I did not write this. This is a transcript of a copy-pasta of a series of Anonymous 4chan (or 4chan like) image-board comments that, when spun together, weave (in my opinion) a brilliant expose on the background of the Neon Genesis Evangelion anime. As I've illustrated before, Evangelion has played an important role in my life, and this was such a well written dissertation that I did not want it to be lost in obscurity. So I transcribed it, with the aid of an online OCR service, from this image, making only minor grammatical corrections and editing emphasized format for consistency.
If you would like to take credit for this transcript, or know the person who wrote it, please let me know.
~ ~ ~
Real talk: if you never actually watched Neon Genesis Evangelion all the way through, everything you know about it is wrong. Although for that matter, even the people who watched it all the way through are wrong about it. Let's talk about the creator: Hideaki Anno, and why he's happiest when you are angry. If you like Eva, Hideaki Anno hates you. That's just how it is. If you can't wrap your mind around this basic truth you are missing out on a lot of hysterical black irony.
It's hard to explain to people who haven't grown up with anime in the 90's (or at least, don't make the effort to go back and watch a lot of older anime) just how revolutionary Evangelion was to the industry. There was an expectation - even from people within the studio - that it would be cancelled within the first ten episodes. They were given a hugely limited budget, which they famously used up before the finale episodes.
It was not only a psychological exploration of what it means to be depressed, but it was a blatant dress-down of mecha and harem anime - i.e. the shit the otaku cult fap to constantly. Psychological breakdowns and meta-commentary are so common in anime nowadays, people don't realize that it's a trend Eva more or less pioneered, along with a bunch of other things.
A large basis for Evangelion - of which Anno has openly owned - is kind of an intensely public therapy session. Anno was said to have a huge disenchantment with the otaku lifestyle, going so far as to say said lifestyle was akin to autism. He fell into a depression. That depression took form in Eva, and basically started tearing apart a lot of what was common at the time.
For example, Eva basically deconstructs mecha and harem archetypes by asking “If fully developed human beings that acted like this existed in real life, and were forced to pilot giant robots, how would this play out?” We're given a hypothetical scenario of how teenaged pilots would realistically react under the pressures of piloting a mecha at the stakes are SAVING THE WORLD. We're given common archetypes - the tsundere, the cool onee-san, the kuudere - and have the show go out of its way to show that they're not walking sex fantasies but actual three-dimensional women: human beings capable of living and operating without your penis to validate them. We're also given the pressures of society that is placed upon people with depression, giving them little sympathy and instead berating them for not sucking it up.
And then, you know, there was Kawou, who showed up at the end of the series for one episode and gave the otaku fan-base a huge case of gay panic when Shinji was kind of on board to ride his baloney pony. With all the harem options available, it was kind of a sardonic twist of the knife to have Shinji go with the dude that shows up out of nowhere instead. The promotional pictures of Kaworu and Shinji hanging all over each other in pin-ups similar to Asuka, Rei and Misato just kind of shove that in their faces all the more.
Hell, to show how much people still perceived Eva to be the passionate shonen romp mecha anime usually they thought it was at the time: Eva was originally aired on a children's time-slot. When people started to side-eye Anno about the show's descent into ugly cynicism, he more or less responded saying children should be subjected to how much life sucks as early as possible (the show was moved to a later and more adult time-slot, regardless, but this is still funny).
Basically, Anno was making a hugely sarcastic commentary to people that didn't actually pick up on sarcasm very well, and as we all know: it back-fired big time. It became a moe-bait titan.
Your thoughts on the TV ending aside, what followed was a vicious backlash. The otaku fan-base lashed out at Anno with multiple death threats (some of which were later featured in the End of Eva movie). They missed the point on a lot of characters, but Rei was probably the one Anno was most furious about, as by trying to break down how an emotionally-dependent, submissive fuck-doll would be REALLY CREEPY and NOT OKAY, he only had her end up being an iconic cultural wet dream.
So, Anno responds by creating the theatrical finale of the series, End of Evangelion, and it was just one giant “FUCK YOU” to the fan-base. The TV ending was a pretty positive, constructive resolution to Shinji's plight, but given the backlash, Anno was basically "OH, YOU WANT MORE EMOTIONAL TORTURE PORN? I WILL GIVE YOU THE EMOTIONAL TORTURE PORN," and he delivers. If you watched EoE without actually watching the series, a lot of that context can go over your head. THAT scene with Shinji in the hospital room with Asuka? That was Anno basically pointing a finger at the otaku fans through the fourth wall and going "THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING, YOU'RE THIS FUCKED UP, YOU SICK FREAKS!" The irony is a large portion of the fandom DIDN'T GET IT and instead praised that scene to show Shinji was ‘maturing’ and ‘growing up.‘
Basically, End of Eva was one of the most beautifully animated middle-fingers ever to be conceived. Like, I have no doubt that a lot of the narrative resolutions in EoE were always planned, but I also suspect that EoE was made to be a lot angrier, and with a lot more spite, than was originally intended. Asuka's last line, the famous ‘I feel sick’ or ‘how disgusting’ (depending on how you want to translate her line), could be interpreted as directed to the fan-base.
And hell, in interviews alter the movie, he's also on record as saying he did End of Eva to ‘bring the fans back to reality’ and also compared fan commentary on his work to bathroom graffiti.
He really hates you.
And now the Rebuild movies, which seem to be a continuation more than a retelling. We're introduced to a new character: Mari, who doesn't seem to exist beyond providing panty shots and talking about how her breasts are too big, stealing the spotlight from Asuka, and selling a lot of figures. Anno was apparently on record as saying he put her in the movies to ‘destroy Eva.’ She's the moe-bait fantasy the otaku nerds clearly crave, and Anno is sarcastically giving it to them. And then 3.0 came out, which was a theatrical-length movie about Shinji's big gay awakening with Kaworu, among other more emotional torture porn trolling.
It's to the point where I'm kind of left delightfully pondering if the fourth Rebuild movie will have an obscenely positive resolution (along the lines of the TV series) or a spiteful miserable one (along the lines of the End of Eva movie). Knowing Anno's track-record, he'll go by whatever he thinks the fan-base will rage at the most, and it's a really hard call because they're both proven to give his fandom a collective aneurysm.
Evangelion is a franchise that keeps being worked on and continued seemingly out of pure spite. It's not even a secret. Anno is quoted everywhere as telling everyone that he hates his fans, that he wants to destroy his own franchise, that this is a thing that he is in fact doing…and he seems to get even more furious when they keep making him a success instead. It's really funny. All the more so is how tragic this irony is as he's clearly invested in telling the story he wants to tell as artfully and skillfully as he can: his own commentary on the rise and pitfalls of human nature and what it means to grow as a person.
It's the ultimate bad romance between a creator and his fan-base and it's tragic how many people miss out on how amazing this is.
