Gee, imagine what would happen to the barbequed wing industry if people started eating healthier. Don't stop eating crappy foods people or the crappy food industries will fold up.
They say fear characterizes the human ego. We instinctively perceive threats from without. Marriage is like an amalgamation of two egos, which is probably why there is so much pain involved in the process. Once the amalgamation is complete, a collective ego appears which represents the couple. Now, the couple stands as a single individual protecting itself against the evils of the outer-world. But what exactly are those evils of the outer-world except other individual and collective egos?
Interestingly, the Holy Bible seems to reflect this, though it would have been hard to convince me of that before reading this little piece from 1 Corinthians 7:
"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
Imagine that, I thought Christianity viewed marriage as a divine union, sanctioned by God as one of the highest acts of love. But according to this passage it is actually a compromise with one's burning and uncontrollable passions. That has become more evident to me over the years since. Because love, as love, doesn't discriminate. Marriages happen as a result of intense discrimination and self-interest.
I put my cats on trial for being lazy and not contributing to the household, all-the-while eating up our resources, splaying fur all over the furniture, and whining and moaning for various things. Worst of all is that when I get stressed, the cats throw tantrums. Baby, the oldest cat will start wailing something fierce, and the younger one will start attacking the furniture. But every time I try to put them on trial they play dumb and make incomprehensible noises (typical of felines). I've no choice but to accept a plea of insanity. It cannot be proven that the suspect was/is aware of the offense commited.
Ever heard of Prader-Willi syndrome? I had an uncle that weighed in at 700 lbs. He sat in my aunt's car and destroyed the shocks and warped the bucket seat.
I don't know why he was so large, family says he just ate and ate and didn't do anything else. He'd sit in bed with two buckets of KFC chomping away. Though he lamented his weight and health and eventually died from weight-related complications, he just couldn't stop.
A year or so ago I came across this disorder abbreviated as PWS. I guess what happens is the Grehlin the stomach produces when it is hungry, and stops producing when it is full, doesn't switch over. The person always feels deathly hungry, as if they hadn't eaten in a long time and could eat a whole side of beef. The experiential impetus to eat causes people with PWS to eat and eat without stopping. Cupboards and fridges need to be locked-away from the PWS sufferer. Because almost despite all their judgements, they will react to the hunger and try to eat continuously.
CSI did an episode about a man with PWS, and there is also a documentary about it which is quite interesting.
I was a bit worried that the most important things we can find to do is read about shit. But now I see that it is being put to good use. I guess I'm allergic to a lot of perfumes because I choke and asphyxiate when I inhale them. But, interestingly, the smell of human shit doesn't cause any choking or asphyxiation. Maybe I'll order some and leave it in the lunch-room at work, and maybe the ladies will prefer it.
Yea, plastic was one of those revolutionary space-age inventions that changed how we live forever. I've begun reusing water bottles religiously, and have cloth bags for shopping. But I'm still going through lots of plastic in packaging. I saw an interesting documentary recently called "No-Impact Man" in which a couple tried to reduce their impact to zero.
It reminds me when I moved in my old apartment. Kids were screaming, people up stairs were stomping around, so I put on some music just loud enough to drown out the noise and someone called the cops on me. The cops told me they had personally kicked in my door several times and pointed to the damage on the door frame as evidence. They urged me to move out, stating, it wasn't only cops who kicked the door in. Thankfully, I lived there 4 years and never had anyone kick my door in.
Depends on the Zombies. If they are zombies like in Resident Evil or if they are zombies like Johnathan Coulton. I'm most familiar with the Philosopher's Zombie. The philosopher's zombie doesn't physically eat brains, the philosopher's zombie is basically an unconscious human who acts like a conscious human. I guess they might be said to "eat brains" figuratively if that unconsciousness was contagious. I believe it is, and I believe I am already inhabiting a zombie apocalypse. Everyone around me is an unconscious zombie human.
