I'm aware this post will probably piss off most people that read it but honestly I don't care I feel my logic is reasonable. This post is mostly inspired by the use of the n word and the movement to deem retard the "r word." Because of that I have two main points with this post. First I aim to point out that we should be saying the n word as much as possible. Second I would like to point out that making retarded the r word is the worst kind of discrimination.
Many people think that it is wrong for anyone (black,white,Asian,ect.) to say nigger. They think that the word is just too hateful and because of that it needs to be forgotten. Doesn't anyone understand the concept of forbidden fruit? The more restricted you make something the more powerful you make it. If you want nigger to mean nothing then you need to say nigger any chance you get to say nigger so that nigger loses all of it's power. It's like economics the more you flood the market with a product the less value it holds.
Now if you truly don't want to discriminate against the mentally challenged then you should treat them just like anybody else because after all they are just like anybody else. Because of that I would relate retard to nigger because they are just adjectives to describe different types of people. I feel the best way to handle retard is to just make it mean the same thing as stupid and have the same amount of power. Oftentimes people will say "they aren't retarded they are mentally challenged" if that's true why the hell would they care if we throw the word "retarded" around? By making retarded a limited word all you are doing is calling mentally challenged people weak and saying they can't handle being treated like anyone else and assuming that by being mentally challenged you are automatically retarded which is just rude.
I know this is a short post and honestly I may add more to it but I think I have gotten my point across in the little I have written. But remember these words are all just adjectives the more we say them the less they mean.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Education: The Fall of Mankind
Ever since middle school I gave the same answer to the question "What do you think about school?" I feel Socrates said it best with "An education obtained with money is worse than no education at all." I said this to someone once and they said "so you're for free education?" I can not stress enough that though I feel education is way too expensive my issue isn't so much with the price that is on it.
I was in Mosaic, formally known as the Christopher Program, in the Columbus Ohio area when I was in high school. That is a perfect representation of what I think school should be. An education shouldn't be something you get from reading a book in some cold, cement room lit by florescent lights. You should learn from the community. The best teachers are your neighbors, your ansestors, and your peers. If you want to learn how to build a house don't just take a bunch of drafting classes. Learn from someone how to draft a house but after that go out and build the house!
Mosaic was not a school that I went to it was a family that I grew through. I learned more from my short time in Mosaic then I did in all ten of the previous years of my education. The point was to go out and learn from the world and from each other. We learned about religion at my high school, Gahanna Lincoln High School, and it was all cramed into a chapter of my history book. While in Mosaic we actually went to visit multiple religious centers. My mother was a pastor so I was raised in the church and up until Mosaic I felt the way religion was taught was just a sad joke. I'm not the least bit religious but I believe it should be respect and with that taught acuratley.
I realize to this point my thoughts may have been rather scattered, brought to my attention by a close friend, so I will try to restate my points in a much more structed fashion.
First elaborating on the quote. Yes I think education should be free. If you disagree great I'm glad you can think for yourself but that isn't what this article is about. My point with the quote is that you can learn as much theory as you want but you never really know something until you experience it. For example I was raised in what I would consider a lower middle class family possibly bordering on the high end of poor at several occasions. A friend of mine in college told me a few months ago "I now know what it's like to be poor after being in college for a few months." That made me so angry. She obviously doesn't know considering I am lower middle class and would kill for the situation she has found herself in. A couple of months later I found out she had a coke habit and said to me "I'm about to get a hotel room so I can actually study I can't focus here." She has no grasp on what it is to be poor and I feel a big part of that is the education failing to show her how the poor live. Now I don't mean display the poor like they are animals but you can better understand someone through helping them and I think that should be a part of everyone's education. Granted community service was "required" at my school. I use the quotes because you could easily get out of doing any real service by donating things or if you were lucky like me the teacher just would leave that project off of your final grade. At least I have to assume that's what happened considering I got an A in the class and didn't report a bit of community service even though I did it. My point is educators need to use experience to teach because theory isn't cutting it.
Teachers are another downfall to education. Don't get me wrong I love teachers and in fact in the right situation I would love to be one someday. The point is they need to not be called teachers. EVERYONE in the world is a teacher just like EVERYONE in the world is a student. They need to be called facilitators because their real job should be to facilitate your education not govern it like the term "teacher" would suggest. A facilitator of your education should guide you to the situation that will teach you the specific subject whether it be through talking to a religious leader, visiting historical sights, or seeing art. The point should be to lead us to the water not shove the hose down our throats.