So, here you go, it is explained. This is brought to by the collected conversations between me and Muun as we laugh at Anno's life. Enjoy.
Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Just a little note about gun control
(Time of original posting: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 9:58am)
There are two sides to any issue. I know quite a few gun owners who have an immense respect and appreciation for gun safety. They take every precaution, they most certainly do not treat their guns as "toys," and go to great lengths to educate themselves on the subject. There are probably quite a few gun owners on a hair trigger who see their guns as their last and only resort in any given conflict or situation, but I do believe that the majority of gun owners are respectable citizens just like anybody else. A lot of gun owners probably hear about these school shootings and, between bouts of grief for the horrible tragedy, probably feel an intense hatred towards the shooter, as the shooter inevitably paints all gun owners as trigger-happy malcontents who are an inch away from blowing the head off the nearest innocent bystander. You could be the safest, most precautionary gun owner in the world, follow all the rules, and do everything right, and all it takes is one trigger happy lunatic for the people around you to see you as an unstable, gun-toting maniac.
I can honestly appreciate that.
That said, it is easier to get a gun license in this country than it is to get a driver's license. It is easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a pet. You can walk into a Wal-Mart and pick up parts and ammo for any number of weapons, from concealable handguns to high caliber rifles. Many gun owners are not generally fans of regulation, but in case it wasn't abundantly clear, we regulate just about everything in this country. We regulate alcohol, we regulate prescription drugs, we regulate tobacco, we regulate vehicles, we regulate movies, TV shows and video games by age group, and yes, we regulate guns.
Anything that is potentially harmful, anything that you wouldn't want a child to pick up and play with, anything that could hurt or kill someone if handled incorrectly, is and should be regulated. It's not tyrannical to try to keep these things out of the hands of someone who doesn't know how to or has no intention to handle it correctly. I'm not saying gun owners are unintelligent - quite the opposite, many of my friends and family own guns, and they are very smart about the way that they handle them. We're not asking that gun owners give up their right to bear arms, we're just asking that they be smart about it. We know that you know how to handle your weapon. We're just asking that you go through the right channels to make sure that it's the intelligent gun owner like you who gets the gun, and not the psychopath who decides to shoot up a school.
There are two sides to any issue. I know quite a few gun owners who have an immense respect and appreciation for gun safety. They take every precaution, they most certainly do not treat their guns as "toys," and go to great lengths to educate themselves on the subject. There are probably quite a few gun owners on a hair trigger who see their guns as their last and only resort in any given conflict or situation, but I do believe that the majority of gun owners are respectable citizens just like anybody else. A lot of gun owners probably hear about these school shootings and, between bouts of grief for the horrible tragedy, probably feel an intense hatred towards the shooter, as the shooter inevitably paints all gun owners as trigger-happy malcontents who are an inch away from blowing the head off the nearest innocent bystander. You could be the safest, most precautionary gun owner in the world, follow all the rules, and do everything right, and all it takes is one trigger happy lunatic for the people around you to see you as an unstable, gun-toting maniac.
I can honestly appreciate that.
That said, it is easier to get a gun license in this country than it is to get a driver's license. It is easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a pet. You can walk into a Wal-Mart and pick up parts and ammo for any number of weapons, from concealable handguns to high caliber rifles. Many gun owners are not generally fans of regulation, but in case it wasn't abundantly clear, we regulate just about everything in this country. We regulate alcohol, we regulate prescription drugs, we regulate tobacco, we regulate vehicles, we regulate movies, TV shows and video games by age group, and yes, we regulate guns.
Anything that is potentially harmful, anything that you wouldn't want a child to pick up and play with, anything that could hurt or kill someone if handled incorrectly, is and should be regulated. It's not tyrannical to try to keep these things out of the hands of someone who doesn't know how to or has no intention to handle it correctly. I'm not saying gun owners are unintelligent - quite the opposite, many of my friends and family own guns, and they are very smart about the way that they handle them. We're not asking that gun owners give up their right to bear arms, we're just asking that they be smart about it. We know that you know how to handle your weapon. We're just asking that you go through the right channels to make sure that it's the intelligent gun owner like you who gets the gun, and not the psychopath who decides to shoot up a school.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Halo Fan Fiction
More shameless plugs for the last few fics I've made. Absolutely loved Halo 4, and I've been on a Halo fan fiction kick ever since I finished it.
Daybreak's Bell » reviews
Post Halo 4 - The UNSC Infinity has found Installation 01. As the Master Chief explores its ruins, he comes across a Forerunner artifact that lets him commune with the Librarian. What secrets lie within these ancient ruins? What plans does the Librarian have in store for the Chief? And who is this mysterious new Promethean who comes to his aid? Chief x Cortana
Post Halo 4 - The UNSC Infinity has found Installation 01. As the Master Chief explores its ruins, he comes across a Forerunner artifact that lets him commune with the Librarian. What secrets lie within these ancient ruins? What plans does the Librarian have in store for the Chief? And who is this mysterious new Promethean who comes to his aid? Chief x Cortana
Halo
- Rated: T - English - Drama/Adventure - Chapters: 6 - Words: 40,052 -
Reviews: 163 - Updated: 3-16-13 - Published: 11-11-12 - Cortana &
Master Chief/John-117
When The Dawn Breaks reviews
Post Halo 4 - Sometimes, war takes
things from us that we're not prepared to part with. What happens when
John is forced to accept that a part of himself is now gone? And how
will he react when they try to replace her with someone else? Implied
Chief x Cortana. One-Shot for now, may continue if reviewed enough.
Halo
- Rated: T - English - Drama/Hurt/Comfort - Chapters: 1 - Words: 2,918 -
Reviews: 44 - Published: 11-7-12 - Master Chief/John-117 & Cortana -
Complete
When You Need Me » reviews
"Wake me…when you need me." That was
what he had told her. Seven months, eighteen days, eleven hours,
thirty-seven minutes, and twenty-two seconds ago. Chief x Cortana, Post
Halo 3.
Halo - Rated: K+ -
English - Drama - Chapters: 5 - Words: 23,576 - Reviews: 80 - Updated:
8-13-12 - Published: 6-21-08 - Master Chief/John-117 & Cortana - Complete
Friday, February 22, 2013
The Internet vs. Real Life
Watch the above video before reading.
Okay, have you watched it yet? Good.
~~~
Ok, yeah I get the message. I just don't think it applies to me.
