Click here for part 1. Chick is the same person, boyfriend is the same guy. We went to lunch with a friend and discussed. Our friend does in fact refer to her boyfriend as 'Loser.'
FRIEND: "So how are things going with Loser?"
CHICK: "I'm actually really mad at him right now because he's playing games with me."
ME: "How so?"
CHICK: "Because I don't know if he's going to hang out with me over Memorial Day weekend or not, and he won't tell me."
FRIEND: "When did you ask him?"
CHICK: "Well, a couple weeks ago I mentioned to him that since it was a holiday, we'd both have the weekend off (usually I can't hang out on weekends because I do volunteer stuff on Saturdays) and we should get together. So he says that he's going to be going camping with his friends instead."
FRIEND: "So... he has plans."
CHICK: "Well, yeah, so I tell him that he needs to spend the weekend with me, so he should cancel his camping trip with his friends so we could spend some time together, and he said he wasn't going to. So now I don't know whether we're going to be hanging out or not."
(silence)
ME: "Well... it sounds like you're not going to be hanging out with him this weekend."
CHICK: "Well, I don't know, I'm kind of mad at him for not giving me an answer, but I'd be willing to—"
FRIEND: "He gave you an answer. He said he was going camping."
CHICK: "Yeah, but he should be hanging out with me, not hanging out with his friends."
FRIEND: "Hm. Yeah. That was a really stupid thing to say to him."
CHICK: "What was!?"
ME: "You gave him an ultimatum."
CHICK: "What's that mean?"
FRIEND: "When you give a guy a choice saying 'either you do what I want you to do, or you're in trouble,' he is never going to do what you want him to do. He'll go against you just out of spite."
ME: "You may never hear from him again."
CHICK: "But that's not what I did!!!"
ME: "How is that not what you did?"
CHICK: "I didn't give him a choice! I told him he needed to spend Memorial Day weekend with me if he wanted us to work."
Can't argue with logic like that. I don't mean it's solid logic, I just mean, you can't argue with logic like that.
To be continued, I have no doubt...
20090520
Satanists and Catholics Unite
I was intrigued by a passing comment on The Colbert Report that the only demographic which is on the rise in all 50 states is atheists. I actually looked into this statistic and discovered that additionally, the only demographic which is decreasing in every state is Monotheists (the group which includes Jews, Christians, and Muslims), though there is variation for each particular faith.
Religious leaders defend this by saying (and I completely agree with them) that the number of people of true faith have not decreased; they have actually increased for the most part. I personally would suggest that “atheists” also qualify as people of true faith (i.e. they sincerely believe in their metaphysical beliefs).
What appears to be happening is that people who are ambivalent towards religion have long considered themselves Christians because, well, that’s what normal people are. Atheists, however, have done a very good PR job of telling people that, by definition, if they don’t actively believe in God, then they are atheists. Therefore, when people are asked what religion they consider themselves to be, people who used to call themselves Christians are now calling themselves atheists, even though nothing in their belief or lifestyle has changed at all.
Now, I would like to suggest that anyone who casually refers to themselves as Catholic, Muslim, Mormon or Protestant, but don’t go to church/mosque or follow the rituals of their dogma are not actually of that religion, and people who refer to themselves as atheists but don’t really think about whether or not there is a God are not atheists. They’re simply non-religious.
My theory is that if the only people who considered themselves members of a belief system were people who actually believed it, the world would be incomparably better than it is today. If you ever look at debates between devout muslims, devout Christians, and devout atheists, they are almost always completely cordial with each other. Many of the most religious actually believe that they are in the same circle as those from other religions, they simply disagree on the details.
Even some of the higher-ups in the Church of Satan point out that Satanism is merely a rebranding by Christians of the worship of mother Earth, that Satan wasn’t even considered evil until the Catholic church announced that he was the ruler of Hell in the 400s. They don’t condone sinning, deception, or evil of any kind—the church is essentially a nephew of paganism, and are simply victims of a slander campaign 1600 years ago. And much like the other ‘non-believers’ I mentioned before, anyone who calls themselves a Satanist because they drink goat’s blood and evoke the Dark Lord are not really Satanists; they’re just idiots. And really, they’re no worse than the extreme fringe of most other religions, whether it’s radical Muslims, Opus Dei (i.e. radical Catholics), or radical Fundementalist Christians, who condone oppression, mortal punishment of nonbelievers, and provoke violence against innocents, like abortion doctors, gay rights activists, and blacks (lest ye forget the affiliation of the Ku Klux Klan). Even radical Hindus have some issues to deal with. Suicide by fire on a public street is not rational behavior.
Basically what I’m saying is that we need to do a reorg of the country’s religions into the five actual belief structures on our planet:
Religious leaders defend this by saying (and I completely agree with them) that the number of people of true faith have not decreased; they have actually increased for the most part. I personally would suggest that “atheists” also qualify as people of true faith (i.e. they sincerely believe in their metaphysical beliefs).
What appears to be happening is that people who are ambivalent towards religion have long considered themselves Christians because, well, that’s what normal people are. Atheists, however, have done a very good PR job of telling people that, by definition, if they don’t actively believe in God, then they are atheists. Therefore, when people are asked what religion they consider themselves to be, people who used to call themselves Christians are now calling themselves atheists, even though nothing in their belief or lifestyle has changed at all.
Now, I would like to suggest that anyone who casually refers to themselves as Catholic, Muslim, Mormon or Protestant, but don’t go to church/mosque or follow the rituals of their dogma are not actually of that religion, and people who refer to themselves as atheists but don’t really think about whether or not there is a God are not atheists. They’re simply non-religious.
