Dobleman's Xanga

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Sun, 04 Feb 2007 03:38:26 GMT

    Homosexuals piss me off. Well, that's not true. I hate people's defense of homosexuals. "It's not a choice." And for that matter, that doesn't work for anyone. "It's not their choice, they were born like that." Doesn't mean anything at all. First, from a purely logical point of view, homosexuality is a subliminal choice (Ancient Greek homosexual rate(well, bisexual really, but same difference) over 40%, ours <10%. You're not born with it). Second of all, it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not.
    Why shouldn't a person be able to be a homosexual if they want to? See, by saying "it's not their choice" it's implied something bad is happening. But if it's something bad, then you should try to stop it. I mean, if you think it's wrong for a person to choose to be homosexual, why do you think it's not wrong for a person to be born a homosexual. See, my opinion is gays don't need a defense. If you want to be gay, be gay, no need to tell me that it "wasn't your choice."
    Analogy time, if a person was born with a psychopathic urge to kill people (Which I strongly doubt is possible), you don't say "it's not their choice," you lock them up and try to make them not have this psychopathic urge. So, it follows that if you think that being gay is only O.K. if it isn't their choice, then it follows that you should hope that all gay people get treatment to stop being homosexual.
    Same thing follows with races. It doesn't matter if you choose or don't choose your race. If you were capable to choose your race, any one is equally fine. So, here is my conclusion: It is ok, and even appropriate to treat people differently based on how they were born, if it ok to treat them differently assuming they had made the choice themselves. Which actually brings me to another train of thought but that's another post.
    I am heterosexual by the way.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Wed, 10 Jan 2007 04:18:02 GMT

    A lot of people have this philosophy, which will seem very strange at first, until you realize just how many people hold it. Anyways, a surprising amount of people believe that everyone in the world, except for them, is an idiot. This might be more true of high school/college students than the general public.
    The first time I encountered this was when I was discussing the education "problem," with a friend. And he asked me, "Well, how would you solve it?" and I thought about it for a few minutes, and the conclusion I came to was "I can't solve it. It's actually ridiculous of you to assume that I would even have something approaching a good idea within such a short time span. As a matter of fact, unless I do some hardcore research, meaning that it would basically become my job, no amount of time of thinking about it will help. And for that matter, there are plenty of people that have actually done this hardcore research, and not solved it. Now, it is possible that I'll be able to strike on a solution that those people missed, but nonetheless, they're not idiots, and such a solution isn't obvious." I gave him the short version of that. After which he proceeded to tell me how he thought the "problem" should be solved.
    Now, discussing such things is good, and since I'm not a mind reader, I can't actually tell if he did anything wrong in this. But if he actually thought that the solution that he proposed was a good solution, and should be used, that is a case of assuming that everyone in the world, except for himself is an idiot. Now, it is true that I have done that myself sometimes, but I will say that you should start every thought off with the idea that nobody is an idiot (even though some people are) rather than that everyone is an idiot.
    Now, a good example of the difference: The person thinking that everyone's an idiot hears "All people are created equal," and says, "That's ridiculous, some people are born lame, some people have deficiencies, some people are born stronger and smarter than others." So, this person is then told that Thomas Jefferson wrote this in the Declaration of Independence. Now, they might back down, or they might say "Thomas Jefferson is an idiot, and the Declaration of Independence is stupid." Which they actually already did, in effect say.
    Now, a person that assumes that no one is an idiot would realize that in saying "All people are created equal," something is lost. Because it clearly can't mean that all people are equal, so they would say "What do you mean, what about the lame, and the dumb? Please clarify your statement." Upon being informed that it was in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, you could say "O, that makes sense, it's a political document, what Thomas Jefferson means is that all people are politically equal." And then you might get to thinking well, what does that mean? and say, "O, it means that every person's interests are equivalent to every other person. My interest in staying alive is equivalent to all other's interest in staying alive. I guess that makes sense, yeah, we are all created equal." And then you'd think about it some more, and maybe you'd decide you disagree, maybe sometimes one person's interest wins over another's.
    But in either case, you'll understand what you're actually disagreeing with and realize, wait, Thomas Jefferson isn't an idiot. So, it is a really good idea to assume that no one is an idiot.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 03:46:23 GMT