The world he's talking about is the one's that's been trying to shove itself in my face from day one. I never remember enjoying life as much as this guy seems to, even before the internet, cell phones and social media. Honestly, I feel like I've been waiting for the internet my whole life. I much prefer my internet life to my real one. The internet is what really opened my eyes to the world. Without it, the world would be unbearable to me. I look at the life this guy chooses to live, and I get flashbacks to the isolation and tedium of my life before I discovered the internet. I look at the life this guy desires, and I can honestly say that it looks utterly boring, despite all the fun that he seems to be having. And I'm happy for him - I'm glad he's found something. But that life is not for me. Maybe if I had the internet, a cell phone, and social media earlier in life, I would feel differently. But I was never allowed into the life I'm currently living until the latter years of high school, and by then, it was sick of the real world. So just as a kid who turns 21 sees alcohol as the forbidden fruit, to me, the internet, tv and video games were the forbidden fruit for most of my childhood. And these things will forever carry that stigma for me. Nothing about this video has convinced me otherwise.
The world he's talking about is the one's that's been trying to shove itself in my face from day one. I never remember enjoying life as much as this guy seems to, even before the internet, cell phones and social media. Honestly, I feel like I've been waiting for the internet my whole life. I much prefer my internet life to my real one. The internet is what really opened my eyes to the world. Without it, the world would be unbearable to me. I look at the life this guy chooses to live, and I get flashbacks to the isolation and tedium of my life before I discovered the internet. I look at the life this guy desires, and I can honestly say that it looks utterly boring, despite all the fun that he seems to be having. And I'm happy for him - I'm glad he's found something. But that life is not for me. Maybe if I had the internet, a cell phone, and social media earlier in life, I would feel differently. But I was never allowed into the life I'm currently living until the latter years of high school, and by then, it was sick of the real world. So just as a kid who turns 21 sees alcohol as the forbidden fruit, to me, the internet, tv and video games were the forbidden fruit for most of my childhood. And these things will forever carry that stigma for me. Nothing about this video has convinced me otherwise.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Life, the Church, and Everything
Last week, I heard a minister say that "God loves life." And given
how strongly the church has argued against abortion, contraception and
gay marriage, this statement appears largely true. This week, a senator
even made the statement to the effect that every incidence of pregnancy,
even those that come from rape and incest, is a gift from God.
Everything the church does seems to promote the idea that everything you
do throughout your life should be helping you to go out and make more
life - and as much of it as you possibly can. The feeling has even
pervaded outside the church, from people asking men and women when
they're going to settle down and start a family, to families that have
boasted 10-12 children. Even in the realm of science, the inarguable
purpose of our evolution seems to be to reproduce. In the old days, it
wasn't uncommon for a man to remarry 3-5 times, each wife giving that
man as many children as she can, from the year she hits puberty to the
year she dies. And in the old days, when famine, disease, poverty, war
and all manner of ills threatened to wipe out entire civilizations at
every turn, this made absolutely perfect sense.
This year, the Earth's population has hit 7 billion. I assume you can guess where I'm going with this. Human beings have been giving birth for millenia. And given how many humans there are, we've obviously become remarkably good at it. Not just us humans, but every animal, plant and microbial life form today is here because of the miracle of birth. But while I'm not arguing at just how chemically and genetically improbable and amazing that birth can even happen at all, I do think it's rather an overstatement to call birth a "miracle" given how regularly it occurs, and as many teenagers can attest to, how easy and unexpectedly it can happen. In fact, with childbirth these days so easy and prevalent, and with the only thing plummeting faster than death rates being the resources needed to sustain those not dying, to put childbirth on such a pedestal as to call it a "miracle" is not only shortsighted but foolhardy. The need to go forth and multiply as it stands now, more than being non-applicable, is actually counter-productive to the overall health of the planet we live on. I know the belief of the church is that man has inherited the Earth to do with as he pleases, but make no mistake, the Earth will not support us for much longer if we keep devouring resources like it's going out of fashion.
But that's not even the main reason I'm writing this. Rather, I'm arguing that since the need to constantly, constantly reproduce no longer applies, at least for the time being, then it the notion of bearing children no longer takes precedent over human happiness. A person can afford to not be life-giving in every major decision they make about their lives. It doesn't always, always have to be about making babies all the time. We can actually do things with our baby-making body parts that don't result in a baby. And guess what? The human race won't die off as a result!
The human race as a species will keep on kicking if you decide not to have children in your lifetime. It will also continue onward if you decide you want to have safe sex. Other couples will in fact continue to have children if you should decide you're not ready and want to have an abortion. And the world will most certainly keep spinning if two people of the same sex decide to get married. And by the way, how is a gay couple getting married any different than an infertile couple getting married, in terms of life-giving relationships? And while we're pondering that puzzler, consider that if gay couples ever decide to adopt (and we manage to grow up and stop presuming that gay couples are unfit parents), how much of a great service they would be doing the world by providing a loving home to an otherwise forsaken child.
If you do want children, and can safely do so, by all means, have children. But you should, by no means, be required to do so by your government or your faith! In fact, no matter what your belief, you should always make the decision to have children with great prudence, because in case no one told you, a child is an enormous responsibility. Children come at great pains to the mother, at a great financial burden to both parents, and if the parents aren't healthy enough, fit or willing to be good parents, that child runs the enormous risk of growing up suffering and doomed to go down a troubled and unfortunate path. There are obviously exceptions to this, but if you want to gamble your life, your spouse's life, or the life of your child on those odds, then that's all on your head when you make that decision. We are human beings! We may not have all the answers, but we're smart enough to look to the future and realize that if a child is born into a particular situation, or of a mother who is too young, financially insecure, or worse, the victim of rape, that either the child, mother or both will not survive, or worse, be doomed to a life of misery and hardship, that in situations like these, we have the power and responsibility to change it.
Because - and please follow me here - there are worse things in this world than not having a baby!
No, we shouldn't all be mandated to suffer or die just to bring yet another life into being under any circumstance whatsoever. Not everything is about making babies! There are worse things in this world than not having a baby! Foster homes and shelters are filled to the brim with homeless children, and those who don't find homes usually end up in our prisons. And our prisons have become so full that it's become profitable to run them like a business! There are worse things in this world than not having a baby! Food, jobs, land, fuel and many, many other finite resources are already tapering out! If we bring many more children into this world, we're only putting more strain on our already dwindling resources. If we strain them too much more, there will be nothing left for the children we are so eagerly squirting out. And let's be clear: I am by no means denouncing childbirth entirely. If you are healthy, secure and ready to be a parent, then by all means, reproduce as much as you like! But are under no obligation to do so! There are worse things in this world than not having a baby!
The world doesn't need another baby right now! The only reason you should be having children is because you want to! And even if you do, you have options. Adopt! There are thousands, millions of children already born who need a home! Get married to the person you love regardless of whether your union can produce children! And if you don't want children at all, that's fine too! Have safe sex! Enjoy your life, regardless of whether you're having kids or not! And if you're not ready for a child and an accident does happen, you are not obligated to have that child if you have reason to believe it will ruin your life!
Because, say it with me now: There are worse things in this world than not having a baby!
