The Atheist Delusion

“Imagine no more ignorant and misleading posters”

Oh boy! The world would be such a wonderful place if religion didn’t exist! Everyone would be kind to one another regardless of their differences and any sort of conflict would be non-existent! The world would be like an episode from The Brady Bunch (minus Jan Brady). Is it really that simple?

Being once labeled a militant atheist myself, I applaud propaganda that portrays religion in a negative light. This poster, however, only portrays the ignorance perpetuated by irate atheists. Whenever there is a huge catastrophe, like that of 9/11, people’s first instinct is to blame something or someone. This instinct is partially the reason why conspiracy theories tend to linger on the Internet for longer than a day. It’s attractive to fill in the logical void that so many people have, more often than not, that void is filled with nonsense.

Here we have atheists spewing out the same atrocity their religious rivals have committed. Religious people need an explanation to the unknown universe. They fill in this gap with some organized religion that offers an “undisputable” explanation to all of the universe’s mysteries. Atheists, supposedly, do not tolerate such explanations that cannot be disputed without a logical critique. Hypocritically enough, this poster blindly connects religion as the sole cause for terrorism, like that of which was witnessed on September eleventh.

Clearly, religion played a part in building the terrorists’ ideologies that inevitably led to their irrational behaviors. But religion isn’t the only institution that leads to ideologies! Even if you discard faith and replace it with logic, you can still end up with conflicting ideologies.

Atheists might argue that only religion can create people who blindly accept their ideologies with strong convictions. Humans will always have a belief system with no scientific justification. In a meaningless world, humans must create themselves a purpose in order to be happy and purpose leads to ideologies. Religion isn’t the only institution that gives people purpose; there are plenty of substitutes. If religion didn’t exist, people would still have clashing ideologies.

If religion did not exist, terrorism would still persist.

A Girl's Worst Insult

Every group of people has an insult that would offend them the most.

Gamer: Noob
Atheist: Secular fundamentalist
Conservative Republican: Flaming homosexual
Mensa Member: Emotionally retarded
Redditor: Below average
Professional Athlete: Drugee
American College Girl: Slut

The insult I would like to focus on is ‘slut’, also known as, whore and skank. The outdated definition for slut: a dirty, nasty promiscuous woman that no one would even touch. This conventional definition is a bit extreme. In my opinion, slutiness can only be illustrated as a continuous spectrum drawn between ‘mildly provocative’ and ‘nickel and dime whore’.

Even more obscure than the definition is the amount of slutaphobia exhibited in today’s college girls. “Does this make me look slutty?” is the new “Does this make me look fat?” A girl’s self worth depends on the modesty she displays to the world. The more she conceals, the higher she believes others will value her. Looking at how college girls present themselves today might have you think otherwise. Even average girls have no remorse in exposing their (damaged) goods.

Hate these redundant photos? Read this

I would post more pictures for evidence, but Googling “Slutty College Girls,” is easy enough.

How can girls demonize promiscuity and still look like strippers with a 20% discount? To answer this, you have to understand that slutiness is all about context. If the standard of sluttiness were lowered enough, the average girl would look like those in the picture above.

If those naughty nurses were to show up like that for their family reunion, you can imagine how many perverted uncles and cousins would hit on them. But seriously, they would just be considered slutty by the rest of the family.

If you or someone you know is concerned about looking like a skank, just take a sample population from the context, rank their average sluttiness, and stay within one standard deviation of that average!

Cuteness Blue Balls

Source

Your face scrunches up like you’re having an orgasm with your eyes open as you let out a thunderous ‘aaaaaaaaawwwwwww’. You gaze at the cute figure for another ten seconds fantasizing how much you want to squeeze and cuddle it until the cuteness runs out. But then what? You’re left with what I call “Cuteness Blue Balls.” There is absolutely nothing you can do about your cuteness frustrations, but to wallow in your own sadness. No button you can press, no body part you can stroke that can alleviate you from this pain.

Psychologist, Konrad Lorenz, theorized that cuteness is an evolutionary adaptation to ensure that adults cared for their children, which makes sense. We associate cuteness with weakness and helplessness. This could explain why we respond similarly when seeing non-cute figures in vulnerable situations. Because we are constantly burdened by a child’s cuteness, we have a strong desire to nurture and take care of it. Of course, a small minority prefer their baby dead and then grotesquely joke about it, but there will always be exceptions.

Lorenz’s theory falls short of explaining why animals emulate the same cuteness qualities humans have e.g. big eyes, big head, small body, and other soft features. He argues, however, that humans selectively breed their pets to have child-like features, which would explain the cuteness in domesticated animals. But cuteness stretches beyond cats and dogs – bears, bugs, ducks, owls, lizards, turtles, and many more non-domesticated animals all display cuteness.

How can so many animals be so gosh darn cute? In my opinion, ‘Cuteness Blue Balls’ is not limited to humans, but to all mammals. This hypothesis is easy to accept because mammals have to nurture their offspring comparable to humans and their children. This still leaves us questioning why mammals share cuteness qualities with humans. Being that we all share a common ancestor, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to assume that animals perceive cuteness in the same ways humans do – an interesting hypothesis to test.

Cuteness is like the unifying theory of interspecies emotional connection, which could explain the interspecies bonanza going on here

The Major Stereotpye

What’s your major?

At my university, every person I meet asks me this question. I often wonder why people care to ask which subject of emphasis I chose to study. How much information could they possibly extract from my answer? Thinking about this further has led me to a realization that might come as surprise to you. The amount of personal information that leaks from your answer is quite frightening.

Allow me to bring a new term to the discussion: “The Major Stereotype”

Like any other stereotype, this one generalizes a group of people in an arbitrary taxonomy. Someone’s major can reveal his or her hobbies, social status, mannerisms, intelligence, virginity status and much more. Of course, these are just generalizations that should be taken with a grain of salt, but what makes them different than other stereotypes? For example, unlike ethnic stereotypes, people choose their major not their ethnicity. This ‘major’ difference sheds some light onto the reason why people choose their majors.

People take into account ‘The Major Stereotype’ in the decision process for their major. After all, picking a major is also picking an identity, the identity that people will assert onto you when answering the question: “What’s your major?” With knowledge of the new stereotype that may loom in your future, you choose the major with the most lucrative stereotype. Similar to how people buy Ferraris because they want to look wealthy. Once the major has been chosen, a new personality is born.

What came first, the major or the personality? Simply put, they affect each other in sort of a feedback loop. Some people choose a major because they want to fit a certain category and some choose it because they like the subject. Playing ‘the major stereotype’ usually occurs in the former situation. In a society that values the ego, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to assume that people choose a major they want to be associated with.

P.S. those who are undeclared have no soul.

The True Cost of War

At any given time throughout history, a war is going on somewhere on this planet. Supposedly, humans are kind, compassionate, and sympathetic, unlike the primitive creatures they evolved from. Human's constant state of war is casting doubt on their ancestral divergence. I have always wondered how such heartless thoughts can be conjured up in the minds of murderous soldiers. How intelligent beings can be so unhesitant to mercilessly kill their fellow man. How sane people can achieve insane tasks.

There have been studies regarding this phenomenon, like the Milgram experiment: A subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy. Another interpretation of the experiment’s results is that a person no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Both are sound theories, but they fall short of identifying what is explicitly happening – the destruction of empathy.