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately, but here's something I want to relate. About 2 years ago, I went to Russia, and visited my family for 2 weeks or so. Anyways, we went to a few places, like the museum, and did a few things. But to me, the best part of the trip was every weekday morning and evening. I would go and sit at their dining table, drink tea and have breakfast (cause of jet lag, I was usually the first one up), and they would all gradually come to me, talk for a bit and leave for school, or college, or work. They all usually had stratiated schedules, so no more than two would be there at a time. And, I'd be there again when they came back. I'm not exactly sure what this means, I have some inklings though, but that was one of the happiest times of my life.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:35:00 GMT

Somehow, people have received the impression that poverty causes crime. I believe that the impression is wrong. Statistics do show that the crime rate is higher among poor people. But, what that actually means is: More poor people get caught and tried and convicted for committing crimes. At any of these stages, a rich person is much more likely than a poor one to escape justice. You might not get caught because you are commiting different kinds of white collar crime that is more difficult to detect, or people are less likely to report. (If you get murdered, you'll report it, if someone cheats you by selling you faulty tires, you might not even realize you got cheated). Further, you may have the option of bribing many people. If you are arrested, you are more likely to cop a plea that is extremely favorable to you. You might even get nothing on your record, just have to pay some sort of monetary reward. If you do go to trial, your lawyer is much more likely to be a good lawyer and get you off the hook. I believe that these things completely account for the crime discrepancy between rich and poor. Why? because in the US, at least, no one is so poor that they need to steal to survive. People steal because their morals are bad, they don't do it because they have to. Moral rules are generally much higher on the order of precedence for most people, and they will not break them simply because they are poor. If somebody is literally starving, they will steal to stay alive, but otherwise, a moral person will not steal. Of course, I am here adressing only crimes of greed. Crimes of passion are a different matter, and I feel no need to adress them because they seem to me to obviously not be tied to income.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 05:34:34 GMT

Why should you be moral? This is a difficult question, and the answer can't be just "Because if everyone is moral, everyone is better off." After all, it's much like economics, and the tragedy of the commons. Unfortunately, this means that you could be immoral as long as you don't get caught. So, what possible reason, aside from fear of getting caught, would drive you to be moral. There are many emotional reasons: It is actually physically difficult and emotionally distressing to hurt another person. There are religious reasons, if one believes in religion. And there are others that are somewhat more complicated, but still very good.
I, however, will present you here with a logical reason, what some might think is impossible. Now, this is interesting, because it shows one way I contrast with other people. I have heard this logical reason expressed as "Before either of us were born, your face was my face." Or something similar, sorry if I misquoted you. However, I thought of it as a question.
Why am I not you? It's incredibly difficult for me to know if this is actually makes sense. But think about it, Why am I not you? Why are you not me? Why am I not everyone? After thinking of this for a while, the only conclusion I could come to is that I am you. I am everyone. By hurting somebody else, I am hurting myself. If I kill you, I kill me. It's just a different me. If this has not made sense, sorry.

As much as these discussions are interesting for me to write down, I will stop, because I am continually faced with the fact that someone has said it better before me. I direct you to Epictetus, whose philosophy would've been an eventual part of my discussion. From now on, rather than fully speaking things I will simply name the people who have said it better.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:45:52 GMT

