In the past few mouths I have been in various forms and ways accused of being “on drugs”. Four of the accusers took a “and therefore I must stay away from you so you wont be a bad example” tone. It is to those four in particular, that I address this, however points will be made that ALL might enjoy. If you are not one of these people enjoy my rant if you ARE one of these people please pay attention.
Let me start by saying this all four people this goes out to were A) people who I called friend up until these accusations started, B) are people who I have “let slide” when I traced rumors that were false to them C) all said they couldn’t associate with me due to the immorality of my drug use and D) who never bothered to TALK to me about this.
My anger at the Evil Four (henceforth referred to as E4kers), is such that I am writing this then writing them off. This Blog is strictly for me to vent and move on. If any of the E4 read this I truly hope you learn your lesson as you have lost a friend, but I figure that as you are most likely to “moral” to read this I doubt it.
So why am I so Angered? Well imaginary audience voice I am glad you asked. There are many reasons but lets start with. “I am not on drugs”. Nope sorry. Not even prescription. Not cigarettes, not booze, not pot, and dear gods not any thing else. Let me be clear the ONE, illegal drug I might be on would be Pot, however as I am looking for employment and broke (related things there) it is both stupid and imposable for me to get any much less smoke it. If we are counting Alcohol as a drug (it is legal) I still wouldn’t again due to funding. I haven’t smoked a cigarette in 12 years. Any other drug, not for me, not for a while and never to any real degree. So anger part one is “I am not on drugs you lying E4kers”
So let us take the “no drugs right now” fact and add it to our 4 part list above. I must say the first bit, “A” is my fault I should have been more careful with my friendship but hey I am a friendly guy and hate letting any one go. I obviously should have the moment “B” happened. When you spread roomers about friends you are betraying the friendship, something that as it hurts others and not just you is LESS moral then any drug use. That brings us to “C”, your so called “morality”. How is it moral to spread lies? All 4 of you E4kers talked about morality while LYING about me. I know 3 of you claim to be Christian witch you failed to be by “bearing false witness” against me. The one I am less sure of has property of mine that he stole. I go out of my way to not harm others, you harm with lies. You DO NOT get to play the morality card with me. This leaves us with “D” none of you E4kers bothered to talk to me, not even on the phone. ALL of you sent me messages via a “networking site” not even my personal E-mail. None of you could be bothered to check to see if your lies were true. That is wrong and cowardly. But heaven forbid you give the person you are slandering a chance to defend themselves. I am done with you E4kers because you are ALL lying cowards.
So E4kers I don’t know why you couldn’t just turn down my friend request or delete me as a friend. I don’t know why you couldn’t actually be a friend and call. But thank you for showing you true colors, I hope your kids turn out ok, learning morality from liars and all. Remember you are as moral as you are brave and honest.
Bradleyman
(And yes not including names and quotes may seem a bit cowardly on my part, but I am afraid of lawsuits and one of the E4kers come from a family that sues it’s self at reunions)
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Why I hate Gambit or where the X-men went wrong.
WARNING: The following bit of written entertainment and thought is about comic books. If you are NOT in to comic books then this will probably be boring. You were warned. Don’t be like the friend of a friend of mine who went to Comic con to see her favorite British actor (on a Dr. Who panel) and then was amazed by all the comic geeks acting like comic geeks.
I started reading comics when I started reading. However really reading comics, becoming a fan of the on going story line didn’t happen until I was 11. I read a comic that made me want to read and collect and follow the stories. Until then comics had been just something fun, but I rarely got two consecutive issues of the same comic book. I liked the heroes the way a lot of kids do and it was a diversion but all of that changed with a single issue. It wasn’t mine, it was about two months old or so when I read it, and it changed my life. You may think that is an exaggeration but I am a comic geek because of it. The issue in question is X-men 138, written as the epilog of the “Dark Phoenix Saga” and packaged as the first story in “Days of future past”. I now own both collections and in reading them as an adult I must say I was lucky to be reading some of the best comic stories ever written.