Here's what confuses me: if God loves life, why would he require such terrible strains in order to produce it, when we could easily minimize those strains while maintaining a good balance of life in equitable conditions? Especially since the whole point of life, after creating more of it, is to die and go to the afterlife? To me, when there is not only such little need for prolific propagation of life in this age, but actual negative consequences to it, the argument to continue to propagate life sounds likes it's coming from institutions who stands to profit from such an overabundance of life.
A prison warden who cares only for lining his pockets for keeping more and more inmates; a business owner who has to pay his workers less and less because with all the competition for the jobs he's offering there will always be someone willing to work for less; political leaders who earn their votes from an uninformed electorate because our school systems can't afford to keep up with our surplus of children; our government who continue to throw more and more soldiers into war as cannon fodder; and yes, even a church whose uninformed masses continue to add more and more falsely acclaimed validity to an already overblown institution. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this level of atrocity still seems much more likely than a God who just loves life so much that he wants us to go to every imaginable length - from repeated painful, dangerous and possibly lethal childbirths, and the absolute inhibition of either enjoying sex for its own sake or for spending your life with your loved one if they happen to have the same parts as you - to have children just so they can go on and go through the same process, and all of whom only ever achieve their actual happiness in an afterlife that nobody can describe.
Which seems more likely to you?
This year, the Earth's population has hit 7 billion. I assume you can guess where I'm going with this. Human beings have been giving birth for millenia. And given how many humans there are, we've obviously become remarkably good at it. Not just us humans, but every animal, plant and microbial life form today is here because of the miracle of birth. But while I'm not arguing at just how chemically and genetically improbable and amazing that birth can even happen at all, I do think it's rather an overstatement to call birth a "miracle" given how regularly it occurs, and as many teenagers can attest to, how easy and unexpectedly it can happen. In fact, with childbirth these days so easy and prevalent, and with the only thing plummeting faster than death rates being the resources needed to sustain those not dying, to put childbirth on such a pedestal as to call it a "miracle" is not only shortsighted but foolhardy. The need to go forth and multiply as it stands now, more than being non-applicable, is actually counter-productive to the overall health of the planet we live on. I know the belief of the church is that man has inherited the Earth to do with as he pleases, but make no mistake, the Earth will not support us for much longer if we keep devouring resources like it's going out of fashion.
But that's not even the main reason I'm writing this. Rather, I'm arguing that since the need to constantly, constantly reproduce no longer applies, at least for the time being, then it the notion of bearing children no longer takes precedent over human happiness. A person can afford to not be life-giving in every major decision they make about their lives. It doesn't always, always have to be about making babies all the time. We can actually do things with our baby-making body parts that don't result in a baby. And guess what? The human race won't die off as a result!
The human race as a species will keep on kicking if you decide not to have children in your lifetime. It will also continue onward if you decide you want to have safe sex. Other couples will in fact continue to have children if you should decide you're not ready and want to have an abortion. And the world will most certainly keep spinning if two people of the same sex decide to get married. And by the way, how is a gay couple getting married any different than an infertile couple getting married, in terms of life-giving relationships? And while we're pondering that puzzler, consider that if gay couples ever decide to adopt (and we manage to grow up and stop presuming that gay couples are unfit parents), how much of a great service they would be doing the world by providing a loving home to an otherwise forsaken child.
If you do want children, and can safely do so, by all means, have children. But you should, by no means, be required to do so by your government or your faith! In fact, no matter what your belief, you should always make the decision to have children with great prudence, because in case no one told you, a child is an enormous responsibility. Children come at great pains to the mother, at a great financial burden to both parents, and if the parents aren't healthy enough, fit or willing to be good parents, that child runs the enormous risk of growing up suffering and doomed to go down a troubled and unfortunate path. There are obviously exceptions to this, but if you want to gamble your life, your spouse's life, or the life of your child on those odds, then that's all on your head when you make that decision. We are human beings! We may not have all the answers, but we're smart enough to look to the future and realize that if a child is born into a particular situation, or of a mother who is too young, financially insecure, or worse, the victim of rape, that either the child, mother or both will not survive, or worse, be doomed to a life of misery and hardship, that in situations like these, we have the power and responsibility to change it.
Because - and please follow me here - there are worse things in this world than not having a baby!
No, we shouldn't all be mandated to suffer or die just to bring yet another life into being under any circumstance whatsoever. Not everything is about making babies! There are worse things in this world than not having a baby! Foster homes and shelters are filled to the brim with homeless children, and those who don't find homes usually end up in our prisons. And our prisons have become so full that it's become profitable to run them like a business! There are worse things in this world than not having a baby! Food, jobs, land, fuel and many, many other finite resources are already tapering out! If we bring many more children into this world, we're only putting more strain on our already dwindling resources. If we strain them too much more, there will be nothing left for the children we are so eagerly squirting out. And let's be clear: I am by no means denouncing childbirth entirely. If you are healthy, secure and ready to be a parent, then by all means, reproduce as much as you like! But are under no obligation to do so! There are worse things in this world than not having a baby!
The world doesn't need another baby right now! The only reason you should be having children is because you want to! And even if you do, you have options. Adopt! There are thousands, millions of children already born who need a home! Get married to the person you love regardless of whether your union can produce children! And if you don't want children at all, that's fine too! Have safe sex! Enjoy your life, regardless of whether you're having kids or not! And if you're not ready for a child and an accident does happen, you are not obligated to have that child if you have reason to believe it will ruin your life!
Because, say it with me now: There are worse things in this world than not having a baby!
Here's what confuses me: if God loves life, why would he require such terrible strains in order to produce it, when we could easily minimize those strains while maintaining a good balance of life in equitable conditions? Especially since the whole point of life, after creating more of it, is to die and go to the afterlife? To me, when there is not only such little need for prolific propagation of life in this age, but actual negative consequences to it, the argument to continue to propagate life sounds likes it's coming from institutions who stands to profit from such an overabundance of life.
A prison warden who cares only for lining his pockets for keeping more and more inmates; a business owner who has to pay his workers less and less because with all the competition for the jobs he's offering there will always be someone willing to work for less; political leaders who earn their votes from an uninformed electorate because our school systems can't afford to keep up with our surplus of children; our government who continue to throw more and more soldiers into war as cannon fodder; and yes, even a church whose uninformed masses continue to add more and more falsely acclaimed validity to an already overblown institution. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this level of atrocity still seems much more likely than a God who just loves life so much that he wants us to go to every imaginable length - from repeated painful, dangerous and possibly lethal childbirths, and the absolute inhibition of either enjoying sex for its own sake or for spending your life with your loved one if they happen to have the same parts as you - to have children just so they can go on and go through the same process, and all of whom only ever achieve their actual happiness in an afterlife that nobody can describe.
Which seems more likely to you?