Our education system is incredibly dated and needs a complete reform. The point when it was founded was to give us enough education to be decent workers but more importantly to teach us to follow directions from whoever the appointed leader is. It's a ridiculous concept that I think needs to be completely changed. First off no more of this last name stuff. I have respected five teachers in my life. Four of those teachers I always addressed by their first names. We are all equals and because of this we shouldn't address each other in a formal sense. The most important thing is to realize that you need to listen to the students. A question I like to ask most intelligent people I meet is "When did you realize you were smarter than your teachers?" Most of them can actually tell you when it happened. For me it was when I had to correct my 6th grade teachers pronunciation of Persephone. The way we have it set up now you are taught to not question your teacher and accept everything they teach you as fact. How can you do that if you know they're wrong and more importantly how in the world can you have respect for them if you're told just to accept it. People are sent to school and conditioned to no longer think for themselves and that is one of the saddest things in the world in my opinion.
Community is the most important thing when it comes to teaching. I'm sure you all know the quote "It takes a village to raise a child." Well I agree with that a little. I think one person can raise a child just fine. I think if you want that child to be respectful, intelligent, and an actually contribution to society then yes I would say that takes a village. While in high school I went to a meeting to discuss the future of the education system in Ohio. While there people were talking about how to bring the community into the school building but keep it separate from the students. What's the point of that? I feel the community should be the school. Forget about actual school buildings. Teach in churches, libraries, coffee houses, or anywhere else that will have you. Those are all places I have gotten Mosaic lessons at and they were all better than sitting in a class room being lectured.
My point is the school system is broken and because of that we are killing ourselves. I hope all of you reading this are the lucky ones that took the hose out of your throats and learned how to find the real water sources.
I was in Mosaic, formally known as the Christopher Program, in the Columbus Ohio area when I was in high school. That is a perfect representation of what I think school should be. An education shouldn't be something you get from reading a book in some cold, cement room lit by florescent lights. You should learn from the community. The best teachers are your neighbors, your ansestors, and your peers. If you want to learn how to build a house don't just take a bunch of drafting classes. Learn from someone how to draft a house but after that go out and build the house!
Mosaic was not a school that I went to it was a family that I grew through. I learned more from my short time in Mosaic then I did in all ten of the previous years of my education. The point was to go out and learn from the world and from each other. We learned about religion at my high school, Gahanna Lincoln High School, and it was all cramed into a chapter of my history book. While in Mosaic we actually went to visit multiple religious centers. My mother was a pastor so I was raised in the church and up until Mosaic I felt the way religion was taught was just a sad joke. I'm not the least bit religious but I believe it should be respect and with that taught acuratley.
I realize to this point my thoughts may have been rather scattered, brought to my attention by a close friend, so I will try to restate my points in a much more structed fashion.
First elaborating on the quote. Yes I think education should be free. If you disagree great I'm glad you can think for yourself but that isn't what this article is about. My point with the quote is that you can learn as much theory as you want but you never really know something until you experience it. For example I was raised in what I would consider a lower middle class family possibly bordering on the high end of poor at several occasions. A friend of mine in college told me a few months ago "I now know what it's like to be poor after being in college for a few months." That made me so angry. She obviously doesn't know considering I am lower middle class and would kill for the situation she has found herself in. A couple of months later I found out she had a coke habit and said to me "I'm about to get a hotel room so I can actually study I can't focus here." She has no grasp on what it is to be poor and I feel a big part of that is the education failing to show her how the poor live. Now I don't mean display the poor like they are animals but you can better understand someone through helping them and I think that should be a part of everyone's education. Granted community service was "required" at my school. I use the quotes because you could easily get out of doing any real service by donating things or if you were lucky like me the teacher just would leave that project off of your final grade. At least I have to assume that's what happened considering I got an A in the class and didn't report a bit of community service even though I did it. My point is educators need to use experience to teach because theory isn't cutting it.
Teachers are another downfall to education. Don't get me wrong I love teachers and in fact in the right situation I would love to be one someday. The point is they need to not be called teachers. EVERYONE in the world is a teacher just like EVERYONE in the world is a student. They need to be called facilitators because their real job should be to facilitate your education not govern it like the term "teacher" would suggest. A facilitator of your education should guide you to the situation that will teach you the specific subject whether it be through talking to a religious leader, visiting historical sights, or seeing art. The point should be to lead us to the water not shove the hose down our throats.