Soldiers of war are not psychopaths; they are victims of robbery, the robbery of a human quality called empathy. There are many social and political consequences that deter us from committing crimes. Unlawful crime and violence still persists in all societies, therefore, there must be other deterring consequences for those who are still innocent i.e. the reason most of us aren’t murders. The reason, simply put, is that people will feel bad doing onto others what they wouldn’t want onto themselves. Manipulative authorities have the ability to rob people of this basic emotion.

Humans have evolved the emotion of empathy for a very good reason. In the past it allowed people within a society to create interpersonal relationships where both sides benefit without making the other worse off. Societies couldn’t succeed for generations on end if humans weren’t empathetic. Clearly, this is no longer the case; birth rates are higher than death rates and a few wars here and there are no threat to mankind. This fact should not obscure the benefits of empathy.

The interpersonal cost of violence is always greater than any benefits it may bring. Using a negative force may initially get you what you want from someone, but in doing so you have destroyed the positive relationship. The cost of destroying this relationship is always greater than the initial benefit received from using violence.

The use of violence as a force has always been a lucrative one because of instant gratification. The Bush administration believed it could use violence to create a democracy. It is intuitive for them to think that killing Saddam and occupying Iraq will be the most efficient way to get what they want. They didn’t consider one major externality - they dehumanized Americans for Iraqis and vice versa. In order for American soldiers to use violence against another fellow human, there is no room for empathy. Without empathy in the equation, mass murdering may relentlessly ensue. Eventually we are left with a torn human relationship.

Let’s scrutinize a more controversial war, the Israel vs. Palestine conflict. Which side is the right one? Who is the victim and who is the aggressor? If you choose Palestine as the victim, you are wrong. Similarly, you would be wrong if you choose Israel as the victim! This war was lost the moment the positive relationship between the two human populations has been broken. Violence and hatred is used on both sides and both are constantly distancing themselves from a positive relationship. The war would be over once Palestinians cared for Israelis like they did for their own people, the same is true for Israelis. Some would argue that a negative force for self-defense is sometimes necessary. In the short-run, this is true and instant gratification would kick in. In the long run, a deep wound would emerge in the relationship and the negative force would be reciprocated back.

With the wars that are going on in present day, it’s difficult to come to a resolution. Should we continue to reach short-term goals with violence, or settle the problem in the long run with non-violence? If non-violence is used, there might be a short-term jump in the death tolls, but that would be the cost of fixing the problem in the long run. A non-violence movement is the only way to bring empathy back and restore a broken human relationship.

Why we aren't all Hung Like a Horse

There you are in front of your mirror looking at your reflection in utter disappointment. Regardless of being a man or woman you realize how un-sexy you are, unfortunately, odds are you’re right. But don’t blame your dad’s big-nose gene, blame society’s ridiculous high standards for sexuality. These standards are no longer a woman’s burden; nowadays a man too must struggle to be a sexual stallion. His penis needs to be at least the size of a super burrito and his abs as hard as limestone. Sadly, this total package won’t suffice - he must also be an orgasm-giving machine. He should be able to make the woman squeal for hours on end as she has orgasms upon orgasms. He knows the women will gossip about his inadequacies if he ‘falls short’ of the standards.

Some might accuse me for spewing out gender stereotypes with no proof to back it up. Well, the proof is so abundant it is self-evident to any member of society. In 2004 the drugs bought most often online were Lipitor and Viagra, one to lower cholesterol and one to help with erectile dysfunction. It is hard to believe that erectile dysfunction is more common than other symptom such as, oh I don't know... pain! You might have not known that premature ejaculation is more common than erectile dysfunction, but you won’t see a premature ejaculation pill as a best seller. That just doesn’t sound as lucrative as a six-hour erection.

Men are so obsessed with their size that they are willing to spend money pretending to have a foot-long. 90% of men measure between 5 to 7 inches; anything beyond or below that is exceptionally rare. Why do they have Magnum XXL condoms when a normal one can cover a grapefruit? Why don’t they offer Pee-wee XXS condoms for the unfortunate bottom tenth percent of men? Next we can examine porn and observe what people prefer to watch. You won’t find a professional male porn star with a penis smaller than 7 inches; anything less won’t satisfy society's penis obsession.

If women really did prefer men with larger beef missiles, shouldn’t we have evolved larger penises throughout time? After all, it would be a physical trait that would determine reproductive success. Unfortunately, we aren’t all hung like horses; therefore there must be something wrong with this hypothesis. It could be that larger size was and is never preferred by women. This would be difficult to prove; some women say they prefer it larger and some are indifferent to size. The answer to this conundrum may be more obvious than you think.

Only in the past century has there been a paradigm shift on what it means to have sex. In the past, sex was never about satisfying the woman and her preferences were not considered. Globally, women were suppose to repress themselves sexually and were used only for reproduction. In the medieval era, the Christian code said that sex was to be avoided like the plague, except for the bare minimum necessary to keep the race in existence. Only recently did the western world evolve its sexual morality and behavior such as changes documented in the sexual revolution.

No wonder the majority of men are sexually inadequate, they just weren’t trying for thousands of years!

5 Tips on How to Be More Creative

Everyone would agree that creativity is an important quality to have in order to succeed in any profession. Not only that, creative individuals can benefit the whole world, as did Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison. There is no doubt that creativity indirectly benefits mankind, but is this popular notion intuitively correct? How could writing poetry or doodling cartoons benefit Albert Einstein in his discovery of the atom bomb? Clearly, it wouldn’t help him in any significant way. There is a certain creative process that needs to be exercised in order to translate meaningless ideas into useful ones.

Here are 5 tips to being more creative in a meaningful way:

1. Make analogies and connections

You need to constantly make analogies and connections with everything. Doing this exercise will not only help you better understand complicated concepts, but also make you more creative! Connecting two concepts together can inspire innovative ideas. For example, letting your friends borrow money is analogous to a human ATM machine. Lets take that a step further - what if it was possible to be an actual human ATM machine. Now imagine if they had wallets that double as an ATM machine. If someone owes you money, they could just swipe your wallet. And with just that analogy I came with a startup idea.

2. Philosophize

Philosophizing is creative thinking with a logical foundation. Use this rigorous foundation to ponder the mysteries in your domain of study. Many scientific theories have been inspired by philosophy. A popular scientific philosophy is String Theory. A sense of wonder wasn’t the only thing that gave rise to String Theory. The logical nature of philosophy guides the mathematicians and scientists in the right direction.

3. Consider the exact opposite

Being critical of everything is an excellent way to jump-start your brain. Have you ever had someone critically scrutinize your opinion and ended up having a stronger stance than what you began with? Seeing both sides of an argument gives you the motivation to think. Take conventional wisdom and try to argue in the complete opposite direction. This simple thought exercise will surprise you as to how much you will learn.

4. Say the obvious

There has been many times where a new invention or new website pops up and we say, “Why didn’t I think of that?” Ironically, the most obvious is also the most looked over. When you have time to ponder, observe your surroundings and literally say the obvious. Let your inner captain obvious shine through and say whatever you observe(you might want to keep it to yourself for social reasons). This exercise won’t make you creative on its on merit; it should be used as a way to spark new ideas, you shouldn’t take a passive role.

5. Always ask why, and then answer it.

Don’t be like the children who always ask why, because they can’t answer on their own. The trick is to let your own mind do the thinking to come at your own conclusion. This will get you accustomed to the different ways of solving problems. Keep trying to answer 'why' until you come up with an answer that is hard to refute. After much practice, you will find yourself answering 'why' faster and faster. Learning all sorts of different methods for solving problems will equip you with the mental tools for creatively solving harder problems in the future.

