2012 is obviously a hoax, but try this on for size…

A little forewarning: The thoughts below are kind of jumbled up so deal with it. I’ll fix it up later when I think about more and organize my thoughts better.

So I feel the need to address something because while my friend was over we managed to get on the topic of ancient civilizations. After a few minutes I started thinking about the Mayans and their ridiculous calendar that is set to end this year on December 21.
So. The Mayan civilization can be dated back to c. 2000 BC and lasted up until the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors in the early 16th century which is roughly about 3500 years. They devised a way to keep time with their calendars and the Maya calendar is based around key principles that were used in the region and can be dated back to 5th century BCE. So this means that the calendar everyone is freaking out about began around 500 BC and was used until they mysteriously disappeared in the 16th century and therefore it’s only 2000 years old.
So this calendar expires on the year 2012 AD, December 21st. However, it is to my understanding that BC and AD is something that was only developed after the birth and death of Christ.
How did the Mayans know to count down to 0 to when this person they would have no way of knowing about was born, then begin counting up again after his death from 0 to 1 to 2 and so forth?
Secondly, what about the 33 period of when he was actually alive?
Thirdly, say they didn’t know about Christ. They still wouldn’t have known that they would have to start counting up. So what’s that about?
If modern people interpreted the calendar and figured it’s end was marked on 2012, that still doesn’t make any sense. With the account of Jesus being 31 when he died and we’ll just say that the calendar didn’t include that, then we should have seen the end of the world 31 years ago, yes?

I think, if anything, this just proves the 2012 doomsday prophecy to be a hoax because there are just too many things in the way time was counted between then and now for it to work. I’m just really confused on this whole thing and how anyone could possibly think it’s a possibility.

Advertisements

LOLOMFG xD

Okay so as you all know by now, I’m what’s known as a troll. If you don’t know what trolling means, Google it. But today, I have something for you guys. It’s not that special, but after I did it I busted up laughing harder than I have in a while…
Another victim of meetme.com

Video Games and Violence?

So like I said, I’m doing a piece on my thoughts of violent video games and their impact on people in the real world. I won’t say much about this one I guess because my view is pretty straightforward.
I decided to do this one because I was going an assignment in class one day and stumbled across an article that said the man who shot up the Norwegian youth camp stated he had ‘used Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 as a way of training himself to shoot’. Click here for the link to the article.

Anyway. A man saying he used a video game to help him train to shoot?? Absurd. But guess what? It added more fuel to the fire of “video games make people violent in real life”. That argument is always going to get under my skin because: A) I’m a gamer myself. B) I’m a logical human being who knows that there’s no way in fuck a video game is going to go make someone commit a crime.
I mean really. There are SO MANY gamers in the world who play games that are way more violent. Do they commit crimes? No. Why? Because they’re not fucking idiots.

Look. If someone is going to commit a crime, they’re going to commit a crime. The urge to be a criminal is going to be there whether they knit blankets or they get in fights or whatever. My point is, it’s going to be there. Criminals do what they do for excitement or because they’re unstable or depraved of attention or whatever. Not because they killed a hooker for their money back in a game and that prompted them to go on a murderous rampage at the nearest supermarket.
There’s this thing called reality. There’s this other thing called virtual reality. 95% of people know how to tell the fucking difference. It may be okay in a video game to shoot someone in the knees, beat them in the face with a crowbar after they’re on their knees, shove the crowbar down their throat then rip it out, and finally chop their limbs off, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay to do it in reality. Why? Because it isn’t. And people know it isn’t. It’s the ones who are fucked in the head and can’t tell the difference between fake and real that are influenced by video games to do stupid shit. And what’s worse? It takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole bunch. People flip the fuck out when they see a few articles on people who committed a crime and it’s later revealed that the criminal is a video gamer. But they pay no mind to the ones who DON’T go crazy because of violent games.
Let’s do a quick fact check. According to this site 70% of the world’s population play video games. Taking into account that the current world population is 7,012,980,764 according to the site I just looked at, 4,909,086,535 people in the world play video games. So. Doing some simple math here, one guy commits mass murder and blames it on video games. That one guy accounts for .00000000203704% of the video gamer community. That’s so small a number that it doesn’t even matter. Now let’s say that there are 1,000 people just like him and we can just move everything closer to the decimal a few places: .000000203074% of the gaming community are crazy fucks who use video games as a crutch to commit crime. That’s still NOTHING. Let’s take United States’ population of 313,533,173 people then to see what we get. It comes to a whopping .064% of the gaming population is affected by video game violence and as a result they commit crime. Let’s just be nice and say that if there were 313,533,173 who commit crimes in real life because of video game violence, that would only account for .1% of the gaming community. Which means 99.9% of the gaming community DOESN’T commit crimes because of video game violence.
I’m sorry. Just because .1% of video gamers don’t know how to tell the fucking difference between reality and virtual reality doesn’t mean the rest of us need to suffer because video games are going to start being made less violent. Are you fucking kidding me?