Our education system is incredibly dated and needs a complete reform. The point when it was founded was to give us enough education to be decent workers but more importantly to teach us to follow directions from whoever the appointed leader is. It's a ridiculous concept that I think needs to be completely changed. First off no more of this last name stuff. I have respected five teachers in my life. Four of those teachers I always addressed by their first names. We are all equals and because of this we shouldn't address each other in a formal sense. The most important thing is to realize that you need to listen to the students. A question I like to ask most intelligent people I meet is "When did you realize you were smarter than your teachers?" Most of them can actually tell you when it happened. For me it was when I had to correct my 6th grade teachers pronunciation of Persephone. The way we have it set up now you are taught to not question your teacher and accept everything they teach you as fact. How can you do that if you know they're wrong and more importantly how in the world can you have respect for them if you're told just to accept it. People are sent to school and conditioned to no longer think for themselves and that is one of the saddest things in the world in my opinion.
Community is the most important thing when it comes to teaching. I'm sure you all know the quote "It takes a village to raise a child." Well I agree with that a little. I think one person can raise a child just fine. I think if you want that child to be respectful, intelligent, and an actually contribution to society then yes I would say that takes a village. While in high school I went to a meeting to discuss the future of the education system in Ohio. While there people were talking about how to bring the community into the school building but keep it separate from the students. What's the point of that? I feel the community should be the school. Forget about actual school buildings. Teach in churches, libraries, coffee houses, or anywhere else that will have you. Those are all places I have gotten Mosaic lessons at and they were all better than sitting in a class room being lectured.
My point is the school system is broken and because of that we are killing ourselves. I hope all of you reading this are the lucky ones that took the hose out of your throats and learned how to find the real water sources.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Open Relationships: An Evolutional Step In Dating or Just A Cop Out
I was recently asked by a girl I have known for years how I would feel about being in an open relationship with her. I told her "No you're the only girl I'd ever want so if I'm not enough for you why bother?" The reason I don't want to do it is because I'd never need more than one girl so why be greedy. But I know the reason I could never do it is the fact that I'm too jealous for it. Granted I'm not the most jealous guy in the world but sleeping with my girl is enough to make me jealous.
I thought about that for a while. The reason I couldn't do it is because I'm jealous. Jealousy is obviously not a flattering quality in a person most of the time (I say "most" because I love girls that are jealous to a point). But in general I feel it would be agreed that jealousy is a negative quality. That being said does that mean open relationships are a more mature and enlightened form of dating?
Sure you could argue that people just want to be able to have sex with whoever they want whenever they want but honestly is that such a bad thing? I mean someone could have sex with 100 people and be clean while another person could have sex with one person and get an STD. So to me the STD argument isn't a good enough one to convince me that open relationships are a cop out.
Now some people say that monogamy isn't natural. Statistically speaking they are right most species aren't monogamous but I feel that giving that specific reason is a cop out. We are smarter than other animals so don't say "it's how they act so why shouldn't we?" It makes you sound like an idiot.
I know one girl that has been in an open relationship for years and I recently asked her why and her response was "why not?" and it got me to think "yeah why not?" I really can't think of an answer that doesn't involve conforming due to social pressures. I mean does having a relationship with two girls mean you can't love both of them with all your heart? Parents are expected to love all of their kids equally so why should any other relationship be different?
Honestly I think legitimate arguments can be made for both sides. In general I would say most people arguing against open relationships are just delusional romantics and most people arguing for them are just selfish people who want to fuck whoever they want whenever they want. Obviously not everyone is sex crazed or stupid there are people who don't fit into those categories.
I honestly don't know how to feel about it. I know if you want to have an open relationship I totally support you and hope you are happy doing it but again I personally don't think I could do it. I'm sure I could manage but I wouldn't be as happy as I would be just dating the girl. As it stands I really don't see myself ever being in an open relationship but what do I know I'm just a delusional romantic at heart.
I thought about that for a while. The reason I couldn't do it is because I'm jealous. Jealousy is obviously not a flattering quality in a person most of the time (I say "most" because I love girls that are jealous to a point). But in general I feel it would be agreed that jealousy is a negative quality. That being said does that mean open relationships are a more mature and enlightened form of dating?
Sure you could argue that people just want to be able to have sex with whoever they want whenever they want but honestly is that such a bad thing? I mean someone could have sex with 100 people and be clean while another person could have sex with one person and get an STD. So to me the STD argument isn't a good enough one to convince me that open relationships are a cop out.