Friday, July 22, 2011
Homosexuality and Sexual Deviance Within Our Society
Time of Original Posting: Tuesday, April 19th, 2011 at 2:26am
~ ~ ~
I've been meaning to pen these thoughts down for a while. Had a discussion with someone about this tonight, and it got me thinking about a line of thought that I've had for years: society's treatment of people of different sexualities - gays, lesbians, transexuals, and everything in between - is comparable to its treatment of people with fetishes - BDSM and stuff like that - namely, that they'll tolerate it as long as it doesn't come up in polite conversation. The NIMBY rule is the word. As long as it's kept on the down low, no one will make a fuss about what you do with your private life. Many people have already taken advantage of this fact. The most polite, refined and conservative people in the world might just have some of the most perverse or scandalous fantasies that come to life behind closed doors, and get away with it because of that key point: "behind closed doors."
When you break it down, sexuality fits evenly within the broad range of fetishes and kinks of the human sphere. There are things that get us off, and things that don't. Whether that be whips and chains, hot wax, or someone from the same sex, it all falls into the category of "things that turn us on." Some are more conservative, some are more extreme, some are not allowed by law (underage partners and rape, to name a few), but no matter what you're into, you will be accepted by society as long as nobody finds out about it. Out of sight, out of mind. There are some things the world at large just doesn't want to know about.
And therein lies the problem. Sexuality lies so predominantly in a person's identity, that to keep it behind closed doors would seem like a denial of one's true self. Every time someone acts flamboyant or butch or in any other way openly displays their sexual preferences, they are keeping true to their identity by refusing to keep their interests out of public view. But there are a number of gays, lesbians and transsexuals, just as there are straight people with embarrassing or shameful fetishes (even some illegal ones), that fit into society by keeping their desires under wraps.
When people reveal these fetishes and kinks and sexualities, that's when they stand out. It is our ability to control our urges and not let them dominate our lifestyle that allows us to fit in. By refusing to conform, gays and lesbians stay true to themsevles to be sure, but they also expose themselves to the scorn of the unforgiving majority. This is not to accuse or antagonize, but merely point out that by keeping such desires a secret, people are able to fit in and be accepted. It's noble to be yourself in the face of oppression, but consider this - the inability to control ones desires is the sole reason laws exist.
The reason we lock up rapists and child molesters is because we have agreed, as a society, that the people who desire to commit these acts and cannot (or choose not to) control these impulses are too dangerous and/or not allowed within our society. These criminals might also make the argument that they are simply "being true to themselves" but the act is so heinous that their arguments fall on deaf ears.
Homosexuality and bisexuality is not forbidden by law, at least in some states (as far as I know - I'm not counting marriage, simply the sexual act itself, but I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am). But that does not change the fact that it is the minority among the sexual preferences of the masses. As far as hollywood movies and the MPAA ratings are concerned, heterosexual pairings in missionary and other vanilla positions are the norm, and anything that strays from that (homosexuality, deviant sexual positions, and anything kinky in the slightest) gets an NC-17 rating - and therefore, only viewable by people who actively seek it out, i.e., the minority.
If you have a fetish - or a sexuality - that deviates from this norm, unless society changes in your lifetime (which is a rare but not unheard of occurence), you're going to be subjected to these pressures for the rest of your life. The choice remains - keep it a secret and be accepted, but feel that you're not being true to yourself, or expose your desires to the public and hope that by doing so, others might follow suit, and try to avoid the slings and arrows of the misunderstanding and judgemental masses.
This is probably not news to you if this is the case, but you should also know this - you are not alone. Even amongst the hetereosexual community, there are those with various kinks and fetishes, some of which would be shameful and embarrasing and completely upset their social life if it ever came to light, who must face the same choice. Their fetish or kink may not be so thouroughly rooted to their identity as yours, but then again, maybe it is. There are entire communities that organize around certain fetishes for those that know where to look, as I'm sure there are amongst homosexuals. These communities evolve, usually under the radar, but as a place where people can be open about their deviant kink or preference.
You are not the only ones who must sometimes pretend to be something you're not, pretend to find something appealing, when what you really want is on another buffet table altogether, and know that if anyone at the table knew this, you'd be shunned. I hope you can take comfort in knowing that there are those, even amongst the heterosexual community, who understand and share in your predicament.
To summarize, we all have desires. Those desires stretch the full range of availability, from what society considers "normal" to what it considers "deviant," which can include fetishes, homosexuality, and perverse felonies. But the most important thing to take away from this note is this: what makes us "normal" are not these desires we feel, but our ability to contain them.
We all have desires, many of them not even sexual. The desire for food, power, and money, to name a few. Those who cannot control these desires, to the point where they steal or harm others to satisfy them, are punished for it. We have been raised all our lives to control our desires, no matter what their nature is, for the sake of fitting into society, because if you don't fit in, the way tthe law sees it, you cannot contribute and help society grow. Our code of laws exist to keep these desires in check. How we fit into society is based soley around how we manage all of our desires.
You can be open with yourself if you wish, but there is no shame in keeping your desires a secret, especially if they are embarrasing, scandalous, or especially felonous. For this latter group, the adviseable method is, of course, to keep your desires a secret and never practice them, even behind closed doors. There have been those who have absconded to third world countries that won't penalize you for commiting them, and we've all seen the results of their failed attempt to do so discretely. Our newspapers are full of stories that are testament to what happens when something like that gets out.
But for the rest of us, simply meeting the right person, getting to know them, confiding in them, trusting them with your kinks or sexual preferences, discovering against hope that they either share your desire, or are willing to accommodate it, and finally being able to enjoy what you love doing the most behind closed doors in a consensual and harmless manner, in my opinion, is the most logical and livable approach to dealing with a devious desire. You can still keep your job, your friends, your life, and still be able to escape into your fantasy world when no one else is around - essentially, having your cake and eating it too.
Of course, it would be nice if the world were an open and accepting place, where everyone could express themselves freely, but the sad truth is, it isn't. It may never be. It won't change until enough people expose themselves until it can compete with the majority. But those who do will suffer the consequences. Those that make this sacrifice in the hope of bettering the world for those in their community have my respect and support, but if what you desire is to simply be at peace with the world and your desires, the above method is surely the best approach.
~ ~ ~
I've been meaning to pen these thoughts down for a while. Had a discussion with someone about this tonight, and it got me thinking about a line of thought that I've had for years: society's treatment of people of different sexualities - gays, lesbians, transexuals, and everything in between - is comparable to its treatment of people with fetishes - BDSM and stuff like that - namely, that they'll tolerate it as long as it doesn't come up in polite conversation. The NIMBY rule is the word. As long as it's kept on the down low, no one will make a fuss about what you do with your private life. Many people have already taken advantage of this fact. The most polite, refined and conservative people in the world might just have some of the most perverse or scandalous fantasies that come to life behind closed doors, and get away with it because of that key point: "behind closed doors."