Girl Jokes That Aren't Funny Anymore

Girl Joke #1: "Haha, You fail at life"

One common format for a punch line is to use a word that is unexpected. How many times have you heard girls say this joke? Twice? Three times? They completely shatter the unpredictable element of the joke. The punch line is so predictable that it’s the same as if it were a normal statement and that’s just depressing.

Girl Joke #2: "Good point! Want a cookie?"

This Joke usually occurs after pointing out the girl’s stupidity in a condensing fashion e.g. after pointing out that she shouldn’t be wearing a mini-skirt in freezing whether. Saying this joke should oblige the girl to literally bake a batch of cookies and give them to funny people.

Girl Joke #3: "Oops! Jay Kay!"

Great, she just said something mind-numbingly dumb and covers it up with an even dumber joke. I bet this joke wasn’t even thought up; it was just a knee-jerk reaction due to the constant usage of the acronym in her online conversations.

Girl Joke #4: "Ah, my bad, no biscuit for me."

Yea, no biscuit for you bitch.

Girl Joke #5: "Sucks to be you"

The only thing separating this sentence from being a rude thing to say is the bitchy tone. The girl is at a lose-lose situation; either way she says this joke, she is bound to be ostracized. This joke has the unique quality of applying itself to the joke teller.

Girl Joke #6: "Awk ward Teeheehee"

There is a comedic pause between the two syllables in the word awkward… genius! Next time a girl says this make sure to say, “you’re fat,” then pause for ten seconds and follow up with “Awk ward.”

Girl Joke #7:"Hahaha, not funny"

This phrase is so ubiquitous amongst girls that it has absolutely no element of surprise. Merely mouthing the phrase, with the appropriate facial expressions, will suffice in delivering the same message.

We are Ignorant Philanthropists

Have you ever been called a moron for not giving money to the most starving child? Ever been ridiculed for buying orphans new toys instead of funding a food drive for sick children in Africa? Of course you haven’t, it is a rather taboo subject to bring up in the first place. How do we know if the resources we budget for charity are being allocated in the most efficient way possible? Americans gave nearly $300 billion to charitable causes last year; what if half of that could have been allotted more efficiently?

Have you ever had your dad scream at you for tampering with the thermostat? Ever been ridiculed for buying overpriced shoes? It is clear that our society values economic efficiency. Don’t get this confused with ‘being cheap,’ because you can be cheap and inefficient simultaneously. Efficient resource allocation is important for the rational consumer. This is why we strive to close the information gap between the seller and the buyer. With consumer reports, reviews, and evaluations, we can make better-informed decisions on our purchases. Being rational consumers, we will only choose to buy what has more ‘bang for its buck,’ the layman’s term for utility maximization. This diffusion of product information translates to an economically efficient future. What about charity? Are we informed philanthropist?

More specifically, what does it mean to have more ‘bang for you buck’ in regard to charity? Does it have to do with which recipient benefits the most out of your X dollar amount donation? Examining the behavior of charitable donations, we find out that this isn’t the case. When it comes to charity, people are not informed consumers.

Which person would you rather give your spare change to; assuming it is less than a dollar?


Starving African Kids Witty Homeless guy

If you did not pick the witty homeless guy, have ever given a homeless guy your spare change? If the answer is no, at least you know someone who has and that is sufficient enough for me to make my point. Now, there are certain reasons you or someone you know gave their change to the homeless guy instead of poor African children. For one, the homeless guy was conveniently there to take your money. Also, you might catch a glimpse of glee in his face as he takes your generous donation. In my opinion, these reasons are excuses for not having the information to donate where you will optimize your ‘bang for your buck.’

You shouldn’t feel guilty if you have these excuses for not donating to the ‘right’ people. Unlike the consumer markets, the charity market is saturated with false information and manipulation. There are a plethora of lobbyists out there that trick people into putting their charity budget in the wrong place. Similarly, there are plenty of religious institutions that do just the same. Your efforts to do your own research might be at too high of a cost.

Even some of the most benevolent deeds, like working at the local food shelter, could be a misallocation of time and money. It all depends on the supply and demand of charitable donations. The food shelter could be substantially lacking staff and your help will have a huge marginal benefit. On the other hand, suppose the food shelter was over staffed, but you decide to help out anyway. Your marginal benefit wouldn’t be worth your effort. This misallocation of charity will continue to be a problem as long as it’s taboo to bring up the topic. There needs to be some sort of way to have objective charitable information readily available for the public.

Learn How to be an Internet Comedian

The Internet has revolutionized the culture of comedy. Now a day anyone with an Internet Connection can publicize their comedic creations. The difficulty, however, comes with the creativity block that most of us face. The secret is to work within the parameters of the Internet fads. It’s hard to identify what these fads are, fortunately for you, I have come up with four fads to help structure your comedic art. I have also made examples to demonstrate the potential humor of working in the bounds of various fads.

Fad #1: Take a one-dimensional character and give them a new life.

What do LOL Cats and Chuck Norris facts have in common? They both take something none human and give it a new life. “But Chuck Norris is human!” He might be a human, but he has many inhuman characteristics like the ability to cure cancer with his tears. But seriously, his TV character is as one-dimensional as a newborn baby. Giving a new life to any of these primitive figures is sure to land you a hit on the Internet.

Example: “Murderous Urkel”



Fad #2:Combine a well-known joke with something creative

Some of us aren’t creative enough to come up with our own joke, but creative enough to embellish an existing one. For example, Chuck Norris facts evolved to Jack Bauer facts - not as creative as the original, but enough to give birth to anther joke.

Example: “Destination Shit.”



Fad #3: Make something emotional that people can build rapport with.

Humans are equipped with the mental capacity to experience empathy. When watching a sad movie, humans can imagine themselves as the characters in the movie. This ability is so powerful that it can cause real physiological reactions like laughing and crying. One thing to remember when creating your comedy is to have a human express a powerful emotion.

Example: “You Are a Pussy”

Delving Into Christian Pop Culture Via Godtube.com

Old bible-thumping Christians have the daunting task of reaching out to today’s youth. If they can’t reach them through divine intervention then I guess YouTube is the next best alternative. Unfortunately, YouTube viewers won’t take kindly to videos preaching Christianity. So they took out the ‘You’ and replaced it with ‘God’ to make GodTube.com. After all, it isn’t ‘you’ making these videos; it is directly from God himself. Let us delve in today’s Christian Pop Culture via the omniscient GodTube.

1. Here is a Mac/PC video comparing the cool ‘Christ-follower’ with the outdated ‘Christian’. Your first reaction might have been “what the hell is a Christ-follower?” Apparently it’s a laid-back Christian who doesn’t want to look like a closet homosexual conservative.


The message I get from this video:

There is no doubt that religious zealots have an image crisis in today’s generation, but I need not worry. I can share my faith with Jesus and still look like a college frat guy who just won a pizza eating competition.

2. This next video is titled “What will you do the next time porn strikes?” News flash, Christians still hate porn. Another news flash, the Internet is for porn. This is a good example of how Christians like to side step the issue of porn by demonizing instead of educating.


The message I get from this video:

Porn is a demon that has possessed the internal wiring of my computer. The only way to rid the demon is to either hire an exorcist or beat the crap out of it.

3. For this next video, please make sure there are no impressionable kids watching. This video is scarier than having the girl from “The Ring” and “The Grudge” hiding in your closet plotting your death. And if you believe in Hell, well, prepare for a month of sleepless nights.


The message I get from this video:

Must. Tell. Everyone. About. Jesus.

Fear and manipulation are still the tools of choice for spreading Christianity. How else can a religion convince the masses when they have to compete with the logic and reason that science offers?