Back to that particular issue. X-men 138 was set at the funeral for Jean Grey (the first one) and in it via flash back her fiancé, Scott (Cyclops) Summers, tells the entire history of the team from issue one through the death of his lover. As jumping on points go I scored BIG time. The thing that impressed me most that made want to know what would happen was that the X-men could change. The current team except for Cyclops was NOT the original team. One of the originals had rejoined and died. One of the current members showed no problem with the idea of killing someone if it was needed. This was like nothing I thought superheroes should be but it made sense to me. Then at the end this guy Cyclops quits to go morn his love, the one guy (according to what I had just read) who had been there the whole time was leaving. I was amazed, shocked and hooked for life. Well hooked on comics any way. My love of comics and Marvel came (as it did for many) via the X-Men; I was a huge Night Crawler fan. I even had a crush on Kitty, who was at the time older then me.
Over the years I became more and more bored with the X-men. I stayed loyal to them well past the point I found them entertaining. Recently I was explaining the importance to comics in general of the above mentioned Dark Phoenix Saga; I was asked when I stopped liking the X-men as much. It took some thinking but I figured it out. There are two character events that I can point too which best show the problem. They are the return of Jean Grey and the introduction of Gambit. (The sad part is that in both cases there are things about both characters that I like.)
The first fatal blow was the Return of Jean Grey. Her return to life was done so Marvel could launch a new title called “X-Factor” staring the original five X-men. It was not the first X-men spin off (New Mutants has that honor), but it was the one turned the X-men in to the “X-books” as now there were four (Wolverine had his own comic by this point). So with Fantastic Four # 286 and X-factor # 1 we get the first mortal wound to what had made the X- folk cool. Permanent change was GONE. The team that had left to go on to other things was all back, The beast was no longer fuzzy and Jean was back from the dead. At that moment Marvel reversed everything that had made the X-men special, but it would get worse.
The second fatal blow is shown in the introduction of Gambit in X-men #266. Yes I know he has a cool look and accent. There is a lot about the character that is great. I am picking on Mr. LeBeau because he is the most visible of the “fake changes”. He is presented as a “new idea” which he ultimately isn’t. He is a mysterious Mutant with a dark past who prefers to go it alone but sticks with the team any way, in other words Wolverine II. Now I like odd variants on old themes and Gambit IS that. It’s why I like him. That said he is not real change any more then having a third Robin hang out with Batman is. After he joined how many “mutant with a dark past loner” characters popped up in the X-books? I can’t even name them all.
See, the problem with both of these characters and what they caused is that together they made a great comic book in to a group of average comics. Jean returned and proved change was not real in the X-books. Gambit (and those like him) was then bought out and presented as change when he (and they) was not. I am not saying this destroyed the X-men. I am saying they represent where those comics went from being “cutting edge” to being just superhero stories no different from any other team book. None of this would bother me if fans of Marvel in general and the X-men in particular didn’t constantly talk about how “edgy” their books are. They are Ok team stories but out side of Grant Morison’s run nothing “new” has graced those pages since Jean’s return.
Well that’s my take any way
Peace, Love and Squids
Bradleyman
update
Update. No sign of further injuries. The Daily Press has told me they will print a retraction and have been very nice about it. I have a replacement car. This seems to be going as well as can be expected, maybe a little better which is an odd thing to say about a “I should be dead (and my lady too)” crash.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Smash
For those of you who do not know. I was hit and my car totaled on Monday night. I was struck by a Shrifts deputy. I will have details and stories about this next few blogs BUT right now I am still putting pieces back together. For those of you local enough to have seen the article about this in the Daily Press on Tuesday, My lights were on, the article is in error when it says otherwise. http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/apple_7601___article.html/valley_crash.html
For those who want to read the inaccurate article that also fails to mention my car was flipped rolled and totaled in such a way that makes Crystina and I lucky to be alive much less unhurt.