To battle such zombies one only need to obey the herd instincts, do not attempt to reason or observe keenly anything that goes on. Grab a bag of potato chips, slink down in your couch and watch SpikeTV. That will fool them, but if that doesn't work ordering any one of the many useless gadgets Neatorama has to offer will send a strong message that you are not a rational creature.
On that note. I would like to assert my irrationality by adorning myself in a "I'm not a schizophrenic..." shirt or by disarraying a 3D Brain Anatomy model.
I was thinking about getting a tattoo that lists all my obligations as a Canadian citizen. Like; "don't trash talk the Queen man!", "Work hard!", "Pay your taxes" and perhaps some motivational phrases like "Suck it up!", "Don't be a baby!" and "Are you a man or not?"
Hard work is an archaic American virtue. But not so for other nations. The immigrants I have known tend to begin a bit more "miserly". They will have 3 families living under a single roof, and all working at the same business.
Habituation. We habituate and slacken on our morals and habits when the environment is so.
Nice! Didn't know they came that far with c. elegans. They also control rats with electrodes implanted in the brain, but this non-invasive method is nice.
There is an archetypal male and female. Or rather, there are achetypal traits of the human mind. These traits are classically attributed to male and female. These can be certain types of love "motherly love" and "brotherly love", or they can be other traits. In general however, the masculine archetype is seen as methodical, rational, adverse, challenging, authoritive and active. The feminine archetype is seen as sporadic, irrational, accepting, submissive and passive. The attributes of each archetype are opposite of the other. People are often judged upon where they fall on these axes. Some men are referred to as effeminate, and some women as boyish.
However, the archetypal axes are not really male and female, however, men and women tend to align themselves as such in a given culture. And though the archetypes may not be explicitly expressed in a culture, they are generally implicitly expressed and maintained. Modern western cultures tend to up-hold these archetypes implicitly while renouncing them explicitly. So although few would venture to say that women are by-and-large submissive, or that men are by-and-large authoritive, in-fact exact balance is made explicit, you still won't find baby-changing tables in many male bathrooms, nor will you find many "Men and Children's" shelters.
What men and women both apparently suffer from is the implicit adherence in society to these archetypal (stereotypal) forms of masculine and feminine. The implicit is perhaps more difficult to address because explicitly it can be denied or justified with forked-tongues.
"There ought to be shelters, period. Without excluding anyone." "But statistically men are more often the perpetrators of domestic violence." "According to statistics gathered from 'Women and Children's Shelters' which are inherently biased." "But men are more capable of causing serious injury." "Women are quite capable of manipulating weaponry." "Yea, but men are just more aggressive, women are less likely to over-all." "It doesn't mean they don't, remember Lorena and John Bobbit?" "John was sexually abusing Lorena, he deserved it!" "Oh, so now there is justification for dismembering someone?"
Remember, radical feminists post-Bobbit argued that he had it coming and that it was completely justified. Arguing that she could have left him fell on deaf ears because they asserted he had psychological dominance over her. Notice this means women are inherently weaker, or at least passive and submissive. And men are inherently more capable, quite contrary to what feminism was suppose to be. It elevates men to a position of greater responsibility within the society. Which, has already been implicit in the past. Except women were always explicitly submissive, now the women are supposedly as active but occassionally absolve themselves of responsibility as if they weren't.
Gang psychologists assert that female behavior within gangs is different from males, and it differs in one area, they do not get involved in physical conflicts. However, they do get involved in verbal disputes, trash-talking and encouraging physical conflicts. Although, there are some exceptions when it comes to the girls who one might call boyish.
So my number 1 reason it is harder to be a dad is that men are implicitly pigeon-holed into this archetypal image of the masculine, generally to their own detriment while being pushed off the feminine by females who also want to be masculine. And that is why there are no change-tables in men's bathrooms or men and children's shelters, not because they wouldn't be useful.