I had the weirdest dream yesterday. It came in 3 parts, after each part I woke up from terror, and then went back to sleep and the dream continued. Also, an incredibly strange thing, none of the people looked llike people I knew. Not even me. I even had a different name, though I forget what it was, so perhaps it's innaccurate to say "I" but in the dream I followed this one person around. So:
Part 1:
I'm in a spaceship, talking to a giant bug. The bug is green and fat-looking, and is segmented like an insect. It looks sort of like the caterpillar from "A Bug's Life." Except it's about twice as tall as me. It's understood that the bug is an alien. I tell it that it's people are not wanted on Earth anymore. It appears that it's some sort of high-ranking diplomatic official. I think I'm a lieutenant in the army, and a commander of a spaceship somehow. It's possible I'm actually on the bug spaceship, hard to tell. Anyways, the bug says something along the lines of "You can get rid of us, but you'll find that we've left a lot of crap behind." And it shits for emphasis. And then all the doors lock trapping me with the bug.
Part 2:
Somehow I survived that, and appear to have killed the bug. Except it seems like Earth is at war with the bug people now, and we're losing badly. I get the spaceship to Earth. Now, the bugs were factory workers, and a lot of them were in the food industry. They started poisoning people, and by the time I get to Earth, everything is in disorder and a lot of people are dead. Most of the bugs are not as big as the big diplomat guy, they're only about the size of my palm. So I step and crush them wherever I see, and actually spend quite a deal of time trying to exterminate them. Two problems though: first, their blood is green and poisonous. That is, you kill one with your boot, you can never touch that boot again. Second, their eggs are indestructible. So, upon that realization I go and find the love of my life (possibly my wife, hard to tell). My intent is to get back to the spaceship, and fly to one of the few cities which the bugs were kept out of. Also, so far, all the bugs look the same, just different sizes. anyways, on my way I pick up an egg, with the intention to kill the bug as soon as it pops out. So, I find her, and she's been poisoned. She's not dead, but clearly insane, though not violently so. And to add to my despair, I see the bug hatching in the egg, and it's already laying a new egg.
Part 3: So, somehow I've gathered a group of survivers, and my wife, who is still incoherent, and we're trying to get back to the ship. But we see some sort of battle bug across the door we need to go through, and have no weapons to fight it off. It stands on 2 legs, and has razorsharp mandible things. It's alsow sandish yellowish color. Anyways, we camp outside the door for the night and find a gun. When we find the gun we decide to try and get in, and kill the bug. I am carrying the gun. Upon opening the door, we discover that the bug is gone. Strangely a person walks by us, we thought anyone that was human with that bug would already be dead. She's dressed in like a women's business suit, hair in a bun. Anyways, she doesn't respond, so we figure she's also insane, but I sense something suspicious, thus I keep one eye on her, and one eye towards where we think the mandible bug has gone. Suddenly, she soundlessly turns to attack me, I empty the clip into her from the gun, but she doesn't die, and we get locked in hand-to-hand combat. Meanwhile the mandible bug shows up, and I wake up for the last time.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:50:38 GMT

Ok, a related, but non-sequential topic. It is strange to me that some people can't see the difference between what one has a right to do, and what one should do. There are many things that fall in the category of you having the right to do it, but not doing it because it's wrong anyways. For example, making fun of somebodies religion, not in a humorous or good-natured, or as part of some sort of discussion (though I'm not sure it can be humorous or good-natured but that's another matter) is something everyone has a right to do. It would be wrong of me to stop a person even blatantly disregarding normal rules of conduct in targeting a religion. However, it is nonetheless not the right thing to do. There are some people that believe you should not be condemed for anything you have a right to do, and others who believe that if something is wrong to do, it should be illegal. I guess however, that it is a difficult concept to grasp, the fact that some things you can do, but shouldn't. After all, if you shouldn't do it, shouldn't somebody stop you? The answer is that these things don't directly hurt anyone generally, or are too difficult to establish rules for, or maybe rules for them shouldn't be established at all, and only you personally can control whether you do these things or not. No reward or punishment system can be set up. But more on rewards and punishments later. These things are especially strange on the moral scale. They clearly have a moral impact if it's wrong to do that. But they're impossible to place in a category that can be useful. What is to be done about such things. It is my belief they should be left as they are. I think it's good to have that grey area of things you have a right to do, but shouldn't. In fact, I think that grey area should be expanded as much as possible, because it is only through control and actions in this grey area (which actually also includes things you don't have a right to do, but you should, and things it's not wrong not to do, but it's good to, and etc.) that a person can develop their character. After all, the other areas present fairly easy judgment, and no person should really do anything unexpected in the other areas. After all, if you kill someone (Something you don't have a right to do, nor should you), you clearly should be punished, you're clearly in the wrong, and there's no moral seeking needed. It's only in the grey areas that you're really real.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 05:38:41 GMT