For those who want to read the inaccurate article that also fails to mention my car was flipped rolled and totaled in such a way that makes Crystina and I lucky to be alive much less unhurt.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The 12 Revealed
So when last my words graced here I took a short cut and made a quick list. The list was designed to get a reaction from readers…and it didn’t. I got two responses. The one from My space that pointed out (correctly) that I had written “Museum” instead of “Muslim”. I will tackle that at then end of this. The Second on LiveJornal was a smaller version what I am going to say now. (Kudos to Cheshirekitty) The statements on my list are all things I believe but are all improvable as written. Let us explore my list in grater detail.
1) “If you want to live in a Christian nation, you do not want to be an American citizen.”
This is my personal take on the Church and State Issue. As a Pagan and a student of the Constitution, I despise the people who try to take my country from me by claiming it is a Christian nation. Yes all of the founding fathers were raised Christian and many were in adulthood. However several (Ben Franklin for one) revealed in their writing that while they believed in a “higher power” they were unsure that Christianity (at least as it existed then) had it right. Those who were Christian weren’t all the same type of Christian either, so when given an opportunity to create a new nation they added a clause to allow all religions. Any attempt to force any religion (even the “right one”) on the U.S.A. is an assault on this freedom. There fore those who want to live in a nation with out this freedom, such as in a Christian nation (or Jewish, or Museum etc.), do not want to live in our nation with this freedom.
“But Bradleyman what makes your statement improvable then?” I am so very glad you asked. The main problem is the world “want”. “Want” presents us with a triple flaw. First, as humans we can want things that are mutually exclusive. You might want to be old for the wisdom but young for the energy. I might want to have the fame of stardom but also be able to go to the corner store and not be noticed. A third person might want a woman who was his love/sex slave, as well as a strong independent woman. Second, wants do not affect reality. My father used to say to me as a child “want in one hand spit in the other see which one fills up first” (once I hit 18 the word “spit” was replaced). Wants are only desires. They have no real value. They are illusions. Third, since wants are illogical illusions, you can not deduce them from a logical argument. With out that (or the ability to read minds) you can not assume any person’s want from any of their other wants.
2) “The Original Star Wars Trilogy is far better then the Lord of the Rings movies (the LoR Books being better then both)”
I love both trilogies. I grew up with Luke. I was in first grade when Star Wars (not yet referred to as a New Hope as it was the only one) came out. I wanted to be Luke when I grew up. So I like Star Wars better. However dose that make it a better movie? With out guide lines “better” is meaningless. We could argue over “better acting”, “better special effects”, “better drama” etc. that would give us some direction, but we would still need a pre argument agreement on what “better” meant in any of those. With out guidelines “better” is just what I (or whom ever) likes, and by that standard the final 3 episodes of “The Tomorrow People” could be considered good science fiction. Just for the record if you remove the childhood nostalgia I think they are about equal in terms of ways to waste my time enjoyably.
3) “Most people who say “get a life” don’t have one and are speaking to people who do.”
My original reason for including this in my “improvable but believed” list can be simply sated as “while the statement made might imply something about the speaker we can't infer anything about who it is being spoken too” (Thank you Cheshirekitty for saying it in about half as many words as I would have). It was in fact the reason I added the “and are speaking to people who do”. That said in trying to write this I came across a problem. I do not know what “get a life” means. If we are not dead we all have a life. Witch means that even those who say this have one; I hate it when I disprove my self but I just did. Well at least I can take this opportunity to point out that I am capable of changing my mind if there is a good enough argument. I think “get a life” just irritates me so much I want to say bad things about the people who use it. So the new statement is “people who say ‘get a life’ are being meaningless in way that irritates Bradleyman” (and even that statement could be changed if some one can tell what the phrase actually means).
4) In the comics, Batman could give Iron man the beating he deserves, armor or no armor.
I didn’t actually expect a whole lot of argument on this one. It can’t be proven because we can’t test it. They do not exist in this universe for us to test. Heck in the comics they don’t even exist in the same universe. Given what they have been shown to do well the Bat is the better fighter and has taken on armored foes. (And for those who read Civil War you know why Iron Man deserves to be beat). This is the sort of improvable debate that all comics fans LOVE to have but the saner ones fear to tread on. Yes it is fun to discuss “X” vs. “Y” and try to counter your opponent’s arguments. However that Sub-Set of Comics fandom that gets rabid will eventually show up and call you names for disagreeing with him (or rarely her). Worse yet they offer no argument to support their position that your are a "retarded dunder head” for disagreeing with them. I am embarrassed to share ANY of my hobbies with theses people.