Interestingly, the Holy Bible seems to reflect this, though it would have been hard to convince me of that before reading this little piece from 1 Corinthians 7:
"Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
Imagine that, I thought Christianity viewed marriage as a divine union, sanctioned by God as one of the highest acts of love. But according to this passage it is actually a compromise with one's burning and uncontrollable passions. That has become more evident to me over the years since. Because love, as love, doesn't discriminate. Marriages happen as a result of intense discrimination and self-interest.
I don't know why he was so large, family says he just ate and ate and didn't do anything else. He'd sit in bed with two buckets of KFC chomping away. Though he lamented his weight and health and eventually died from weight-related complications, he just couldn't stop.
A year or so ago I came across this disorder abbreviated as PWS. I guess what happens is the Grehlin the stomach produces when it is hungry, and stops producing when it is full, doesn't switch over. The person always feels deathly hungry, as if they hadn't eaten in a long time and could eat a whole side of beef. The experiential impetus to eat causes people with PWS to eat and eat without stopping. Cupboards and fridges need to be locked-away from the PWS sufferer. Because almost despite all their judgements, they will react to the hunger and try to eat continuously.
CSI did an episode about a man with PWS, and there is also a documentary about it which is quite interesting.
To battle such zombies one only need to obey the herd instincts, do not attempt to reason or observe keenly anything that goes on. Grab a bag of potato chips, slink down in your couch and watch SpikeTV. That will fool them, but if that doesn't work ordering any one of the many useless gadgets Neatorama has to offer will send a strong message that you are not a rational creature.
On that note. I would like to assert my irrationality by adorning myself in a "I'm not a schizophrenic..." shirt or by disarraying a 3D Brain Anatomy model.
Do you think I'll regret it?
Habituation. We habituate and slacken on our morals and habits when the environment is so.
However, the archetypal axes are not really male and female, however, men and women tend to align themselves as such in a given culture. And though the archetypes may not be explicitly expressed in a culture, they are generally implicitly expressed and maintained. Modern western cultures tend to up-hold these archetypes implicitly while renouncing them explicitly. So although few would venture to say that women are by-and-large submissive, or that men are by-and-large authoritive, in-fact exact balance is made explicit, you still won't find baby-changing tables in many male bathrooms, nor will you find many "Men and Children's" shelters.
What men and women both apparently suffer from is the implicit adherence in society to these archetypal (stereotypal) forms of masculine and feminine. The implicit is perhaps more difficult to address because explicitly it can be denied or justified with forked-tongues.
"There ought to be shelters, period. Without excluding anyone."
"But statistically men are more often the perpetrators of domestic violence."
"According to statistics gathered from 'Women and Children's Shelters' which are inherently biased."
"But men are more capable of causing serious injury."
"Women are quite capable of manipulating weaponry."
"Yea, but men are just more aggressive, women are less likely to over-all."
"It doesn't mean they don't, remember Lorena and John Bobbit?"
"John was sexually abusing Lorena, he deserved it!"
"Oh, so now there is justification for dismembering someone?"
Remember, radical feminists post-Bobbit argued that he had it coming and that it was completely justified. Arguing that she could have left him fell on deaf ears because they asserted he had psychological dominance over her. Notice this means women are inherently weaker, or at least passive and submissive. And men are inherently more capable, quite contrary to what feminism was suppose to be. It elevates men to a position of greater responsibility within the society. Which, has already been implicit in the past. Except women were always explicitly submissive, now the women are supposedly as active but occassionally absolve themselves of responsibility as if they weren't.
Gang psychologists assert that female behavior within gangs is different from males, and it differs in one area, they do not get involved in physical conflicts. However, they do get involved in verbal disputes, trash-talking and encouraging physical conflicts. Although, there are some exceptions when it comes to the girls who one might call boyish.
So my number 1 reason it is harder to be a dad is that men are implicitly pigeon-holed into this archetypal image of the masculine, generally to their own detriment while being pushed off the feminine by females who also want to be masculine. And that is why there are no change-tables in men's bathrooms or men and children's shelters, not because they wouldn't be useful.