When you break it down, sexuality fits evenly within the broad range of fetishes and kinks of the human sphere. There are things that get us off, and things that don't. Whether that be whips and chains, hot wax, or someone from the same sex, it all falls into the category of "things that turn us on." Some are more conservative, some are more extreme, some are not allowed by law (underage partners and rape, to name a few), but no matter what you're into, you will be accepted by society as long as nobody finds out about it. Out of sight, out of mind. There are some things the world at large just doesn't want to know about.
And therein lies the problem. Sexuality lies so predominantly in a person's identity, that to keep it behind closed doors would seem like a denial of one's true self. Every time someone acts flamboyant or butch or in any other way openly displays their sexual preferences, they are keeping true to their identity by refusing to keep their interests out of public view. But there are a number of gays, lesbians and transsexuals, just as there are straight people with embarrassing or shameful fetishes (even some illegal ones), that fit into society by keeping their desires under wraps.
When people reveal these fetishes and kinks and sexualities, that's when they stand out. It is our ability to control our urges and not let them dominate our lifestyle that allows us to fit in. By refusing to conform, gays and lesbians stay true to themsevles to be sure, but they also expose themselves to the scorn of the unforgiving majority. This is not to accuse or antagonize, but merely point out that by keeping such desires a secret, people are able to fit in and be accepted. It's noble to be yourself in the face of oppression, but consider this - the inability to control ones desires is the sole reason laws exist.
The reason we lock up rapists and child molesters is because we have agreed, as a society, that the people who desire to commit these acts and cannot (or choose not to) control these impulses are too dangerous and/or not allowed within our society. These criminals might also make the argument that they are simply "being true to themselves" but the act is so heinous that their arguments fall on deaf ears.
Homosexuality and bisexuality is not forbidden by law, at least in some states (as far as I know - I'm not counting marriage, simply the sexual act itself, but I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I am). But that does not change the fact that it is the minority among the sexual preferences of the masses. As far as hollywood movies and the MPAA ratings are concerned, heterosexual pairings in missionary and other vanilla positions are the norm, and anything that strays from that (homosexuality, deviant sexual positions, and anything kinky in the slightest) gets an NC-17 rating - and therefore, only viewable by people who actively seek it out, i.e., the minority.
If you have a fetish - or a sexuality - that deviates from this norm, unless society changes in your lifetime (which is a rare but not unheard of occurence), you're going to be subjected to these pressures for the rest of your life. The choice remains - keep it a secret and be accepted, but feel that you're not being true to yourself, or expose your desires to the public and hope that by doing so, others might follow suit, and try to avoid the slings and arrows of the misunderstanding and judgemental masses.
This is probably not news to you if this is the case, but you should also know this - you are not alone. Even amongst the hetereosexual community, there are those with various kinks and fetishes, some of which would be shameful and embarrasing and completely upset their social life if it ever came to light, who must face the same choice. Their fetish or kink may not be so thouroughly rooted to their identity as yours, but then again, maybe it is. There are entire communities that organize around certain fetishes for those that know where to look, as I'm sure there are amongst homosexuals. These communities evolve, usually under the radar, but as a place where people can be open about their deviant kink or preference.
You are not the only ones who must sometimes pretend to be something you're not, pretend to find something appealing, when what you really want is on another buffet table altogether, and know that if anyone at the table knew this, you'd be shunned. I hope you can take comfort in knowing that there are those, even amongst the heterosexual community, who understand and share in your predicament.
To summarize, we all have desires. Those desires stretch the full range of availability, from what society considers "normal" to what it considers "deviant," which can include fetishes, homosexuality, and perverse felonies. But the most important thing to take away from this note is this: what makes us "normal" are not these desires we feel, but our ability to contain them.
We all have desires, many of them not even sexual. The desire for food, power, and money, to name a few. Those who cannot control these desires, to the point where they steal or harm others to satisfy them, are punished for it. We have been raised all our lives to control our desires, no matter what their nature is, for the sake of fitting into society, because if you don't fit in, the way tthe law sees it, you cannot contribute and help society grow. Our code of laws exist to keep these desires in check. How we fit into society is based soley around how we manage all of our desires.
You can be open with yourself if you wish, but there is no shame in keeping your desires a secret, especially if they are embarrasing, scandalous, or especially felonous. For this latter group, the adviseable method is, of course, to keep your desires a secret and never practice them, even behind closed doors. There have been those who have absconded to third world countries that won't penalize you for commiting them, and we've all seen the results of their failed attempt to do so discretely. Our newspapers are full of stories that are testament to what happens when something like that gets out.
But for the rest of us, simply meeting the right person, getting to know them, confiding in them, trusting them with your kinks or sexual preferences, discovering against hope that they either share your desire, or are willing to accommodate it, and finally being able to enjoy what you love doing the most behind closed doors in a consensual and harmless manner, in my opinion, is the most logical and livable approach to dealing with a devious desire. You can still keep your job, your friends, your life, and still be able to escape into your fantasy world when no one else is around - essentially, having your cake and eating it too.
Of course, it would be nice if the world were an open and accepting place, where everyone could express themselves freely, but the sad truth is, it isn't. It may never be. It won't change until enough people expose themselves until it can compete with the majority. But those who do will suffer the consequences. Those that make this sacrifice in the hope of bettering the world for those in their community have my respect and support, but if what you desire is to simply be at peace with the world and your desires, the above method is surely the best approach.
Orson Scott Card's Theory of Genetic Destiny
Time of Original Posting: Wednesday, January 12th, 2011 at 3:22pm
~ ~ ~
Excerpt from "Xenocide," by Orson Scott Card
--
We spend most of our time acting out our genetic destiny. Take the differences between males and females. Males naturally tend toward a broadcast strategy of reproduction. Since males make an almost infinite supply of sperm and it costs them nothing to deploy it. Their most sensible reproductive strategy is to deposit it in every available female-- and to make special efforts to deposit it in the healthiest females, the ones most likely to bring their offspring to adulthood. A male does best, reproductively, if he wanders and copulates as widely as possible.
The female strategy is just the opposite. Instead of millions and millions of sperm, they only have one egg a month, and each child represents an enormous investment of effort. So females need stability. They need to be sure there'll always be plenty of food. They also spend large amounts of time relatively helpless, unable to find or gather food. Far from being wanderers, females need to establish and stay. If they can't get that, then their next best strategy is to mate with the strongest and healthiest possible males. But best of all is to get a strong healthy male who'll stay and provide, instead of wandering and copulating at will.
So there are two pressures on males. The one is to spread their seed, violently if necessary. The other is to be attractive to females by being stable providers-- by suppressing and containing the need to wander and the tendency to use force. Likewise, there are two pressures on females. The one is to get the seed of the strongest, most virile males so their infants will have good genes, which would make the violent, forceful males attractive to them. The other is to get the protection of the most stable males, nonviolent males, so their infants will be protected and provided for and as many as possible will reach adulthood.