Basically, it comes down to knowing the difference between right and wrong (something that should be taught by the parents, which can go back to the advertising post). If someone doesn’t know the difference, they’re likely unstable/twisted or their parents never fucking taught them. It’s up to the parents of today that let their children play these kinds of games to teach them that it’s not okay to just blast a hooker in the face because she didn’t get in your car. It’s up to the parents to teach morals to their children. And if they can’t handle that, there’s game ratings for a fucking reason. “M +17″ generally translates to this: Mature, ages 17 and up permitted to play.” Why? Because they’re mature enough to know the fucking difference between right and wrong, fiction and reality by then. If a 10 year old is playing Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty or whatever, they need to be guided and taught that it’s okay in the game, not in reality. But if someone is twisted in the head, it just gives them ideas and it can’t be helped. Institutionalize them.

Bottom line of this: If we say 313,533,173 (almost half a billion) people are affected by video game violence to the point they commit crimes or become violent in real life, that’s only one-tenth of a fucking percent of the ENTIRE gamer community.
And with that fact, all the “anti-violence in video games” people can gracefully press their lips upon my rump (and that of the other 99.9% of gamers) and kiss it fucking repeatedly, because video games don’t fucking make people violent. If people are criminals and they play video games that are violent, so fucking what. They’re fucked in the head. The game isn’t corrupting them.
So shove a dick in that shit-spewing mouth, sit the fuck down, do some research, and find something else to bitch about. Thanks.

Random topic: War/Peace

I went ahead and decided to not pick a topic off the list this time, because today I started thinking about this one. What got me started on it? I heard yet another person speak the naivety of “we can all get along and end the silly wars of today and of the future”. So, here are my thoughts on war/peace. No, I’m not trying to be pro-war and no, I’m not trying to be pro-peace. In this case I’d consider myself more of a Devil’s Advocate on the issue, supporting both while at the same time renouncing both.

To say “we can all get along” is like saying the human body can survive without blood coursing through its veins. It just isn’t possible, and nothing anyone says or does is ever going to change it.
Let me quickly give you one of the four definitions my dictionary gives me for “war” as this is the one that best suits where I’m going to be taking this right now. War is “a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups”. Since the turn of time and the beginning of life on this planet, there has always been war. While not always between humans, it has existed between living organisms for the eons that life has been present on earth. It’s a state of competition that enables the winner, and the strongest, to survive. It’s called survival of the fittest in this sense. Species pitting themselves against other species in order to dominate and come out on top as the victor, moving on through time in a short period of peace until faced again with war. This has been going on through every single species ever known to earth, whether animal or plant or microorganism. After every war follows a time of peace. Where species CAN get along for a short moment in time. Then once again, some conflict in ideals or intentions starts yet another war. This can’t be argued. We all know the story of survival of the fittest and how it works. Even since people have been around, there’s always been war amongst themselves or the environment and wildlife around them. Man against man, tribe against tribe, nation against nation. Man against animal, man against climate, man against environment as a whole. However, there is always a period of peace to proceed a war. Two tribes duke it out against each other until they are no longer capable to do so or there is a clear winner. After that, peace falls and man has a period of tranquil times with little conflict.