5) If you are pro war you are anti-Christ.
This is a statement based on the title “prince on peace” and nothing else. I can think of MANY reasons why one would reluctantly decide there was a need for war, despite the peaceful teaching of their religion. This holds true for Christians. True Christ taught peace but when your family is threatened there may be reasons to fight back. “Bradleyman if you feel this way then why did you include the above” Because my dear reader I have been told “Christ supports us in this war”. I have read the Bible, I like the Bible, and it has great stories, regardless of how true you think they are. Jesus as he is presented to us in said book would not support ANY war. He would forgive you for your actions, especially if they were necessary, but he would not support war. I take this to the extreme in my bit of rhetoric here. I still basically believe it, but with exceptions. (Yes it is my opinion that the War in Iraq flies in the face of everything Christ taught, but I am not a Christian any more so it is not my place to correct them in their beliefs)
6) In the movies, Bruce could beat Tony but the suit could take the car.
The simple answer here is see #4. However it’s really based on the movie trailers I had just seen seconds before writing the above. The suits just look far more awesome then the current movies “bat tank”. So this actually goes back to 2. None the less I have already given it more words then it disserves as a subject.
7) Keeping Marijuana illegal supports gang activity.
I could go on at length about why Marijuana should be legal. There are many people out there who can do it better then I can. Google it. The fact that prohibition of a substance leads to a black market of said substance, and said black market will be run by organized crime is irrefutable. However to say that support of said prohibition equals support for said gang activity, is a serious error. Removing the revenue from gangs would be a good thing, but that doesn’t mean that if you think pot is bad you think the gang banger are good. This could be fixed had I said “Keeping Marijuana illegal helps fund gang activity, via the black market.
8) There are Museums who are loyal Americans.
Yes I meant “Muslims” not “Museums”. How ever the statement is equally false either way. The flaw: “loyal Americans”. I believe, that to be a loyal American you must question your government. I believe, that to be a loyal American, you must vote as often as you can and do so in an informed fashion. There are people who think the only “true” loyal Americans are the members of their political party (and I see this in third parties as well as the big two). We have NO solid definition of what it means to be a loyal American, so regardless of weather we are talking about a religion or a building with cool stuff in it the argument is not provable.
9) If marriage is a sacred institution then it is religious and must be separated from state sponsorship or tax breaks.
10) If marriage is a state institution then it is a legal agreement and ANY ONE should be able to do it, with any one (over the age of consent) they want.
First these are really two parts of one argument but 12 is my favorite number and I need to reach that goal. Second they belong to a much longer rant that I am still try to work the kinks out of. Also after trying in my own words to describe the problems with the statements I find that I am going to have to steal from Cheshirekitty’s comments once again:
“9-Separation of church and state does not mean exclusion of all things religious from government. The government has granted all religions a certain level of support including tax breaks, because our founding fathers believed that religion in whatever form was beneficial and necessary for a healthy nation.
10- when you say "should" you reduce the statement to personal opinion rather than logic; moreover, just being of the age of consent doesn't consider situations like mail order brides or marriages for the sake of citizenship. It's not enough to break down a law to allow what you support without consideration for the doors it opens to other things.”
She said it better then any of the 47 ways I tried to so I will use her quote and let it stand.
11) If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then in ANY WAY try to get around for ANY reason, then you have betrayed that oath.