Our whole history can all be interpreted as people blindly acting out those genetic strategies. We get pulled in those two directions. Our great civilizations are nothing more than social machines to create the ideal female setting, where a woman can count on stability; our legal and moral codes that try to abolish violence and promote permanence of ownership and enforce contracts-- those represent the primary female strategy, the taming of the male.
And the tribes of wandering barbarians outside the reach of civilization, those follow the mainly male strategy. Spread the seed. Within the tribe, the strongest, most dominant males take possession of the best females, either through formal polygamy or spur-of-the-moment copulations that the other males are powerless to resist. But those low-status males are kept in line because the leaders take them to war and let them rape and pillage their brains out when they win a victory. They act out sexual desirability by proving themselves in combat, and then kill all the rival males and copulate with their widowed females when they win. Hideous, monstrous behavior-- but also a viable acting-out of the genetic strategy.
Excerpt from "Xenocide," by Orson Scott Card
--
We spend most of our time acting out our genetic destiny. Take the differences between males and females. Males naturally tend toward a broadcast strategy of reproduction. Since males make an almost infinite supply of sperm and it costs them nothing to deploy it. Their most sensible reproductive strategy is to deposit it in every available female-- and to make special efforts to deposit it in the healthiest females, the ones most likely to bring their offspring to adulthood. A male does best, reproductively, if he wanders and copulates as widely as possible.
The female strategy is just the opposite. Instead of millions and millions of sperm, they only have one egg a month, and each child represents an enormous investment of effort. So females need stability. They need to be sure there'll always be plenty of food. They also spend large amounts of time relatively helpless, unable to find or gather food. Far from being wanderers, females need to establish and stay. If they can't get that, then their next best strategy is to mate with the strongest and healthiest possible males. But best of all is to get a strong healthy male who'll stay and provide, instead of wandering and copulating at will.
So there are two pressures on males. The one is to spread their seed, violently if necessary. The other is to be attractive to females by being stable providers-- by suppressing and containing the need to wander and the tendency to use force. Likewise, there are two pressures on females. The one is to get the seed of the strongest, most virile males so their infants will have good genes, which would make the violent, forceful males attractive to them. The other is to get the protection of the most stable males, nonviolent males, so their infants will be protected and provided for and as many as possible will reach adulthood.
Our whole history can all be interpreted as people blindly acting out those genetic strategies. We get pulled in those two directions. Our great civilizations are nothing more than social machines to create the ideal female setting, where a woman can count on stability; our legal and moral codes that try to abolish violence and promote permanence of ownership and enforce contracts-- those represent the primary female strategy, the taming of the male.
And the tribes of wandering barbarians outside the reach of civilization, those follow the mainly male strategy. Spread the seed. Within the tribe, the strongest, most dominant males take possession of the best females, either through formal polygamy or spur-of-the-moment copulations that the other males are powerless to resist. But those low-status males are kept in line because the leaders take them to war and let them rape and pillage their brains out when they win a victory. They act out sexual desirability by proving themselves in combat, and then kill all the rival males and copulate with their widowed females when they win. Hideous, monstrous behavior-- but also a viable acting-out of the genetic strategy.
Yes, I'm afraid of commitment
Time of original posting: Sunday, November 15th, 2009 at 10:34pm
~ ~ ~
You say we're afraid of commitment. Damn right we are!
Commitment means change, a change we have to live with, when everyday, we fight our inclinations to do what we would otherwise do, but be reminded of our commitment, and ask ourselves "Am I sure about this? Can I really go through with this?"
Commitment is the hardest thing anyone can ever do. If the people that ran the world were more committed to their jobs, do you think we'd have half the problems we have today? Asking for commitment from us is asking us to rise among the best men in the world.
Think for a moment, how many people do you know who are actually committed to what they do? You might know some - certainly we know a few - but compare that to the number of people you've seen, met or even heard of, who shirk their duties, slack off on the job, quit, cheat on or leave their partners, fall off the wagon, go back to drinking, smoking, and doing the things they absolutely enjoy doing but inevitably destroy themselves and all they stand for by doing it.
Commitment is hard. Ask anyone. Asking us for commitment is to ask an enormous undertaking on our part. And don't pretend like you're shouldering the same burden by asking us to commit to you, because you're not. The only reason you'd ask it of us in the first place is if you stood something to gain from us being committed. Without our commitment, there's nothing to stop us from taking off and doing as we please, and that scares you. If we were to commit to you, our options suddenly become limited, whereas you know exactly what to expect from us, and gain the right to expect it. The things we expect from you, however, still remain within your right to withhold.
So who wins out in this situation? Why should we be expected to commit to you, when we're still so insecure about the world? We don't know what else is out there, shouldn't we be allowed to find out? If we have to suddenly settle down and be yours just because of your own insecurities, shouldn't we be allowed to have our own?
And why now? Are you afraid of what we might find out there? Do you think we'll find something so beautiful that we'll leave you? You say commitment is a sign of trust, but really you want us to commit to you because you don't trust us. You don't have faith that we'll stay on our own, without tying knots or making promises. You don't have faith in us or our character, and if you don't know us well enough to know what to expect, than you have no right to assume we're ready for commitment to begin with.
The only purpose commitment serves is turning chance into predictability, only it's our chances that are being taken away, while you've already made your decision to cash in your chips. Sure, commitment can lead to the creation of good and wonderful things - communities, riches, children - but that's a responsibility that's beyond a lot of of us. You expect us to be gods when we are but men, with the same weaknesses and insecurities. Say what you will about the differences between human beings based on gender or age, the differences are minute, we're the same where it counts, and commitment is no small matter. It doesn't matter who we are, how old we are, if we're male of female - if we're not ready to commit, it's because we have insecurities exactly the same as you, and if you were in our shoes, you'd be saying the exact same thing.
Think about that next time you're about to ask someone to make a commitment to you. And when you realize what you're about to put them through, how about instead, you take a leap of faith yourself...
...And don't.
~ ~ ~
You say we're afraid of commitment. Damn right we are!
Commitment means change, a change we have to live with, when everyday, we fight our inclinations to do what we would otherwise do, but be reminded of our commitment, and ask ourselves "Am I sure about this? Can I really go through with this?"
Commitment is the hardest thing anyone can ever do. If the people that ran the world were more committed to their jobs, do you think we'd have half the problems we have today? Asking for commitment from us is asking us to rise among the best men in the world.
Think for a moment, how many people do you know who are actually committed to what they do? You might know some - certainly we know a few - but compare that to the number of people you've seen, met or even heard of, who shirk their duties, slack off on the job, quit, cheat on or leave their partners, fall off the wagon, go back to drinking, smoking, and doing the things they absolutely enjoy doing but inevitably destroy themselves and all they stand for by doing it.