A bunch of thoughts in my brain, but I can't really get them all down very well, so, I'll keep it simple.

An example of the previous post's test. Suppose you are at a play. Now, you're not getting a very good view. You could stand up, and improve your view, and thus situation. However, if everyone stands up, everyone is worse off. Therefore it is immoral of you to stand up. This is a simple case, unfortunately here are examples it's not always so simple.

Capitalism, even if it works ideally, what happens is that society is better off overall. Individual people may suffer. So, are you allowed to make some people suffer to benefit others? Some have made the argument that the eternal happiness of the entire population does not justify the eternal misery of one person. Or, even stronger "The perpetual happiness of all humanity is not worth the tears of one child." Not sure if I quoted that quite correctly, or who said it. But anyways. It becomes complicated when, if everyone did this action, some people become better off, and some become worse off. Now, generally, it is agreed that it is wrong to make a lot of people a lot worse off in order to make a few people a little better off. Most people would even agree that it is wrong to make a lot of people a lot worse off, to make a few people a lot (even more than the amount that each person is worsened by) better off. But after that, fuzziness really sets in. Can you make a small portion suffer a little, for a significant though not great benefit to the rest (this is done all the time by the way, government policy says yes to this). To be continued...

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:10:10 GMT

So, yesterday was my first day at UCSD. Me and Michael drove there together. The bureacracy owned me, and therefore the class in which i was hoping to have enrolled by yesterday or Monday, I will not be able to enroll in till Wednsday probably. But overall, it's an ok class. My professor looks exactly like Kyle (aka semi old guy). It's somewhat strange. It's probably Kyle in disguise. Anyways. But yes, I am happy about sort of attending an actual University vs. the newly titled UCMC. O, and Trey is leaving tommorow. Blasted stuff. Anyways, I remembered what the third big think was. It'll probably take a few posts though, so here:

Morality. It is strange. So, first, a simple test for whether an action is moral or not. If everyone in the world did this, would everyone be better off? If the answer is yes, then it's moral. If the answer is everyone would be worse off, it's immoral. If the answer is neither one way, nor the other, then it's amoral (meaning morality doesn't even come into play).
Unfortunately, this test is not always easy to perform, and is not always unambiguous. Anyways, more later.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 07:11:46 GMT

Amazingly, I actually forgot one of the three big things. This is why I started a blog in the first place really, so I wouldn't forget, but I did. Silly me.

Anyways, The other one is this. I have recently claimed that I am a mysoginist. This did indeed turn out to be false. I love girls. Girls rock. Yay But here is the reason I thought that. I am socially incompetent.

This is more pronounced with girls. I am able to cheat my way past this with most guys, but not with girls. You see, I can't handle memories. I like knowing a person for a long time. The longer I know someone the more I like them. But I really can't handle memories. I don't know how to explain it other than that. I can somehow get past it with guys (though at times I feel really strained) and it's never caused a problem with my family. So, there's this trade-off. The longer I know someone, the more I want to stay with that person and know them and be friends with them, but also, the harder it becomes, because there are more memories. (Also, here I measure time as in time spent with that person, not time since I knew that person). For some reason that I have not yet discovered, this fact, which doesn't affect my family, which I can handle most of the time with guys, completely sucks for me with girls. It becomes very difficult for me to know a girl for any decent amount of time. I have some ideas why this happens, but I am not sure, and as such will not list them yet