To this the lovely Cheshirekitty replied “by this logic you stand against the Bill of Rights and consider those who instituted it to be traitors...” and she is WRONG. Ok. Only a little wrong, but my ego is still bruised over my lack of a better answer for 9 and 10 so allow me to briefly gloat. The only reason she is wrong, she used the Bill of Rights. No one swore anything about the Constitution until it was ratified, and that didn’t happen until after those 10 amendments were added. That said the flaw she pointed out does hold for any one who voted on any amendment after # 10. As I am a fan of many if not all amendments since then (big fan of 13, 19, 21 and hate 18) then I can not truly stand by the above statement. Now I could fix the above to read “If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then try to get around it, with out a valid and explainable reason then you have betrayed that oath and those you swore to.”, but that still leaves the “what does valid mean” argument, to keep it from being truly fixed.
12) Allen Scott IS the greatest Green Lantern of all time.
Yeah this is #4 again. However I am a huge GL fan (all of them even Guy Gardener) and Allen Scott is my favorite. I like magic over science as an explanation for ANY superpower as I expect a reasonable answer from science, and that takes time to explain, “poof magic” gets the story going faster.
13) Believing something doesn’t make it fact and arguing as if it does is will solve little.
Ok that wasn’t on the original list but it’s the point of why I did this. Yeah I added flaws to some of these to make a point, others were pure improvable opinion. As statements of belief I would stand by most of them, but I also accept that many are not provable. I am not saying they are wrong, I am saying I can’t prove them. I like most humans have beliefs that I can not prove. I will stand by those beliefs unless a reasonable argument against them can be proven. With out proof you do not expect me to change my beliefs; I won’t expect you to change yours.
A few notes before I go. Although not provable I stand by most of what I said until proven wrong. I can’t really stand by 3 or 7 as both “get a life” and “loyal American” lack a proper definition in my head right now. Witch I suppose shows I am open minded enough to let some things go. (Huxxah for me). Also in refuting my arguments Cheshirekitty said “For the record I am personally painfully in favor of gay marriage. I'm just addressing the construction of your arguments.” The first sentence it one I 100% agree with, the second was my point.
Peace, Love, and Goldfish
Bradleyman.
P.S. About the spelling. I have a learning disability called Dysgraphia. Dysgraphia is a learning disability resulting from the difficulty in expressing thoughts in writing and graphing. It generally refers to extremely poor handwriting and spelling. I have taken tests that show that despite my intelligence I spell AT the “national average”. Now I know my spelling is bad so that is a sad statement about our “national average”. I use a spell checker but words as other words may sometimes slip though. I apologize for this. That said if you don’t like what I said and use my spelling to say I am stupid, I will assume you were too stupid to form a real argument. Yes I am sensitive about this, I have had my spelling used against me like this before and the scars and bruising are far from healed.
1) “If you want to live in a Christian nation, you do not want to be an American citizen.”
This is my personal take on the Church and State Issue. As a Pagan and a student of the Constitution, I despise the people who try to take my country from me by claiming it is a Christian nation. Yes all of the founding fathers were raised Christian and many were in adulthood. However several (Ben Franklin for one) revealed in their writing that while they believed in a “higher power” they were unsure that Christianity (at least as it existed then) had it right. Those who were Christian weren’t all the same type of Christian either, so when given an opportunity to create a new nation they added a clause to allow all religions. Any attempt to force any religion (even the “right one”) on the U.S.A. is an assault on this freedom. There fore those who want to live in a nation with out this freedom, such as in a Christian nation (or Jewish, or Museum etc.), do not want to live in our nation with this freedom.
“But Bradleyman what makes your statement improvable then?” I am so very glad you asked. The main problem is the world “want”. “Want” presents us with a triple flaw. First, as humans we can want things that are mutually exclusive. You might want to be old for the wisdom but young for the energy. I might want to have the fame of stardom but also be able to go to the corner store and not be noticed. A third person might want a woman who was his love/sex slave, as well as a strong independent woman. Second, wants do not affect reality. My father used to say to me as a child “want in one hand spit in the other see which one fills up first” (once I hit 18 the word “spit” was replaced). Wants are only desires. They have no real value. They are illusions. Third, since wants are illogical illusions, you can not deduce them from a logical argument. With out that (or the ability to read minds) you can not assume any person’s want from any of their other wants.