Taboos You Can't Handle

Every culture on earth has taboos deeply rooted in their belief system. Taboos are so powerful that merely bringing it up is itself taboo. You might be thinking to yourself “Taboos don’t make me uncomfortable, I can talk about cannibalism and animal sex without being squeamish any day.”

Be aware that taboos only exist in a certain context. It’s impossible to quantify the amount of taboos with a giant list. For example, passionately kissing another person may seem to be far from a taboo. Now imagine I change that example to passionately kissing your twin brother. The very thought of somebody engaging in a sexual relationship with his or her twin makes you wiggle in your chair. Logically, kissing your twin should be just as harmless as a kiss with anybody else. The taboo is just too powerful for most of us to consider this normal behavior.

There is a popular drinking game called “I Never,” also known as “10 Fingers.” Here are the rules of the game quoted from wikipedia:

…Where players are arranged into something resembling a circle. The game is started with each player putting up 10 fingers. Then, one player says a simple statement starting with "Never have I ever," such as "Never have I ever had sex." In this case anyone who has had sex must drink and put down one finger. Play then continues around the circle and the next person makes a statement.

The interesting thing about this game is that you can talk about seemingly taboo subjects to a bunch of friends and strangers. I have heard people say “Never have I ever had anal sex,” or “Never have I ever done it in my parents bed room.” Saying these things is far from taboo because with taboos context is everything. Lets look at the reality of the situation – everyone is at a party, drinking, and have their inhibitions lowered. The very reason that this game is popular should be evidence as to why the game isn’t taboo. Taboos are not supposed to be the life of the party - instead, they are party poopers. To test this theory I needed to come up with the most taboo statement I could say when playing this game. I wanted to test whether this game could withstand the strongest taboos. Here are the top three I came up with:

1. Never have I ever seriously considered committing suicide.

2. Never have I ever had an abortion or miscarriage.

3. Never have I ever been molested as a child.

So far I have I have only said the first one during an actual game and guess what happened? One guy thought it was a really bad joke, we got in a long argument, and I killed the game.

Next time you play “10 Fingers,” don’t think you are doing anything profound by breaking social boundaries, because you probably aren’t.

Funny Observations

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Dear Santa, Will You Repent My Sins?

Have you ever wondered why there are no ‘Mall Gods,’ but plenty of ‘Mall Santa Clauses?’ Christian kids get to enjoy a figurative replication of their mythological idol in their local malls, but the adults get absolutely nothing, it’s down right ridiculous.

Oh wait… the lack of ‘Mall Gods’ isn’t actually a problem. Why do you ask? Because people still think God is real! With a little bit of faith, Santa Claus is just as real for kids as God is real for adults. Religious adults find it so cute that their children believe in a fictional deity. Well I find it adorable how +90% of the American population believes in God.

Santa Claus and God surprisingly have a lot in common:

Santa Claus judges kids on whether they have been naughty or nice. In his holy scriptures he claims you should be good for goodness sakes. Similarly, God will judge your behaviors on the merit of “because I said so.” Both deities punish bad behavior; receiving coal for Christmas is no worse than hell for a young Christian child. But don’t worry; they will both listen to your repenting via telepathy or the US postal service. And if communicating with them isn’t enough, you could always express your love for them by singing Christmas carol or Christian rock music.

What made Christian kids stop believing in Santa Claus? Was it an amounting pile of evidence that contradicted his existence? Or did they just discard faith as a valuable tool to justify their beliefs? Neither, their parents just told them he isn’t real. Not only did the parents deny his existence, but so did the friends, siblings, community, and entire society! The fight against God requires strength in numbers, not of knowledge.

Do Burkas Impinge on Women's Freedom of Choice

A lot of Americans are uncomfortable with the fact that woman in Muslim nations wear Burkas that cover their whole body. To most of my readers the image above may cause anger and/or empathy. Let’s take a step back – are we justified in having these kinds of emotions towards this image? What makes us believe it’s wrong to have woman wear Burkas? After all, a lot of these woman would say they choose to dress this way, does that still make it wrong? The most typical argument against Burkas, in my opinion, is this one:

Would these women still choose to wear a Burka if they weren’t raised in a society or household that advocates it?

The answer may seems to be ‘no’. After all, how many women do we see wear Burkas who don’t live in a Muslim society and/or household? Not many or none at all.

Lets turn the tables, how many American women would still choose to dress the way they do if they weren’t raised in a society or household that advocates westernized ideologies?



How often do you see this type of attire being worn by American girls? I see these ‘fashion uniforms’ on a daily basis. The variety of clothes seen today is virtually as homogeneous to that of Saudi Arabia. It may seem as if Burkas are all alike, but there are differences that a foreigner may not pick up on. Similarly, a non-westerner may think that the American attire is all the same with no substantial differences.

Does anyone really choose what to wear? When a muslim woman living in Saudi Arabia says she chooses to wear a Burka, you may think she is delusional. Unless she wants to be ostracized from her society, she will choose to wear a Burka. What about Americans, do we choose to wear suits, tuxedos, skirts, tank tops, etc.? Unless we want to miss out on job opportunities, or potential relationship we too will choose from a limited wardrobe. In every society, the choice of what to wear is a highly influenced by the culture. The argument that women don’t have a choice to wear a Burka is accurate, but it doesn’t prove an inequality because other societies also lack this freedom of apparel (most likely to a lesser degree).

This is why I propose a new argument that better emphasizes the injustice that Burkas entail. I call this the “C’mon its Shitty Under That Thing,” Argument. If you have ever dressed up as a ninja or smelled a really bad fart, you know what it’s like to have a piece of cloth cover your mouth and nose for a long period of time. It’s ridiculous, you can’t breathe fast, your clothes gets soaked with saliva, and it itchier than a Christmas sweater! Nobody should ever experience such an injustice.

Ok it’s not the best argument ever, but c’mon it's pretty shitty under that thing.

What is Manliness?

Philosophically deconstructing the basis of manliness… not manly.

I have recently been thinking about manliness, and no, I am not gay. I began thinking about what it takes to be manly and how we choose whether something is manly or not. Manliness is something that is deeply rooted in our culture. Everyone has a strong opinion on what is manly and what isn’t. There is no clear-cut definition for manliness because its definition evolves with the culture. Because of this unfortunate problem, I came up with a way to find out all the components that make up manliness. I took a simple action and kept modifying it to what I thought was a more manly action. Then I thought about what my modifications had in common in order to get at the basis of what it means to be manly.

1. Cutting down a tree
- Chopping down the tree with an axe
- Chopping down the tree because you saw a monkey looking at you the wrong way
- Chopping down the tree while preparing the BBQ for monkey meat.
- Chopping down the tree while having your wife prepare the BBQ for monkey meat.
- Chopping down the tree while simultaneously building a picnic bench from scratch for you to eat your monkey on.

2. Educating your children
- Teaching them how to beat up the school bully
- Teach them how to paralyze the bully with one punch.
- Teach them how to paralyze the bully with just a snarl.
- Teach them how to deal with their own problems.
- Teach them how you didn’t raise no pansies.

3. Eating breakfast
- Eating breakfast that is well over 2500 calories
- Eating breakfast that has bacon bits sprinkled on everything (including the bacon).
- Eating a bacon-filled breakfast while reading the business section of the newspaper
- Eating a bacon-filled breakfast while reading the newspaper and criticizing your kids for not finishing their bacon.
- Eating a bacon-filled breakfast while reviewing the bills and blaming your family for making you broke.


