance he/she believes in God. Can't say I'm surprised. This could be either because they're wiser or they're closer to kicking the bucket. Both seem equally plausible

However, even the most dedicated atheist can vouch that the concept of God is very alluring and convenient.
Commit a crime? Pray the regret away!
Afraid of dying? No worries! There's an awesome afterlife as long as you weren't an abysmal person!
Can't figure out the mysteries of the universe? It was God!

But wait..

Who is God?! Seriously! We can't even get His name straight! YHWH, Ehyeh, Elohim, Jehovah.. Who even is this guy? According to scripture God is a piece of crap, right? Literally worse than Hitler. I would think so. That's what I've gathered from word of mouth. The flooding of the Earth, the constant destruction of cities, and the smiting. Oh jeez the smiting. However, there are compelling arguments against this claim. They say God has justification for mostly everything he does and is indeed benevolent until tested to the brink of His patience. I've also heard that He's the purest form of good and benevolence. I'm conflicted.

How can God be the only true good...

18 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." -Mark 10:18

...But at the same time be capable of such evil?
[Job's friends and family] comforted him over all the evil The Lord had brought upon him."
Job 42:11

The divine word of God seems to have a ton of contradictions, actually. 

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

MAT 27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."
LUK 23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."
JOH 19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is  finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
"The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy." (JAS 5:11)
"For his mercy endureth forever." (1CH 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (PSA 145:9)
"God is love." (1JO 4:16)
But can The Bible be taken literally? Apparently so
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV, 2nd Timothy 3:16)
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NAS, 2nd Peter 1:20-21)

(John 16:25) "I have said these these things in figures of speech..."

(17:18) "The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the Earth."

So we can assume that scripture's take on infallibility is ambiguous at best.

Fun fact: Some scientists are finding evidence of a massive flood a long time ago similar to the one described in The Old Testament and The Epic of Gilgamesh. Though it wasn't worldwide. 

But does God himself exist? Well, that requires the foundation of one thing we know exists.. 


This is it. The core of the subject.

How did the universe come to be and can it's creation be explained by our current understanding of science without God? May I pose the epicenter of the argument both for and against God?

The Laws of Thermodynamics.
The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system. The second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of any isolated system always increases

There are currently 3 ways to conjure up our universe.
1. The Universe just showed up.
2. The Universe simply always was.         (We're gonna roll with the Big Bang theory.)     
3. The Universe was created. 

The First Law goes against the idea of the Universe just "showing up" as matter cannot simply be created from nothing. The building blocks for a (theoretically) infinitely expanding life bearing universe just popping into existence isn't just improbable, but impossible according to the First Law of Thermodynamics.
According to Atheists, the Universe must be a closed system, meaning that all the energy/matter/mass exist within the boundaries of the universe and no outside force has supplied or is currently supplying energy. An open system states that there is something outside the universe supplying energy at some point. To The First Law of Thermodynamics, a closed system wouldn't be able to produce energy for the creation of a universe as no outside force could supply the fundamental elements needed to create a big bang. The universe just spontaneously existing in a closed system breaks our basic knowledge of the conservation of energy and is illogical as The First Law is proven to be fact and currently has no opposition.Because it's a law. So who's the only guy who can create something from nothing? Das right. 

Another idea is that The Universe has always existed. This is total bull according to The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that energy is constantly changing. All energy deteriorates over time so if the universe is eternal than we would've used up all our energy and life (as well as heat) wouldn't be possible. 

Some people believe that a previous Universe turned into a black hole and that explains the energy storage but this is honestly grasping at straws as once all the energy is absorbed there must be a catalyst to trigger it's release later on.
Other's think that the energy of another universe part of a multiversal matrix spawned our Universe. Well who spawned the first universe then? According to our friend The First Law it was something outside of our Universe, right?

The only logical conclusion that we can form with our limited knowledge of our existence... An outside force influenced the creation of this Universe that operates like clockwork and seeds intelligent life. Beyond spontaneity or accidents. A meticulous work of art where the sheer improbability of serendipity is dwarfed by the magnitude of perfection. 

Is God real? Maybe not as we know him. But backed by quantum physics and common sense it's safe to assume there's something written in the stars.