Commitment is hard. Ask anyone. Asking us for commitment is to ask an enormous undertaking on our part. And don't pretend like you're shouldering the same burden by asking us to commit to you, because you're not. The only reason you'd ask it of us in the first place is if you stood something to gain from us being committed. Without our commitment, there's nothing to stop us from taking off and doing as we please, and that scares you. If we were to commit to you, our options suddenly become limited, whereas you know exactly what to expect from us, and gain the right to expect it. The things we expect from you, however, still remain within your right to withhold.
So who wins out in this situation? Why should we be expected to commit to you, when we're still so insecure about the world? We don't know what else is out there, shouldn't we be allowed to find out? If we have to suddenly settle down and be yours just because of your own insecurities, shouldn't we be allowed to have our own?
And why now? Are you afraid of what we might find out there? Do you think we'll find something so beautiful that we'll leave you? You say commitment is a sign of trust, but really you want us to commit to you because you don't trust us. You don't have faith that we'll stay on our own, without tying knots or making promises. You don't have faith in us or our character, and if you don't know us well enough to know what to expect, than you have no right to assume we're ready for commitment to begin with.
The only purpose commitment serves is turning chance into predictability, only it's our chances that are being taken away, while you've already made your decision to cash in your chips. Sure, commitment can lead to the creation of good and wonderful things - communities, riches, children - but that's a responsibility that's beyond a lot of of us. You expect us to be gods when we are but men, with the same weaknesses and insecurities. Say what you will about the differences between human beings based on gender or age, the differences are minute, we're the same where it counts, and commitment is no small matter. It doesn't matter who we are, how old we are, if we're male of female - if we're not ready to commit, it's because we have insecurities exactly the same as you, and if you were in our shoes, you'd be saying the exact same thing.
Think about that next time you're about to ask someone to make a commitment to you. And when you realize what you're about to put them through, how about instead, you take a leap of faith yourself...
...And don't.
Religulous
Time of original posting: Thursday, January 8th, 2009 at 4:40 AM
I first saw Religulous when it came out last fall, and I just recently saw it again on DVD. I searched the internet for Bill Maher's long, drawn out diatribe at the end of the documentary, and, unable to find it, I transcribed it directly from the DVD onto digital paper. You all may think that this is an astounding waste of time, but I found his words to be so moving and meaningful, that I just had to reiterate them.
(Excerpt from "Religulous" by Bill Maher)
“The plain fact is religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state, not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. ‘Faith’ means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.
“Religion is dangerous, because it allows human beings, who don’t have all the answers, to think that they do. Most people would think it’s wonderful when someone says ‘I’m willing lord. I’ll do whatever you want me to do.’ Except, that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know - they just know - what happens when you die, I promise you, you don’t. How can I be so sure? Because I don’t know. And you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the ‘big questions’ is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that’s what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong.
“This is why rational people, anti-religion-ists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only ‘moderately religious’ really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you’d resign and protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, with the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let’s remember what the real problem was: that we learned how to precipitate mass-death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That’s it. Grow up or die.”
-Bill Maher
(EDIT: Please note that while I agree in a large part with Bill Maher's statements, I am not disagreeing with the existence of God. My disagreement is that human beings are capable of knowing anything about the existence of God, and that literally interpreting religious texts is detrimental to one's grasp of God and man. Turning to religion for the purpose of morale guidance and support is good. Turning to religion for answers as to the origin of man and earth, and the answer to what happens after we die, is less favorable in my opinion, but it gives potentially false hope. Again, this is simply how I choose to live my life. You are all welcome to live your lives how you choose to. Bottom line: "People will generally believe whatever makes living easiest. Who are we to take that away?" - Anonymous.)
~ ~ ~
I first saw Religulous when it came out last fall, and I just recently saw it again on DVD. I searched the internet for Bill Maher's long, drawn out diatribe at the end of the documentary, and, unable to find it, I transcribed it directly from the DVD onto digital paper. You all may think that this is an astounding waste of time, but I found his words to be so moving and meaningful, that I just had to reiterate them.
(Excerpt from "Religulous" by Bill Maher)
“The plain fact is religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state, not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of chicken. George Bush prayed a lot about Iraq, but he didn't learn a lot about it. ‘Faith’ means making a virtue out of not thinking. It’s nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.
“Religion is dangerous, because it allows human beings, who don’t have all the answers, to think that they do. Most people would think it’s wonderful when someone says ‘I’m willing lord. I’ll do whatever you want me to do.’ Except, that since there are no gods actually talking to us, that void is filled in by people with their own corruptions and limitations and agendas. And anyone who tells you they know - they just know - what happens when you die, I promise you, you don’t. How can I be so sure? Because I don’t know. And you do not possess mental powers that I do not. The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the ‘big questions’ is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that’s what man needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong.
“This is why rational people, anti-religion-ists, must end their timidity and come out of the closet and assert themselves. And those who consider themselves only ‘moderately religious’ really need to look in the mirror and realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings you actually comes at a terrible price. If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you’d resign and protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a mafia wife, with the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers. If the world does come to an end here or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of a religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let’s remember what the real problem was: that we learned how to precipitate mass-death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it. That’s it. Grow up or die.”
-Bill Maher
(EDIT: Please note that while I agree in a large part with Bill Maher's statements, I am not disagreeing with the existence of God. My disagreement is that human beings are capable of knowing anything about the existence of God, and that literally interpreting religious texts is detrimental to one's grasp of God and man. Turning to religion for the purpose of morale guidance and support is good. Turning to religion for answers as to the origin of man and earth, and the answer to what happens after we die, is less favorable in my opinion, but it gives potentially false hope. Again, this is simply how I choose to live my life. You are all welcome to live your lives how you choose to. Bottom line: "People will generally believe whatever makes living easiest. Who are we to take that away?" - Anonymous.)
Sunday, December 5, 2010
The Tale of Kraven Ergeist
Kraven Ergeist is a character I created in high school, and his story has been evolving in my head since then. I'm still not a hundred percent sure what I want to do with it, whether I want to write it into a novel, a comic book, film or what. There's a synopsis available on my DeviantArt account, the first part of which I have posted below.
Latest fanfic
Just to shamelessly plug my latest fanfic, in a hope to one day get a following, here's the latest fanfic I've released, featuring the above characters from Bleach.
Halibel is taken prisoner by Soul Society after Aizen's defeat, and receives an unlikely visitor. Hitsugaya x Halibel :: CH 2 IS UP!
Bleach - Rated: T - English - Romance/Drama - Chapters: 2 - Words: 5,955 - Reviews: 11 - Published: 11-30-10 - T. Hitsugaya & T. Harribel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)