18th century inventor, 21st century free thinker
Like many, I plan on purchasing Google Glass the moment it becomes available. I have a feeling the novelty will only last a couple months, but I still want to experience augmented reality. Then, it will probably end up with my Xoom… on a shelf, collecting dust. But, that’s only because I live a pretty boring life, unlike the people in the video below.
There seems to be a consensus among the “Internet Elite” that all vertical videos are rubbish and should be stricken from the Earth. It has become Internet culture group think to vehemently disapprove of these videos. Does the average member of the herd even understand why they are to disapprove of vertical videos? Or, do they just repeat and reinforce the same culture conformity banter they’ve seen elsewhere?
The reason vertical videos were originally frowned upon was that they do not display correctly on YouTube. This was a legitimate argument back then.
A large portion of crazy videos that go viral are recorded vertically. When you’re standing in public, recording something vertically helps conceal your actions. Plus, a landscape shot of the scene doesn’t add any additional information. “Here’s a video of some guy going nuts. I know how important viral video quality is to the Internet, so I recorded it horizontally. Yeah, that means I cut off half his body, but look at that pavement and grass I got in the background!”
Besides being inconspicuous and providing a better aspect ratio in certain situations, vertical videos will continue to remain popular simply because more people own phones than ever before. People who are “unplugged” from Internet culture will continue to record however they want.
As I said before, the original reason for disliking vertical videos was problems with playback. Let’s also keep in mind that most people are not watching phone-recorded, widescreen YouTube videos in full screen. It should become immediately clear who is to blame for vertical videos: YouTube! Not the person who created the vertical video!
In other words, YouTube doesn’t correctly display vertical video content. Instead of Internet culture blaming the shortcomings of YouTube and asking them to fix their website, the slippery slope fallacy is made that vertical videos will destroy cinematography. However, other websites, like Facebook, have corrected the issue, proving that it’s a problem with YouTube.
There is really only one bad thing about eating to your local, high-end steakhouse: all the other people cramming up the restaurant around you! These places are super popular because of their amazing product, but that means long lines and slow service on weekends. Lucky for us, the Catholic church came to the rescue with a solution. For six weeks every year, you can take your family to your favorite meatery on Friday night without having to fight the crowds. (Meatery? That’s a meat-eatery!)
So what is, “Meatmass?” Meatmass is the celebration of meat! It is celebrated on the first Friday of Lent each year. It is observed by anyone and everyone who loves meat. Catholics are not excluded from our celebration, but only if they are willing to sin a little bit. We do this for very much the same reason that any group celebrates and observes a holiday: inclusion and celebration among ourselves. The rules are simple, gorge yourself on an unhealthy portion of beef. You can do this by yourself, with your significant other, or if you’re so daring, you could even host a Meatmass party. I sure will be!
As a non-Catholic, I have absolutely no qualms with Lent or Catholicism. As a matter of fact, being that we’re a day drive from the ocean, I think it’s simply fantastic to have such easy access to fresh fish. Normally, I don’t have much trust in Pittsburgh seafood, but thanks to Lent, massive amounts of fresh, delicious fish are imported every Friday. Believe me, I plan on enjoying plenty of fish sandwiches between now and Easter.
Just because Meatmass falls on the first Friday doesn’t mean you can’t celebrate for the entire six weeks. For the duration of Lent, I have pretty much the same routine every Friday: delectable fish sandwich for lunch; mouth-watering, savory filet mignon or porterhouse steak for dinner. With the crowds gone from my favorite meateries, I’ll finally get to enjoy all of their meat to myself. I have even contemplated sending the Catholic church a thank you card, but this blog will have to suffice.
Merry Meatmass!
Meatmass falls on Friday, February 15 this year.
Rather than accepting any single ideology, I encourage individuals to analyze each issue separately. Because of this, virtually everyone on both sides see me as some kind of extremist, when in actuality, I’m pretty close to the center. Because I support the second amendment, liberals call me a “gun nut” and a “radical right winger.” Likewise, because I support the separation of church and state, conservatives call me a “liberal.” I’m none of the above and I refuse to be defined by a group.
But that doesn’t stop everyone else from defining me. One such individual sent me this video and told me it would correct my liberal ways. Instead of an objective analysis of the issues, the video provides terribly formed arguments that literally contradict each other. If his arguments were relegated to just this video, I would not have bothered rebutting them, but these are the same arguments I hear time and time again in debate. (Link to video in case he blocks my website.)