What did we learn? What are the components of manliness?

Brute strength is favored over tools. Tools that require brute strength are good too. The foods you choose to eat must come at a cost greater than that of its market price. Manly people should have their bodies handle anything, so unhealthy food, or food that is dangerous to attain shouldn’t be a problem. Goals and objectives should be reached despite the dangers and risks. Jobs that don’t require physical work or danger should be delegated to others. My conclusion is that manliness always involves an objective or goal that cannot be achieved without directly risking either physical health or personal finance. Try to find a manly behavior that doesn’t involve these (warning, trying this is not manly).

Outdated Relationship Tips and What They Should Be

Myth #1: Never Lie

Many relationship connoisseurs would agree that any sort of lying is detrimental to the health of a relationship. Frequent lies will not add up in the end and it is best to avoid them. This means you can’t blame it on the dog anymore.

What it should be: Never want to lie

People don’t lie without an incentive to lie; there is always an underlying reason. Don’t give yourself or your partner a reason to lie in the first place. If you lie about the night you went drinking with your friends, you should be concerned about why you needed to lie. Why did you blame it on the dog? Maybe your partner needs to start accepting foul odors and their true creator.

Myth #2: Take time to cuddle

If your mate is sitting there watching TV or reading a book, why not cuddle with them? Both of you will feel secure and loved with every moment of cuddling goodness.

What it should be: Take the time to huddle

What can be more fun the holding an oversized arm-numbing hunk of meat? Lets be honest, as relationships progress, cuddling is no more fun than wrestling a walrus. Instead of cuddling, you should huddle! In a huddle you do more than press against each other, you also communicate. Huddling is an intimate means of communication – think about it, it’s hard to argue while huddling.

Myth #3: Set aside time for romance

When the relationship starts to go sour, you should set aside some time for romance. A romantic candle light dinner will spark your relationship back to life.

What it should be: Have romance set itself up

The big corporations have succeeded in profiteering from our desire for romance. “Just take your partner to one of these over priced institutions and save your relationship from destruction!” These corporations have us believing that romance is out there and we just need to go find it. Real romance just happens, regardless of the context. Romance is a state of mind and can be done anywhere, such as the park, living room, backyard, Motel 6 or even the kitchen sink (if you know what I mean ;-).

Myth #4: Set up Boundaries

Every relationship needs to set up guidelines in order for it to work. Make sure your partner knows your boundaries before they get crossed. For instance, let your partner know that you don’t want them going to strip clubs.

What it should be: Break down desires to cross boundaries

Don’t be an oppressive dictator with rules and regulations or else V will blow up your house. We all know what happens in an oppressive government, people begin to rebel in the name of freedom. Give your partner enough rules and they will want to break them. Instead, make your partner not want to cross your boundaries. If your mate wants to go to a strip club, just strip for them, free of charge. Not only will this bring you closer together, it will abolish the need to set up rules.

The Perfect Sandwhich Riddle

Here is a riddle I made up:

You are trying to make a grilled cheese sandwich

You have two pieces of sliced bread, a slice of cheese, and a toaster oven. The toaster heats from the top and the bottom.

One side of each sliced bread can only be exposed to heat for only one minute before it becomes uneatable. The problem is, the sliced cheese takes 3 minutes to melt like you want it to. How can you toast your sandwich in your most preferred way?

Rules:
You cannot peal melting cheese from the slice it is on.
You can have the toaster oven on or off for as long as you want.

*Make a comment with a solution if you got one. I will post the solution later.

Aborting a Gay Baby

Watson, the guy who discovered DNA, is also an old geezer whose generation believes in out-dated racist and homophobic assumptions. He recently said that those of African decent are less intelligent than westerners. You can imagine your lizard-looking grandpa watching TV in his underwear blurting out the same thing.

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece

The article says that Watson once told a British newspaper “Woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual.” This got me thinking, is that really unethical – to abort a child solely on the basis that the child has 100% chance of being homosexual? At first this may appear to be ethically ambiguous, but I believe I can prove why it is morally unethical.

We need to make one major assumption before I go on, we need to assume that discriminating against homosexuals is morally wrong. All morals fall somewhere on a ‘moral spectrum’ and I believe the consensus would agree this one is definitely on the bad side.

Lets assume Watson is NOT against homosexuals.

Lets say that Watson believes that woman have the right to choose why they want to have an abortion. In this case he says it's ok to abort when the child is homosexual. This may make sense because a homosexual child is going to be a hassle in a homophobic society.

In this case isn't the mother who aborts her gay child trying to dodge gay discrimination? Instead of her trying to work against homosexual discrimination because it's wrong, she side steps the issue by not having a gay child. This sort of "ignoring the issue" is why homosexual discrimination is perpetuating in modern societies.

It would be equivalent to saying that black slaves should have just ignored the problem instead of dealing with an injustice. And that black people (back then) should not reproduce because they will just be slaves. I hope we can all see something wrong with that.

When Watson says its ok to abort a gay child, he is implying that as a society we need to work AROUND gay discrimination not against!

From an economical stands point: More gay people = less population

The Deist God

Atheists and agnostics have an easy time denouncing organized religion and the BS that it drags along. The Bible, Koran, Torah, or any other holy scripture is easy to disprove with its mounting contradictions and fallacious arguments they possess. The fact that God has never answered an amputee’s pray by growing their missing limb is a ‘humerus’ example of how effortless the debate is.

It is obvious for any Atheist and agnostic that there is an infinitesimal probability that a universe-altering God can exist. What about those who believe God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe? This describes the deist, contrary to a theist, they derive the existence of God through personal experience and reason. Like atheists and agnostics they reject supernatural events and that God does not interfere with humans.

In my opinion, the majority of atheists and agnostics have a problem arguing with deists. There are no apparent logical fallacies nor do they explicitly contradict science in their argument. It also seems impossible to logically argue against a God that is beyond logic.

The typical atheist versus deist dialogs goes something like this:

Atheist: “Do you believe in God? (while holding back smirk).”

Deist: “Yes I do.”

Atheist: “Lol! You think the world began 6,000 years ago!”

Deist: “Oh, I believe in evolution - I don’t actually believe in miracles or prophecies, I just think God is beyond our knowledge.”

Atheist: “Uh, but you do know it is statistically improbable for God to exist.”

Deist: “Lol! God is beyond statistics or any other science – I just think he is exists and I don’t let that fact change how I live. Do you find something wrong with that?”

Atheist: “Well, fuck, Dawkins didn’t prepare me for that.”

Well, is anything wrong with being a Deist? Yes there is, but it is a question of ethics like abortion and whenever we bump into a moral dilemma we turn towards philosophy.

Believing in a deist God is a meaningless belief. The word meaningless carries some emotional baggage to it, so allow me to clarify what I mean. When I use the word meaning, I am not referring to the meaning humans impose on objects or events. For example, some people find fishing symbolic of the time they spent with their father and is meaningful in that regard. In this example, the son or daughter imposes the meaning on fishing. The way I am regarding something as meaningful is whether it appeals to logic and reason. When I assert that a deist God is meaningless, I am implying that it doesn’t appeal to logic and reason. Logic cannot answer whether the deist God is true or not.

A good way to figure out if a given hypothesis is true or false is to insert it into the scientific method machine:



The hypothesis of Intelligent Design is easy to find false because when it’s inserted into the scientific method machine it comes out a falsity. This implies that intelligent design is ‘meaningfully’ false. However, when you insert God into the machine, it gives you no answer because you cannot prove God’s existence using logic. You cannot derive the God hypothesis as meaningfully true or false. Therefore the God hypothesis is a meaningless one and will forever be in hypothesis stage.