My theory is that if the only people who considered themselves members of a belief system were people who actually believed it, the world would be incomparably better than it is today. If you ever look at debates between devout muslims, devout Christians, and devout atheists, they are almost always completely cordial with each other. Many of the most religious actually believe that they are in the same circle as those from other religions, they simply disagree on the details.
Even some of the higher-ups in the Church of Satan point out that Satanism is merely a rebranding by Christians of the worship of mother Earth, that Satan wasn’t even considered evil until the Catholic church announced that he was the ruler of Hell in the 400s. They don’t condone sinning, deception, or evil of any kind—the church is essentially a nephew of paganism, and are simply victims of a slander campaign 1600 years ago. And much like the other ‘non-believers’ I mentioned before, anyone who calls themselves a Satanist because they drink goat’s blood and evoke the Dark Lord are not really Satanists; they’re just idiots. And really, they’re no worse than the extreme fringe of most other religions, whether it’s radical Muslims, Opus Dei (i.e. radical Catholics), or radical Fundementalist Christians, who condone oppression, mortal punishment of nonbelievers, and provoke violence against innocents, like abortion doctors, gay rights activists, and blacks (lest ye forget the affiliation of the Ku Klux Klan). Even radical Hindus have some issues to deal with. Suicide by fire on a public street is not rational behavior.
Basically what I’m saying is that we need to do a reorg of the country’s religions into the five actual belief structures on our planet:
- Fundementalists
- The Devout
- Casual Believers (i.e. those who merely attend service because all their friends go to church too)
- Humanists (atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, certain liberal factions)
- Non-believers
We’ve outgrown these geographic clubs. Let the Fundementalists go to war with the Devout, and leave the rest of us out of it.
20090519
Scandal Schmandal
I’m sure you’ve been watching the news and heard about the “protests” against Obama speaking at Notre Dame—their reason being that a pro-choice President should not be giving a commencement address at a Catholic institution. Conservative media spoke from the perspective of how outrageous it is that the university is allowing Obama to speak, despite the cries of their community. Liberal media spoke of how outrageous it is that the community protest our President being able to speak to an educational institution because of their own prejudices. Non-partisan media have made a big deal of just what a big scandal the whole deal is, regardless of the reason. Even the Wikipedia entry for University of Notre Dame has been edited to include the controversy, suggesting that this event is now an integral part of the university’s 160 year history.
What the media haven’t covered is the actual commencement address. When the extreme minority of community in South Bend who did oppose Obama’s commencement address spoke out, a much larger part of the community reacted harshly. When a few people inside the ceremony interrupted the President’s speech with pro-life rhetoric, they were very quickly drowned out by a huge unison chant of “Yes we can, Yes we can,” the rallying cry of Obama supporters. The fact is that the vast majority of students, faculty, and community members seemed to be honored to have the President grace them with his company, and though they haven’t been given the same voice as the protesters, have tried to make it clear that they were proud of their University’s tradition of attracting such influential speakers.
I guess the truth just isn’t as salacious.
What the media haven’t covered is the actual commencement address. When the extreme minority of community in South Bend who did oppose Obama’s commencement address spoke out, a much larger part of the community reacted harshly. When a few people inside the ceremony interrupted the President’s speech with pro-life rhetoric, they were very quickly drowned out by a huge unison chant of “Yes we can, Yes we can,” the rallying cry of Obama supporters. The fact is that the vast majority of students, faculty, and community members seemed to be honored to have the President grace them with his company, and though they haven’t been given the same voice as the protesters, have tried to make it clear that they were proud of their University’s tradition of attracting such influential speakers.
I guess the truth just isn’t as salacious.
20090514
As the GOP falls
Nearly every political scientist is insisting that the Republican Party is not in danger of collapsing, that both major parties have survived far worse than the GOP are now. Well, if they don't collapse, it won't be for lack of trying.
You may have heard that recently the Republican Party, after a failed effort to rebrand themselves, have decided to rebrand the Democrats instead. They have resolved and pledged to now refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democratic Socialist Party.”
The result? In a recent poll done by a conservative polling company owned by Rupert Murdoch, studies have found that only 53% of Americans consider capitalism to be superior to socialism, meaning that nearly half of Americans do not see anything wrong with socialism; in fact, 20% now consider socialism to be superior. In an effort to scare people away from the Dems, they have associated Democrats with pinkos… and because of peoples’ high opinions of Democrats, their response is now “well, maybe then being a pinko isn’t so bad.”
The only group that this did provoke outrage from, in fact, is the actual Democratic Socialist Party of America, who are outraged that the Republicans are applying the moniker to their sworn rivals, the Democrats. So the effect of this decision is that moderates now think more highly of left-wing radicals, and left-wing radicals now think even less of right-wing conservatives!!!
You may have heard that recently the Republican Party, after a failed effort to rebrand themselves, have decided to rebrand the Democrats instead. They have resolved and pledged to now refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democratic Socialist Party.”
The result? In a recent poll done by a conservative polling company owned by Rupert Murdoch, studies have found that only 53% of Americans consider capitalism to be superior to socialism, meaning that nearly half of Americans do not see anything wrong with socialism; in fact, 20% now consider socialism to be superior. In an effort to scare people away from the Dems, they have associated Democrats with pinkos… and because of peoples’ high opinions of Democrats, their response is now “well, maybe then being a pinko isn’t so bad.”
The only group that this did provoke outrage from, in fact, is the actual Democratic Socialist Party of America, who are outraged that the Republicans are applying the moniker to their sworn rivals, the Democrats. So the effect of this decision is that moderates now think more highly of left-wing radicals, and left-wing radicals now think even less of right-wing conservatives!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