The start of the video isn’t actually half bad. I was nodding along with a few of his points, but then around the 1:10 mark, everything took a dive for the worst. Below, I have quoted each of his arguments and attached my rebuttal.
Ok. First, virtually all of you liberals who try to say that this is a human rights issue are pro-abortion, you are a joke. Don’t even talk to me about human rights when you would deny life, the first god given right, to an innocent human being.
No one has the right to exist at the expense of another person (something that conservatives understand on a fiscal level.) If someone is about to get hit by a train, it is not their right for me to risk my life to save them. Sure, it’s the nice thing to do, but I’m not obligated.
A fetus cannot exist on its own and therefore must exist at the physical expense of the mother. Therefore, it is clearly humane to support the mother’s right to choose. It’s her body. I will also point out that this argument is independent of the fact that the fetus may or may not be a living person.
What’s interesting here is that he is trying to bring attention to what he perceives as a contradiction in the liberal ideology, but fails to see the huge glaring contradiction in his own party. While he did not mention contraception specifically, the same people who are against abortion are also against providing contraception. If people really cared enough to stop abortion (and look at how much money they donate to pro-life organizations), they would have no problem spending a mere fraction of that budget on providing affordable contraception for the public.
Secondly, the other right you’re overlooking is the churches right to free religious exercise. And to get the state to force the church into forfeiting their rights is an endorsement of tyranny.
This is ironic because the same arguments were made against those who wanted to end slavery and years later when people were fighting to end segregation. He should be thankful that those argument did not stop progress and refrain from using them now. Still, I will address the issue directly.
The church still has the right to marry or not marry whoever they see fit. I am divorced now, but there are many churches that would not have married my ex-wife and me. Since neither of us were Catholic, we would not have been accepted to a Catholic church. Other churches require special classes before they will marry you. A church may just not like us and say no. If I go to get married again, the next church may not allow me since I was once married and never got an official “annulment” from the priest.
In other words, this would not force the church in any way shape or form to marry a gay couple. Therefore, it is not stepping on the religious freedoms of anyone else. It simply allows two consenting adults to get married together at a place accepting of their lifestyle. If anyone out there is arguing for legislation that would force all churches to marry any gay couples, I assure you, they are in the minority. You are always going to have extremists on every issue. I will always support the rights of private institutions to restrict their services to the groups of their choosing.
See, this is how rights work, you can’t have your rights at the forced expense of another. You democrats have yet to learn that.
I don’t understand how he can say this sentence and NOT understand the very words that are coming out of his mouth. Let’s play some substitution here with his sentence: “[A fetus] can’t have [its] rights at the forced expense of [the mother.]“
I hope you find my arguments to be sound and rational, even if you disagree with them. I look forward to discussion on these topics in the comments below.
Across America, the issue of gun control has driven a wedge between friends and family. Could anything have been done to prevent the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary? Proponents of gun control ask how many more tragedies will it take before something is done, while gun advocates insist that the current gun laws are strict enough. Like with any controversial issue, this is a debate heavily fueled by emotion on both sides. I’d like to break down what we know about the situation and see if any of the proposed ideas to stop future violence would have in fact prevented this senseless tragedy.
According to the description of the gunman by those who knew him, he was most certainly an introvert. Introverts make up 30-40% of the population, so the media’s classification of him being “quiet”, “shy” and “keeping to himself” isn’t as red of a flag as they would have you believe. If it was, that would mean there are over ~120 million potential school shooters walking around America at this very moment. In addition to being introverted, he suffered from Asperger Syndrome. I do not know if Asperger causes violent behavior, but the experts claim that there is no link between the two.
Connecticut has sort of lax laws when it comes to allowing the mentally handicapped to purchase weapons. Under the current system, it’s highly unlikely that the law alone could have prevented him from purchasing a weapon. His behavior and Asperger syndrome may have been enough to stop a store owner from selling him a weapon, but we will never know, because the gunman did not purchase any weapons.
Do I think individuals suffering from Anti-social personality disorder (ASPD), such as infamous cult leader Charles Manson, should be able to purchase a firearm? No. Do we know if the Connecticut gunman had ASPD or a similar disorder? Unfortunately, we do not. If he was ever diagnosed, that information has not yet come to light.