There are an infinite amount of meaningless hypotheses that you can come up with. Why should you believe in one meaningless hypothesis over the infinite amount you can think of? The fact is, you don’t, and there is a good reason for it. In your daily life you never allow meaningless hypotheses to affect your life in a meaningful way. You use logic in the choices you make. For example, you know the sun is going to come up the next day because it has been doing so for your whole life. Never do you allow a meaningless hypothesis affect your daily choices. Why should the deist believe in a meaningless God? He would only be contradicting the way he lives.

Assume the deist does allow a meaningless belief to affect his life meaningfully. Then what is stopping him from using other meaningless hypotheses? If this deist wanted his behaviors to be consistent, he would seriously consider that global warming is a result of a shortage of pirates. Having meaningless beliefs affect your life meaningfully is a detrimental behavior that should not be practiced.

In summary:

The Deist has two options.

1) Believe in a meaningless supernatural God, and have it affect his life in a meaningful way.

2) Believe in a meaningless supernatural God, and have it NOT affect his life in a meaningful way.

In the first case, the deist is committing an irrational act that is similar to that of a theist. Most likely if you believe in a meaningless God, I can assume you are extracting some meaning from it or else you wouldn't be believing. In this case, again, you are being irrational like a theist.

In the second case, the deist is similar to an atheist. Both understand that God is a meaningless hypothesis and both don't let it affect their life. There is something contradictory about this sort of deist. How can you believe in God and not extract meaning from it at the same time? There must be a reason for believing.

In other words, there is no such thing as a deist, only a theist or atheist in disguise and it is probably the former.

The Spirit of Yosemite

A while ago, I took an environmental college course that included a trip to Yosemite. After our trip we had to make a presentation about certain topics, mine was about the spirit of Yosemite.

Here was my attempt to turn a seemingly bullshit topic into an interesting one:

---

When we were in Yosemite, ranger Dick decided to use analogies to help us remember and understand important concepts about nature. I will do the same in describing the spirituality of Yosemite.

If I drop this marker on the floor (demonstrate), does the marker "desire" to fall to the ground?
Obviously is does not desire, it is just following the laws of nature; gravity.

Similarly, a tree does not literally desire water nor does it desire to grow towards the sun. It does not have a consciousness like humans in order to make that choice.

We, on the other hand, can choose. I can choose whether I want to drink soda or water (or at least it may seem so).

Who exactly is doing the choosing?

We are, fundamentally, our DNA coding and certainly DNA does not choose.

The 'magic' happens in the gene expression. We get a product, like our consciousness, that seems as if it is beyond the laws of nature. This illusion is deeply mystifying and provocative.

Yosemite has this same mystifying property.

Just as the human DNA, Yosemite possess very objective mechanisms that strictly follow natural laws. Trees, plants, insects, etc all follow nature's laws flawlessly and consistently – just as a succulent deposits money in its bank account or how a tree lays off the branches at the lowest tier.

Despite the mechanical aspects of Yosemite, the whole seems greater than the sum of its parts.

Just like the human consciousness, a mystifying beauty emerges from Yosemite.

This beauty is very hard to conceptualize so I will make an analogy to clarify.

Imagine all of you were watching the play "Romeo and Juliet" for the first time. Only, the characters and the scene are going in super slow motion (almost frozen) and they are in the middle of the story. With careful scrutiny of the scene you can make certain assumptions, like the fact it is a play or what time period they are living in. You might be able to construct possible plots for the story. What is almost impossible to know, are the deeper meanings of the story. The irony, metaphors, humor, or social commentaries will be almost impossible to depict.

We are looking at Yosemite like we are looking at this slow motion play, we can only understand it superficially. Maybe our human mind is not capable of conceptualizing this spirit of Yosemite, either way; it has different effects on different people.

Infinity + Philosophy = Fun

I want to share some mind-blowing thoughts about seemingly mundane concepts of infinity and how they paved the foundation for math. I use the word mundane because of the strong intuitive feeling that the concept of infinity has no practical use. We live in a seemingly finite universe and issues concerning us don’t involve the use of infinity.

The big question is: “Does infinity even exist in the universe?”

The answer is yes; space and time in the physical universe is infinite. The answer may not make sense because the notion of ‘infinity’ is not made clear. The dictionary roughly defines infinity as, “A sequence or distance without bound.” Again, this definition may not satisfy you with my answer. Let us examine what it means for something to be boundless.

We have a region of space from point A to point B (assume the line is a continuous whole i.e. no discontinuities).

A---------------------------------------B


There are an infinite number of points between A and B. Be careful at what you’re intuition might be telling you, the spatial region is not made up of points, but can be infinitely divisible by them. Points are not parts of a spatial regions they are simply boundaries. To get a better idea of what I mean, imagine what would happen if I got rid of that line that is in-between point A and B. When that line disappears, so does point A and B! They are never actualized until you create a bound or limit, in this case is the color of the line against the background of the page.

Lets actualize some more bounds on our line

A---------B------------------------C------D

Between AB, BC, BD or any other lines there is always and infinite amount of points that is the line can be divided into. The key concept to draw from this is that a point or bound always separates one region of space from another and only have a potential existence unless actualized as discontinuities. Now imagine if the universe is finite in size and there is a boundary or limit at the end of it. But wait, spatial boundaries are always boundaries of one region of space to another (this thought is just to amuse you).

Time is similarly infinite to that of space. You can think of time as a line with two points. One point is 7:35PM and the other is 9:00PM.

7:35PM---------------------------------------9:00PM

Similar to our spatial line, this line is bounded by an instant of time. An instant of time is not a part of time of which time can be divided into. An instant is more like a point on a line; it is the boundary between two periods of time. The interesting reality of time is the fact that it feels as if it will go on forever. At any point in time there is a succeeding moment and a succeeding moment giving the illusion that time is always ‘becoming’. Aristotle called this the ‘potentially infinite’, versus the actual infinite. Space could also be considered potentially infinite only if space and time were considered dependent to one another. If space were potentially infinite it would mean you could be walking in a straight line forever and always covering new ground. Now if space is independent of time then it cannot be potentially infinite without being actually infinite. If you are walking in a straight line you will be covering new ground every time because there is ground to be covered.

If it still doesn’t make sense that space and time can be actually infinite, rather than potentially infinite, than consider what happens when infinity is applied in mathematics. In mathematical theory, there is no room for a potential infinity. I explained how the potentially infinite space does not work when space is inseparable of time. A mathematician doesn’t define a circle as the locus of a points moving in a plane equidistant from a fixed point by supposing the motions of a point moving along a plane in time. He doesn’t define the circle by imagining in time, he supposes it to exist as a completed whole. How can a statement about all natural numbers be true if there is no completed totality of numbers in reality? How can we prove that there are an infinite number of prime numbers without actually counting them? Well we can prove it, but we can’t do it by supposing a potential infinity. Potential infinities are never totalities, so it would be impossible to prove there is a totality of prime numbers if it weren’t actually infinite.

Whether the universe is actually infinite or not may not make a difference on the practical level, but it does make a difference on the theoretical level. Previously, I said that time feels as if it is potentially infinite. After concluding that potential infinities don’t make sense in the mathematical world, I have to cast doubt on my intuitive notion of time. This leads me to conclude that time is thus in a sense wholly actual even though it is not simultaneously present. This may switch your point of view of time being more of a spatial dimension rather than something else.

What is the Meaning of Life?