Now some people say that monogamy isn't natural. Statistically speaking they are right most species aren't monogamous but I feel that giving that specific reason is a cop out. We are smarter than other animals so don't say "it's how they act so why shouldn't we?" It makes you sound like an idiot.
I know one girl that has been in an open relationship for years and I recently asked her why and her response was "why not?" and it got me to think "yeah why not?" I really can't think of an answer that doesn't involve conforming due to social pressures. I mean does having a relationship with two girls mean you can't love both of them with all your heart? Parents are expected to love all of their kids equally so why should any other relationship be different?
Honestly I think legitimate arguments can be made for both sides. In general I would say most people arguing against open relationships are just delusional romantics and most people arguing for them are just selfish people who want to fuck whoever they want whenever they want. Obviously not everyone is sex crazed or stupid there are people who don't fit into those categories.
I honestly don't know how to feel about it. I know if you want to have an open relationship I totally support you and hope you are happy doing it but again I personally don't think I could do it. I'm sure I could manage but I wouldn't be as happy as I would be just dating the girl. As it stands I really don't see myself ever being in an open relationship but what do I know I'm just a delusional romantic at heart.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Occupy Columbus Update
So I can't think of anything else to write so here it is an update on my experience with Occupy Columbus. I'm going to be totally honest with you. I haven't been back since the general assembly. It pissed me off too much, I couldn't stand the complete and utter lack of leadership. I have no problem with everyone's voice being heard but you need one person to act as a liaison. That mixed with the non stop bickering among the group pissed me off too much. Anyway I'll post some of the pictures I got from the time when I could stand to be there.
Local news lady ^
I have no idea who this guy is but he is my favorite person from that day. He didn't say a word to me all he did was point at my camera and pose. Naturally I took his picture and I must say I like how it turned out.
Local news lady ^
I have no idea who this guy is but he is my favorite person from that day. He didn't say a word to me all he did was point at my camera and pose. Naturally I took his picture and I must say I like how it turned out.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
GTA Who Cares?
Well I suppose I should open this one by ackowleding that this topic is REALLY dated and kind of pointless to talk about. Having said that it is a rant that I would like to get off my chest because it is one that really pisses me off.
I'm sure we all remember all the parents freaking out about GTA a few years back. Bitching about how you could kill people, steal cars, pick up prostitutes, and, if you hack it, have on screen sex with a woman. First if your kid can run the hack to see the chick he is already looking at porn online. Second what they fail to point out is that this game teaches a valuable lesson. If you break the law the police will come after you. How is a game that teaches that a bad thing? Not to mention it is rated M anyway. If you don't want your kid to play the game don't fucking buy it for them.
Now lets look at some games that have much more kid friendly ratings and the lessons they teach. Zelda (don't specifically know which once I just know I saw it played once) if you hold a chicken and jump off of a cliff you will glide down. Though I guess if your kid is dumb enough to try it it's probably for the best. Mario if you eat mushrooms you will become huge and your entire perception of the world and yourself in it will change. While this is accurate if you good the right shrooms it still isn't a good thing to teach such young children. Final Fantasy maybe not the best example considering it is more of a teen game but I'll still use it. If you consume ether your magic points will go up and you'll be able to control fire, ice, earth, ect.
Bottom line people need to think before they start bitching about things. If your kid can't tell the difference between GTA and real life it isn't the game's fault.
I'm sure we all remember all the parents freaking out about GTA a few years back. Bitching about how you could kill people, steal cars, pick up prostitutes, and, if you hack it, have on screen sex with a woman. First if your kid can run the hack to see the chick he is already looking at porn online. Second what they fail to point out is that this game teaches a valuable lesson. If you break the law the police will come after you. How is a game that teaches that a bad thing? Not to mention it is rated M anyway. If you don't want your kid to play the game don't fucking buy it for them.
Now lets look at some games that have much more kid friendly ratings and the lessons they teach. Zelda (don't specifically know which once I just know I saw it played once) if you hold a chicken and jump off of a cliff you will glide down. Though I guess if your kid is dumb enough to try it it's probably for the best. Mario if you eat mushrooms you will become huge and your entire perception of the world and yourself in it will change. While this is accurate if you good the right shrooms it still isn't a good thing to teach such young children. Final Fantasy maybe not the best example considering it is more of a teen game but I'll still use it. If you consume ether your magic points will go up and you'll be able to control fire, ice, earth, ect.
Bottom line people need to think before they start bitching about things. If your kid can't tell the difference between GTA and real life it isn't the game's fault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)