Let’s say for a moment that Connecticut had stricter gun laws, which actually prevent those suffering with violent mental disorders from purchasing guns. Let’s also say that the gunman had been diagnosed with ASPD or something similar. It would not have stopped him from getting access to weapons. Why? Because he stole the weapons from his mother. Even if psychological screenings were in place, she would have been allowed to purchase weapons. This would not have changed the outcome whatsoever.
This morning, I was honored to speak on The Power Hour with host Joyce Riley. We discussed my blog article about the Mayan Calendar, space phenomenon, and what to expect this Friday. I cropped my interview from the rest of her program and have made it available on my YouTube channel. If you would prefer to listen to her full program from today, you can access the archives here.
Happy holidays to you and yours! During the holiday season, I like to use the phrase, “happy holidays,” instead of, “merry Christmas,” when I do not know the religion or traditions of the person or people that I am greeting. To me, it is the most respectful greeting of them all. Wouldn’t it be more offensive to tell Christians, “happy Hanukkah,” than to simply wish them a happy holiday? Likewise, do you think that the Jewish minority appreciates the countless, “merry Christmas,” greetings?
Realistically, I don’t think any of the above greetings are offensive, they are all meant to convey good wishes. If you said any of them to me, I would thank you and reply with a friendly greeting as well. However, assuming that everyone celebrates the same holiday is insensitive to many individuals in our culturally diverse society.
When I’m talking with someone I know to be Christian, I tell them, “merry Christmas.” On Saturday, I sent text messages to my Jewish friends wishing them a happy first day of Hanukkah. And to my non-religious friends, it’s a combination of, “happy holidays,” “merry solstice,” and “happy Festivus.”
While I am non-religious, I still celebrate Christmas. To me, it is a secular tradition from my childhood. I even enjoy listening and singing along with traditional Christmas songs, many of which include religious verses about Christ. No, I don’t put up a manger or go to church on Christmas Eve, but I do put up a Christmas tree and exchange presents.
So, this holiday season, when someone wishes you well with, “happy holidays,” appreciate their respect for you, your traditions and your holiday.
When I first started to write about skepticism, I did so with the intention of helping others. You cannot teach someone truth. Does truth even exist? I don’t know, but you can teach logic and reason. Skepticism is a thought process, not a conclusion. Once you have learned the thought process, you can come to reasonable conclusions on your own without someone telling you the answers.
Skepticism is also useful on the smaller scale. The same thought processes can help you identify a multitude of things in everyday life.
Instead of objectively analyzing my perspectives and learning new ideas, many people felt threatened by my writing. I don’t think I always went about it in the right way, but I was just trying to open the eyes of others in the same way that my own eyes had been opened. Many people did not like this.
On a professional level, I lost two customers who refuse to do business with a non-Christian. They either found out about my ideas through word of mouth or Googled my name. On a personal level, I lost friends and tore deep rifts in my family, some of which are still not healed. Most of the people I know, at the very least, were annoyed with me.
The hardest hitting of these was a friend who’s family had been friends with my family for three generations. He got into a religious debate with me. The argument was going nowhere. He refused to accept any kind of scientific evidence and continuously moved the goalpost. Very quickly, I asked him to agree to disagree. Instead, he sent me private messages about how I am a “wimp” and a “wuss” for giving up so easily and then continued to argue on my wall anyways. For whatever reason, I continued to engage him in a very professional manner. I never attacked him personally, cussed, or acted in a way that would be reason to end a friendship. When he realized that none of his “arguments” were going to convert me to his view, he sent me a private message stating:
“you’re right for once, and nobody is forcing me to associate with you. I really find you pitiful at this point. Life’s going to kick your ass unless you make some serious changes. I’ve seen it before. That’s my advice and the end of any obligation I may have imposed on myself. Good bye”
Over the weekend, I ran into some more trouble with the new bicycle. About four miles from home, the left crank arm fell apart mid-pedal. It started wobbling and, as I slowed to a stop, completely fell off the bike. I have only owned the bike for two weeks, yet this was my second major issues. If you remember, it was basically DOA when I first brought it home due to a defective tire.
This weekend was particularly interesting because of record heat. I hadn’t ridden since last week because we were in Cleveland with friends over the holiday. I was excited to get back on the bike, heatwave or not. In a stroke of pure luck, the bike fell apart under the turnpike bridge, basking me in shade. I called Jess, who was kind enough to bring my socket set to me. Within minutes, I was back on the road.