When most people think about philosophy they think of stoners pondering their existence as they pass the bong. Philosophy is rigorous and as objective as the logic that structures it. Because of the precise nature of philosophy, a huge majority of those stoner conversations are illogical to begin with. Take for example the most cliché one that might pop in your head: What is the meaning of life?

“Dude, the meaning of life is to chilllll... and like help others or some shit” – Some stoner who forgot his own name

Unfortunately, that is not the right answer; in fact, there can’t be a right answer! The question itself is ill defined. Asking, “What is the meaning of life,” presupposes that there is a meaning to life. So lets change the question around:

“Is there a meaning to life?” – Slightly smarter stoner

The answer to this question is a big no because it too presupposes something, but more implicitly than our previous question. Before I reveal what it falsely assumes, we need to exam what ‘meaning’ means.

Humans have evolved categorical memory, i.e. they have the ability to categorize objects in their memory in a hierarchal manner. Your memory of things looks something like this:

Stuff I do when Hungry --> Eat Food --> Cheeseburger --> No Onions

This is obviously a very rough outline of how we think, but it illustrates how we perceive objects meaningfully. A Cheeseburger is meaningless without a human to assert meaning onto it. In my example, the meaning of the cheeseburger is a food I want to eat because I am hungry. There is no one meaning for an objects and varies between person to person. For example, some people might categorize a cheeseburger as something they like to draw instead.

The key insight from this example is that meaning is a human perception of objects. The meaning of an object doesn’t exist without a human to impose that meaning onto the object. Going back to our question, we ask if there is a meaning to life. The question asks if there is something beyond humans that imposes meaning for our lives. Meaning is a human perception of objects. Assuming there is a meaning to our lives is also assuming there is an omniscient being that asserted a meaning for the lives of humans. Unless you believe in God, you will agree that there is nothing out there in the universe that can impose meaning on our lives.

Yup, life is meaningless.

5 Creative Ways to Deal with Kids

1. Magic Spray

Kids have the tendency to get injured in every opportunity possible. About 90% of their injuries are trivial, but their screaming and yelling try to convince you otherwise. You can probably recall a few instances when you’ve witnessed a kid trip over their own feet – then they get up slightly stunned, but not crying or screaming. At their first glimpse of blood the silence instantly disappears. Luckily, the placebo effect works on kids 95% of the time. Small kids can’t take sugar pills so you can create your own placebo. Just take an old spray container, fill it with water, and label it, “Magic Spray.” Then create some story about how you found it in a magic cave and how it heals all wounds. Spray it on the kid’s injury and watch them magically stop crying!

2. Imaginary Super Hero

Kids have an over active imagination, sometimes it actually scares them. Some variation of a Boogie Man could keep them up at night. If it’s not helping to simply tell the kid there is no such thing, then you need to make them stop thinking about it all together. Tell them to imagine the biggest and strongest super hero imaginable. Every time their bad thoughts pop up, tell them to imagine their super hero crunch up their thoughts like a piece of paper and throw it away in a trash bin. And remind the kid that the super hero has super speed and will never waste time to destroy their bad thoughts.

3. Superstition

Sometimes you just don’t have the time to explain to a kid why they should stop a certain behavior. For example you are at the supermarket and it’s your turn to pay for your groceries when your child starts opening candy bars. You don’t have time to lecture them so just say it’s bad luck. Kids will obey any superstition thrown at them... for about one minute. The one minute will give you enough time to pay for your groceries and will stop the kid’s bad behaviors momentarily.

4. Operation Hopelessness

Have you ever had your child ask you for just one more quarter for the arcades? And after you give them that quarter they run back to ask for another? To stop this aggravating behavior you must hinder their persistence. Make a huge fuss about how you don’t want to give them another quarter (or any other object they want). Then after about five minutes you finally give them the quarter. They will use it up in a matter of seconds and come back discouraged to beg for another. This way you save yourself half an hour dealing with an angry and tireless kid.

5. Embarrassment

Ever have your teacher write your name on the board because you were talking in class? This is a widely used strategy because it works. It is effective because it’s embarrassing and singles you out. If you are in a public place with a child who is out of control, give him the attention he doesn’t want. Yell out their name loud enough for others to hear and sustain a loud voice if they continue misbehaving. If you don’t want to embarrass yourself in the process, just threaten them with embarrassing things you’ll do to them.

An Alternative for Age Requirement Laws

We all love to hate America’s drinking age requirements. Everyone is familiar with this argument,

“If we can choose to die for our country at 18, shouldn’t we be mature enough to choose to drink alcohol?”

Whenever a lot of people preach the same one-liner argument, I switch into skeptic mode. There is a good chance the majority of people saying this one-liner are emotionally attached to their position. If you are 18 and cannot find anyone to buy you alcohol for a party, you are going to concur with like-minded opinions, especially the ones that are easy to understand.

What is this argument really about? Does it show the ridiculousness of government age regulations or something else? There is obviously a certain age that people reach when they are mature enough to make a particular decision. A 5-year-old is not mature enough to decide to drink alcohol, and therefore shouldn’t be given the right to buy alcohol. What about a 6-year-old? Or 7-year-old? Eventually you will reach an age when that person is mature enough.

The government is faced with a problem, they know there exists an age where a person is mature enough to make certain decisions, but at what age should they set the law to? Quantifying the age of maturity for a country as a whole is impossible. The average age of maturity varies in every state, region, or even county!

This brings me to my next point, who should have jurisdiction on age regulation? In my opinion this jurisdiction should be delegated to individual cities. There could be some company that assesses the average age of maturity in a city. This assessment will include the demographics, the violence rate, number of young people, teen drunk driving incidents, etc. Then each city can decide upon an appropriate age of maturity. This could be a good incentive for cities to be safer. If your city has lower age requirements, more people might move there and therefore house prices go up.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs [American Version]

The American version of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.

Steps:

1. The foundation of this pyramid is Self-Actualization. An American must satisfy this step before they can move up the hierarchy. The American usually grows up in a comfortable atmosphere where food, shelter, and clothing are in abundance. At this point in time the young American has no struggles. All he can do is ponder the artificial meanings of life that the American culture has brought to them.

2. The American child quickly realizes that they need to look like a celebrity if they want to retain self-actualization. Once makeovers, manicures, and pedicures are all taken care of, the American dwells in promiscuity. Once the need to be with many partners is fulfilled, the American can move up a step in the hierarchy.

3. After countless break-ups and hook-ups, the American desires to settle down with a unique individual. The American seeks love, as opposed to just sex, from this individual. Marriage finally takes place to sanction their love for one another.

4. When an American family is created, they seek top security; nothing can come in the way of the nuclear family. The family will make sure they don’t live in a godless society that may otherwise put the family in danger. They will also vote for the politician that promises the best homeland security.

5. The last step of the hierarchy, and the most desirable place to reach, is the physiological needs. Once the lower levels have been fulfilled, the American will start to take care of their body. The average American only reaches this step at around forty years old. They realize their body has taken a beating by the years of promiscuity and starvation diets. The sooner the American reaches this step, the sooner happiness will take into effect.

Now, a fun exercise for my readers: try to imagine what the American food pyramid looks like.

Mini Freakonomics

1.The Poor Baker’s Dozen

Ever wonder why donut places offer you one free donut in a dozen donuts? What additional satisfaction does the customer get with one extra thirteenth donut? In my local bakery, a dozen donuts costs me $6.00 and a single donut costs 75 cents. The customer’s value on the donut decreases with every additional donut. The value of one donut may start off at 75 cents, but by the thirteenth donut the value reaches around 20 cents (assuming the value decreases linearly by about 4 cents).