2) “The Original Star Wars Trilogy is far better then the Lord of the Rings movies (the LoR Books being better then both)”
I love both trilogies. I grew up with Luke. I was in first grade when Star Wars (not yet referred to as a New Hope as it was the only one) came out. I wanted to be Luke when I grew up. So I like Star Wars better. However dose that make it a better movie? With out guide lines “better” is meaningless. We could argue over “better acting”, “better special effects”, “better drama” etc. that would give us some direction, but we would still need a pre argument agreement on what “better” meant in any of those. With out guidelines “better” is just what I (or whom ever) likes, and by that standard the final 3 episodes of “The Tomorrow People” could be considered good science fiction. Just for the record if you remove the childhood nostalgia I think they are about equal in terms of ways to waste my time enjoyably.
3) “Most people who say “get a life” don’t have one and are speaking to people who do.”
My original reason for including this in my “improvable but believed” list can be simply sated as “while the statement made might imply something about the speaker we can't infer anything about who it is being spoken too” (Thank you Cheshirekitty for saying it in about half as many words as I would have). It was in fact the reason I added the “and are speaking to people who do”. That said in trying to write this I came across a problem. I do not know what “get a life” means. If we are not dead we all have a life. Witch means that even those who say this have one; I hate it when I disprove my self but I just did. Well at least I can take this opportunity to point out that I am capable of changing my mind if there is a good enough argument. I think “get a life” just irritates me so much I want to say bad things about the people who use it. So the new statement is “people who say ‘get a life’ are being meaningless in way that irritates Bradleyman” (and even that statement could be changed if some one can tell what the phrase actually means).
4) In the comics, Batman could give Iron man the beating he deserves, armor or no armor.
I didn’t actually expect a whole lot of argument on this one. It can’t be proven because we can’t test it. They do not exist in this universe for us to test. Heck in the comics they don’t even exist in the same universe. Given what they have been shown to do well the Bat is the better fighter and has taken on armored foes. (And for those who read Civil War you know why Iron Man deserves to be beat). This is the sort of improvable debate that all comics fans LOVE to have but the saner ones fear to tread on. Yes it is fun to discuss “X” vs. “Y” and try to counter your opponent’s arguments. However that Sub-Set of Comics fandom that gets rabid will eventually show up and call you names for disagreeing with him (or rarely her). Worse yet they offer no argument to support their position that your are a "retarded dunder head” for disagreeing with them. I am embarrassed to share ANY of my hobbies with theses people.
5) If you are pro war you are anti-Christ.
This is a statement based on the title “prince on peace” and nothing else. I can think of MANY reasons why one would reluctantly decide there was a need for war, despite the peaceful teaching of their religion. This holds true for Christians. True Christ taught peace but when your family is threatened there may be reasons to fight back. “Bradleyman if you feel this way then why did you include the above” Because my dear reader I have been told “Christ supports us in this war”. I have read the Bible, I like the Bible, and it has great stories, regardless of how true you think they are. Jesus as he is presented to us in said book would not support ANY war. He would forgive you for your actions, especially if they were necessary, but he would not support war. I take this to the extreme in my bit of rhetoric here. I still basically believe it, but with exceptions. (Yes it is my opinion that the War in Iraq flies in the face of everything Christ taught, but I am not a Christian any more so it is not my place to correct them in their beliefs)
6) In the movies, Bruce could beat Tony but the suit could take the car.
The simple answer here is see #4. However it’s really based on the movie trailers I had just seen seconds before writing the above. The suits just look far more awesome then the current movies “bat tank”. So this actually goes back to 2. None the less I have already given it more words then it disserves as a subject.
7) Keeping Marijuana illegal supports gang activity.
I could go on at length about why Marijuana should be legal. There are many people out there who can do it better then I can. Google it. The fact that prohibition of a substance leads to a black market of said substance, and said black market will be run by organized crime is irrefutable. However to say that support of said prohibition equals support for said gang activity, is a serious error. Removing the revenue from gangs would be a good thing, but that doesn’t mean that if you think pot is bad you think the gang banger are good. This could be fixed had I said “Keeping Marijuana illegal helps fund gang activity, via the black market.