War, to me, is just another way of saying natural selection. Within each species, there is always a weak link or present threat, and that weak link or threat is eliminated through war. While, I will admit, wars of modern day are started over the silliest things sometimes (like oil for example), it is still a way of eliminating weak links or threatening entities in the human population. As cruel as that does sound, there is truth to it. Weak links and threatening entities are not beneficial to life or any of the factors of it. There is always something to threaten peace, and there is always something weak to create turmoil within the peace, and to rid those threats/weak links, war needs to be waged against them.

Most wars among man starts with conflicting ideals or some plot to have complete control of neighbors. For example, WWII started because Hitler wanted his way. He wanted to spread his ideal of Arianism to have one, pure race and to do so he had to conquer those around him. Wrong as it is, it was just an idea. However, where there’s just one idea, there’s always another idea to butt heads with it and so a war began. It’s just natural, and to say “we can all get along” is just silly. Silly mainly because people have the idea that peace can be achieved and sustained forever. It can’t. It won’t.
Peace and war are, in a sense, symbiotic. Not literally, no, but in a loose sense they exist thanks to one another. There can be no peace without war, and there can be no war without peace.
Peace is threatened or weakened all the time, and war is created to eliminate those threats and weakening forces to restore peace. Then peace is threatened again and another war comes about in order to destroy the threat.

Think of it this way. Take the human body or any other living organism as an example. For me, I’m using the human body. It has an immune system designed to keep the body working to the best that it can work and maintain its health. However, there are always germs in the body that are there to weaken it. The body is always keeping these germs at bay in an effort to continue the peace. Germs do, however, sometimes gain the upper hand to cause a disturbance in health, and peace is upset. To restore this peace (or health), the body goes at war against the infecting germs and it eventually wins, and the body is once again at peace until the next germ comes along. Health and the immune system is peace, and war is the immune system fighting off the germs that compromise health.
The world works the same way. Peace is becomes threatened or weakened, causing that peace to become compromised. To restore the peace, war breaks out. For example, in WWII the Axis powers were the germs that compromised the world’s health, and the Allies were the immune system to overpower the germ and return a period of peace to the world until the next war broke out.

Basically, war=peace.

Advertising’s Effect on Children

Well after the poll that I think 8 people voted on, this topic was the most favored. Now since the topic doesn’t really specify a negative or a positive effect, I choose to focus on the negative effect. So…here it goes.

Advertising has a rather negative effect on children in today’s age. Commercials, billboards, magazines, etc. all have some sort of effect on the person looking at it. In the modern age, advertising as a whole has become a lot racier than it used to be. They’ve become more capable of portraying things that are relatively hazardous to be something that’s good or needed or “cool”. The bad thing about all the new type of advertising is that it has become more accessible to children via the internet, television programs/commercials, and out in public through the use of magazines or billboards. Companies are beginning to take more liberties with how they advertise a product and, in most cases, it’s giving something negative a positive skin. The bottom line here that can’t be argued is advertising affects children in negative ways and I believe that it affects them in positive ways less and less.
Mainly, I think the advertisements today are slowly teaching children that there’s a certain “image” they need to follow or be a part of. Basically, “this is what you need to use, what you need to wear, what you need to look like, and what you need to act like in order to be part of the cool crowd”. So, more or less bandwagon techniques are being used more and more. The funny thing is that pretty much any advertisement for pretty much any product is doing the same exact thing. Yeah, it gets that company a sale, so who cares, right? Nike shoes, for example, always have some person doing all these athletic things like jumping really high in the air, or someone that’s running a marathon, or something of that sort and it always looks ‘really cool’. Basically, those are just the absolute bestĀ  shoes you can possibly have, and children see this and suddenly they feel like they need to have them to fit in. The same goes for any name-brand clothing item.
This technique holds true with every other item on the market right now. iPad, iPod Touch, Droids, Kinect, Wii, television sets, headphones, games, everything. It’s teaching children to think they need to have the best of everything there is on the market, which slowly causes them the be spoiled by their parents that buy them what they want. Then when the next advancement comes out, suddenly they need to have and what it replaced suddenly becomes a pile of dog shit. Advertising is causing kids to have no regard for the little, simple things of life and it makes them want to have the best of the best.
Girls are effected by advertising when it comes to the magazines that have all these models in them and advice columns for how to behave to make friends or other stupid shit like that. Makeup ads are teaching young girls that they just absolutely need to look great on the outside to get noticed, and now it’s becoming about how long your eyeliner stays. Young girls see these types of ads and strive to conform to them, which I think is causing somewhat of a lack of self-worth.
This type of advertising is everywhere, really. A majority of it is aimed at adults, but little children see it as well and watch as their parents fall into the same trap of buying this and that because the ads make it look like the best thing since sliced bread, so the children follow suit.