This means that the bakery is taking a loss by adding the thirteenth donut. The only reason they would add the thirteenth donut is if it was a big enough incentive (a mighty 20 cents of value) for their customers to buy more donuts.

Here is a question for you, would an extra thirteenth donut make you want to buy a dozen donuts when you otherwise wouldn’t have? No it wouldn’t, and that is why the baker’s dozen is a stupid business invention.

2. Halloween, A Night of Horrifying Economics

Halloween is that time of year where millions of dollars of candy don’t get optimized. A large percentage of the candy kids get is not wanted and thrown away. There should be a “National Halloween Free Trade Market,” that opens up the week following Halloween. This will allow kids everywhere to trade candies they don’t like for those they do like.

3. Party Goers Might be Superficial

People who go to parties or clubs on a regular basis to meet a mate are more likely to be superficial. When you go to a social scene like this, you are exposed to many potential mates. You would need to narrow down your choices in a matter seconds! Choosing the right person to ‘hit’ on in the pool of potentials may be a superficial process. You must point out superficial qualities in a person because you don’t have time to get to know everyone. This superficial selection attribute may spill over to your daily life. A potential mate at work may be shot down before you ever get to know each other.

4. Religious People More Likely to be Racist

By religious people, I mean people who identify themselves as the same religion as the one they were raised to be. The same qualities reside in both religious people and racists.

Both:
- Have faith that their beliefs are correct.
- Have no evidence to justify their beliefs.
- Refuse to open themselves to new perspectives on their beliefs.
- Don't allow logic to interfere with learned behavior/thoughts.
- Feel more in touch with peers when practicing beliefs.

This correlation may be off because there is a much stronger stigma to be racist than religious. The possibility is increased because they have the prerequisite characteristics of a racist.

5. Music Artists Finally Get Paid What They Deserve

The record industry has reached the lowest point in history. This would make song artists pissed off because now they don't make as much money. They shouldn't be pissed! They are finally receiving the amount of money they always deserved.

CEOs make a lot of money because their skills are in short supply and highly demanded. Now a day, all you need to be successful in the music industry is an excellent marketing team and a sufficient budget. The amount of people with an adequate amount of music skill is not in short supply. Now the song artists will receive a more accurate amount of money their skill deserves.

How to Judge a Girl's Attractivness

Imagine you are in a Starbucks with a gossip buddy and one of you spots a girl who looks like she came back from a Paris Hilton convention. Her face has enough makeup to protect her skin from a powerful laser. Her skirt is so short she couldn’t hide a paperclip between her legs. You whisper to your friend, “Jesus, I bet she is disgusting behind all that glamour gear.” Then your friend replies, “Yea, um, I would still hit it.”

In this case, who is making a better judgment on the attractiveness of this Paris impersonator? I would argue that your friend would have the better judgment.

There are two extreme ways of judging a girl’s attractiveness. 1) Judge how she looks in the worst lighting and the worst camera angles. 2) Judge how she looks in the best lighting and the best camera angle. Both ways offer a fair platform to scrutinize and compare her looks with others. There are two things wrong with making these judgments. Firstly, the majority of the time you won’t see this girl in the worst or best possible way, so you have to judge her somewhere in between. Secondly, consider two girls, girl X looks better than girl Y in the judgment analysis 1. However, girl Y looks better in the judgment analysis 2! This contradiction leads me to believe that there is no objective way of judging the attractiveness of a girl.

Now lets analyze the attractiveness of the Paris Hilton wannabe. Considering that she walked into a Starbucks with how she was dressed, it is probably how she looks like the majority of the time. If both of you agree that she is hot at that moment, then she becomes officially hot.

Disregard everything above if you are drunk.

AI is Blind

Everyone has seen the movies where robots live amongst organic beings like ourselves. As technology increases exponentially, many people believe this will soon be reality. As awesome as it sounds to have robot slaves wipe your ass (ethics aside), it is still a far-fetched idea. How would the robot be able to identify your ass instead of another cushioned semi-sphere?

Vision in humans is a highly complicated mechanism. We evolved to symbolically respond to the objects we see. When we see a photo of a loved one, our brain is triggered emotionally rather than just computing the photo as geometric shapes. We also evolved to see symbols in objects that barely have resemblance to reality. We see faces where none exist, like this smiley face =).

A funny example when this adaptation fails:

Would a robot be able to make this same mistake? It may be possible to have its or his AI strong enough to make the mistake, but it seems unlikely to be invented in the near future. This is partially why making a self-driving car is so convoluted. How could its AI identify an old woman driving in front of it? In which case it would have to tailgate until she pulls over. On a more serious note, there are many instances where symbolic human vision is needed.

The Smart Person Fallacy

Logical fallacies are useful tools in putting to sleep arguments that aren’t going anywhere. In other words, logical fallacies are “Argument Euthanasia Tools (AETs).” The only problem with these AETs is that there aren’t enough of them to go around. With only a measly fifty or so fallacies, there are thousands, even millions of arguments that aren’t killed (against the will of their creator).

In response to such an unsettling dilemma, I have discovered a new logical fallacy that is often breached. This fallacy is called The Smart Person Fallacy ™.

In our everyday life, we find it logical to expect people to behave in the same manner as they always have. It would be illogical to suspect that my best friend is going to rape me every time I get shotgun instead of him. Based on my past experience with him, he doesn’t seem like the type who would rape another man out of spite.

Now let us assume that a person’s past behaviors include them to be right all the time. It would then be illogical to not give this person the benefit of the doubt. Lets say that I am teaching a 4th grader simple arithmetic. I solve every problem in his booklet flawlessly (yes, even the bonus questions). There is one more problem I haven’t completed yet, and I have the 4th grader give it a shot. He says the answer is 6 chickens, but I proclaim it is 10 chickens. If the 4th grader gives himself the benefit of the doubt, he is exercising the The Smart Person Fallacy ™.

A good example of where the The Smart Person Fallacy ™ is used most often, is with the issue of evolution. On one side of the argument you have intellectuals like Richard Dawkins and on the other side you have bible thumping baboons (usually found in warmer climates in the South and rural areas). For these half-wits to disagree with Dawkins about God, is a prime example of The Smart Person Fallacy ™. Not giving Dawkins the benefit of the doubt on an issue he knows all too well is illogical.

With this new fallacy, hopefully we can put to sleep arguments that seem to be in a vegetative state.

What is the most disgusting thing in existence?

When asked, “What is the most disgusting thing you can think of?” you might think of a nasty green goop that oozes from a beaver carcass. The answer to this question is far more obvious than a green slime. The answer is right under our noses (literally) – shit! Its dynamic array of colors, smells, and textures clearly qualify shit to be the most disgusting thing ever.

Shit is too ubiquitous in our lives and therefore is understated to how disgusting it really is. We often forget that people are carrying hefty loads of shit at all times. Imagine how our perceptions of people will change if this subtle fact was made explicit. In the video game, The Sims, every character has a diamond thing hovering over its head. Imagine that in real life everyone had their stool displayed right over their heads.

Similar to this Image:



Knowing there is a chuck of shit dwelling inside this top model will inevitably bring her hotness level a few notches down. How can you possibly think someone is attractive knowing there is a steaming pile of mush lodged inside her? It’s like looking at a fresh glazed doughnut, but instead of being filled with cool creamy custard it’s stuffed with warm chunky shit!

Next time you see a hot girl shakin her ass in the club, just remember what else she is shakin.