8) There are Museums who are loyal Americans.
Yes I meant “Muslims” not “Museums”. How ever the statement is equally false either way. The flaw: “loyal Americans”. I believe, that to be a loyal American you must question your government. I believe, that to be a loyal American, you must vote as often as you can and do so in an informed fashion. There are people who think the only “true” loyal Americans are the members of their political party (and I see this in third parties as well as the big two). We have NO solid definition of what it means to be a loyal American, so regardless of weather we are talking about a religion or a building with cool stuff in it the argument is not provable.
9) If marriage is a sacred institution then it is religious and must be separated from state sponsorship or tax breaks.
10) If marriage is a state institution then it is a legal agreement and ANY ONE should be able to do it, with any one (over the age of consent) they want.
First these are really two parts of one argument but 12 is my favorite number and I need to reach that goal. Second they belong to a much longer rant that I am still try to work the kinks out of. Also after trying in my own words to describe the problems with the statements I find that I am going to have to steal from Cheshirekitty’s comments once again:
“9-Separation of church and state does not mean exclusion of all things religious from government. The government has granted all religions a certain level of support including tax breaks, because our founding fathers believed that religion in whatever form was beneficial and necessary for a healthy nation.
10- when you say "should" you reduce the statement to personal opinion rather than logic; moreover, just being of the age of consent doesn't consider situations like mail order brides or marriages for the sake of citizenship. It's not enough to break down a law to allow what you support without consideration for the doors it opens to other things.”
She said it better then any of the 47 ways I tried to so I will use her quote and let it stand.
11) If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then in ANY WAY try to get around for ANY reason, then you have betrayed that oath.
To this the lovely Cheshirekitty replied “by this logic you stand against the Bill of Rights and consider those who instituted it to be traitors...” and she is WRONG. Ok. Only a little wrong, but my ego is still bruised over my lack of a better answer for 9 and 10 so allow me to briefly gloat. The only reason she is wrong, she used the Bill of Rights. No one swore anything about the Constitution until it was ratified, and that didn’t happen until after those 10 amendments were added. That said the flaw she pointed out does hold for any one who voted on any amendment after # 10. As I am a fan of many if not all amendments since then (big fan of 13, 19, 21 and hate 18) then I can not truly stand by the above statement. Now I could fix the above to read “If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then try to get around it, with out a valid and explainable reason then you have betrayed that oath and those you swore to.”, but that still leaves the “what does valid mean” argument, to keep it from being truly fixed.
12) Allen Scott IS the greatest Green Lantern of all time.
Yeah this is #4 again. However I am a huge GL fan (all of them even Guy Gardener) and Allen Scott is my favorite. I like magic over science as an explanation for ANY superpower as I expect a reasonable answer from science, and that takes time to explain, “poof magic” gets the story going faster.
13) Believing something doesn’t make it fact and arguing as if it does is will solve little.
Ok that wasn’t on the original list but it’s the point of why I did this. Yeah I added flaws to some of these to make a point, others were pure improvable opinion. As statements of belief I would stand by most of them, but I also accept that many are not provable. I am not saying they are wrong, I am saying I can’t prove them. I like most humans have beliefs that I can not prove. I will stand by those beliefs unless a reasonable argument against them can be proven. With out proof you do not expect me to change my beliefs; I won’t expect you to change yours.
A few notes before I go. Although not provable I stand by most of what I said until proven wrong. I can’t really stand by 3 or 7 as both “get a life” and “loyal American” lack a proper definition in my head right now. Witch I suppose shows I am open minded enough to let some things go. (Huxxah for me). Also in refuting my arguments Cheshirekitty said “For the record I am personally painfully in favor of gay marriage. I'm just addressing the construction of your arguments.” The first sentence it one I 100% agree with, the second was my point.
Peace, Love, and Goldfish
Bradleyman.