Now we all have to admit it here; we’re all guilty of wanting to haveĀ  something because an advertisement made it look like the best thing in the world. But as we grow older, we begin to develop a sense of what’s needed versus what’s wanted and if it can be afforded or not. Children, on the other hand have no knowledge on any of that, they just automatically think that they need whatever it is and have no worry about how obtainable it is. I think because there’s the lack of knowing what’s needed versus what’s actually wanted in children, they become more susceptible to growing that mentality of “this is the best thing out there right now and I obviously can’t live happily without it.”
To make the issue even worse, parents know the value of the dollar. When a child takes interest in the newest name-brand technology, for example, and they want their dad to buy it for them but the dad knows it’s too expensive and he settles for a generic brand that’s close to the same as the name-brand. So they give that generic to the child and bam, it’s the end of the world because it doesn’t say ‘iPhone’ or something like that. So not only are the advertisements teaching children that they need the best of the best, it’s also teaching them to settle for nothing less than the best of the best.
It’s just all negatively impacting the children I think and setting them up for a rude-awakening later in life when they can’t learn to differentiate between necessities and desires.

To make matters worse, the advertising just gets better and better at doing what it does, which causes the negative effect to become stronger and harder to avoid.
So how far is too far when it comes to advertising? All these companies are doing what they can to make things look needed and that there’s nothing better. Does parenting come into play?

Tell me what you think about it. This was somewhat difficult for me since I’m not as in tune with advertising as I used to be, but I’d like to hear what your views are. Is the effect of advertising good or bad on the children?

Right to Bear Arms

Okay, well I was going to do standardized testing…but I couldn’t think of anything really to argue at the moment so I’ll save that for another day. So how about we talk the second amendment today.

We all know it. The second amendment states that anyone has the right to bear arms, but let’s look deeper at it. As passed by Congress and as ratified by the states, the second amendment says that the nation, the states, and citizens have the right to “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
You know, I’m not really sure why this is a major issue. Let’s take a look at that last segment right there…”shall not be infringed.” Last I checked, infringe means to break the terms of a law. So why is this such an issue? We all need a “militia”, granted it isn’t called that anymore. We actually have the military, but that’s basically the same thing. It says that it’s necessary to the security of a free state, and that couldn’t be more true today with all the threats the nation has within its borders and abroad. And the right of the people to keep and bear arms makes sense as well. Personally, I think that’s the most important. Where the militia/military can’t help immediately, it should be up to the people to bear the arms they own in order to defend themselves.

But then again, maybe there’s the issue. There’s too many people that have their guns who go out and shoot people for the hell of it more often than the people who shoot someone out of feeling endangered. But does that mean we need to change the rules to the second amendment? I don’t think it does. I think, if anything, it should change the rules of who can get a gun. It’s sad that it’s going to have to come to that, but it’s clear there are too many people using guns for the wrong reasons, and they’re getting all the attention while those who use them for defense go unnoticed. You can have five reports of people using gun in order to end a conflict or dangerous situation, but it only takes one report of someone going out to the local grocery store and killing six people to overshadow those five reports.
I honestly think that gun rights need to be left alone all together. If people get killed for the wrong reasons, oh well. Yeah, it sucks and causes heartache and people start to panic about “how close that was to our house” or something. But what about the whole phrase that “everything happens for a reason”? I say let it be. Leave the second amendment the way it is.

I think this was a pretty shitty topic of debate, personally. It shouldn’t even be controversial. Also the fact that I feel like shit prevented me from putting too much thought into this.

So it’s your guys’ turn. What are your thoughts?
And please, don’t hesitate to go to the topic page to suggest topics you want to see talked about. :]