P.S. About the spelling. I have a learning disability called Dysgraphia. Dysgraphia is a learning disability resulting from the difficulty in expressing thoughts in writing and graphing. It generally refers to extremely poor handwriting and spelling. I have taken tests that show that despite my intelligence I spell AT the “national average”. Now I know my spelling is bad so that is a sad statement about our “national average”. I use a spell checker but words as other words may sometimes slip though. I apologize for this. That said if you don’t like what I said and use my spelling to say I am stupid, I will assume you were too stupid to form a real argument. Yes I am sensitive about this, I have had my spelling used against me like this before and the scars and bruising are far from healed.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
The 12
12 things I believe to be true:
1) If you want to live in a Christian nation, you do not want to be an American citizen.
2) The Original Star Wars Trilogy is far better then the Lord of the Rings movies (the LoR Books being better then both)
3) Most people who say “get a life” don’t have one and are speaking to people who do.
4) In the comics, Batman could give Iron man the beating he deserves, armor or no armor.
5) If you are pro war you are anti-Christ.
6) In the movies, Bruce could beat Tony but the suit could take the car.
7) Keeping Marijuana illegal supports gang activity.
8) There are Museums who are loyal Americans.
9) If marriage is a sacred institution then it is religious and must be separated from state sponsorship or tax breaks.
10) If marriage is a state institution then it is a legal agreement and ANY ONE should be able to do it, with any one (over the age of consent) they want.
11) If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then in ANY WAY try to get around for ANY reason, then you have betrayed that oath.
12) Allen Scott IS the greatest Green Lantern of all time.
If you think any of the above is wrong…Tell me why. Yeah I know I am asking for a bit of an argument, but my mind IS open and if I am inaccurate I need to correct my views.
1) If you want to live in a Christian nation, you do not want to be an American citizen.
2) The Original Star Wars Trilogy is far better then the Lord of the Rings movies (the LoR Books being better then both)
3) Most people who say “get a life” don’t have one and are speaking to people who do.
4) In the comics, Batman could give Iron man the beating he deserves, armor or no armor.
5) If you are pro war you are anti-Christ.
6) In the movies, Bruce could beat Tony but the suit could take the car.
7) Keeping Marijuana illegal supports gang activity.
8) There are Museums who are loyal Americans.
9) If marriage is a sacred institution then it is religious and must be separated from state sponsorship or tax breaks.
10) If marriage is a state institution then it is a legal agreement and ANY ONE should be able to do it, with any one (over the age of consent) they want.
11) If you swear before God and the people to “uphold the constitution”, then in ANY WAY try to get around for ANY reason, then you have betrayed that oath.
12) Allen Scott IS the greatest Green Lantern of all time.
If you think any of the above is wrong…Tell me why. Yeah I know I am asking for a bit of an argument, but my mind IS open and if I am inaccurate I need to correct my views.
So here we are.
It’s
Now to all of you who are now saying “Oh that alright then”. You are wrong. Its ok I was wrong when I thought it was a good enough reason to. I recently got a message from someone who had enjoyed reading my blogs; we shall call her Miss M. When She asked my why I gave her pretty much the reason above, and then I started thinking.
There are 2 problems with my reasoning:
First, I have had a fairly grand adventure so far this year. True stable employment has eluded me but I have had many interesting thing happen as I looked for it. I have also had short weird jobs that would have made great stories. Had I written of them while fresh they would have been far better then they will be now. Then there are the ideas you have while driving cross country, many of witch are now forgotten. Lost ideas that wouldn’t lie discarded along interstate 5 if I had preserved them.
Second, NO excuse is good enough. If I am going to call my self a writer (and I have been know to) I should be writing EVERY day and I haven’t been doing that. IF I had been writing every day then making my blog part of that would have been easy. I need to write more and bloging needs to be part of that.
So really I have no excuse. I have a reason, but in looking g at it it’s not a very good one. I have apologies that go out to all the people who liked reading my stuff and wanted more. I have apologies that go out to the dead ideas. Finally I have the intention of writing more, and Bloging is part of that.
So there it is, a blog to sort of cover why there haven’t been more blogs. There will be more, hopefully more interesting them this.Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)