So it's time once again that Apple brings forth their "new" product, this one heralded as the iPhone 5; the biggest innovation since the iPhone 4S, which was the biggest innovation in phones since the iPhone 4, which was the biggest innovation in phones since the iPhone 3GS, and according to Apple, before the 3G, touchscreens and "smart" phones didn't exist.
The funniest thing about Apple is how devote their fans are. If you've seen the Samsung Galaxy SIII ad, it pretty much mocks not Apple, but the people who purchase their product. Why?
Because you're fucking retarded.
From what I've seen, the people who purchase Apple products (save the iPod products, which I am under the belief are actual quality products) have this strange, delirious idea that they actually matter in the eyes of Apple, or that they feel that they, by association of the product, are part of Apple as a company or market strategy, or that they matter in the slightest.
Here's a news flash: Apple doesn't care about you as anything more than an increment on their quarterly profits.
Now that I have that out of the way, I want to talk about the two dumbest things I've ever seen that either have sold well, or will sell very graciously upon its release:
The iPhone 5 and the iPad Mini.
The iPhone 5 is one of the most conservative phones I've ever seen, but that's not what really gets me. No, what really gets me isn't the fact that it has absolutely no reasonable improvement over the iPhone 4S, nor that it doesn't have any logical sort of size that a phone should have that doesn't make it look out of proportion, nor that it hasn't really done anything to make it any sort of innovation, one of the key principles Apple likes to claim it is good at.
No, the thing that pisses me off so much about the iPhone 5 is the fact that it claims to be innovative by pointing out three key, mundane things that no-one really gives a shit about.
Let's start by introducing the ads that the iPhone 5 has generated in Australia. The first I remember seeing was an ad about the size of the phone, and that "the ordinary human thumb stretches from x to y, and the iPhone 5 screen stretches from x to y as well, so is this coincidence, or genius design?"
This is ludicrous because I remember the same thing being said about the iPhone 4, and then about the iPhone 4S. In fact, I remember people at my old school (pre-graduation) talking about that, and how ingenious Apple were for making a phone that conformed to logical extremity dimensions.
Adding what, a quarter of an inch, or half an inch or something, to the top of it, whilst not widening the screen at all, only does a few things:
-Make it easier to snap, because now there's more weight on both sides of the phone's relative center.
-Set user-created apps out of proportion for this phone exclusively, because while the rest of the Apple market is using iOS5 or iOS6 with the standard iPhone, iPod or iPad display ratio, this phone has increased it.
The next was an ad about how super fucking cool the new panoramic picturing software is, to which I say, so what?
I have a two year old phone which can take brilliant panoramic pictures. Sure, it may only be a 5 megapixel camera, but it gets the job done. Apple, on the other hand, would like to take a moment to reflect on their great fucking innovation to the phone market by pointing out just how unique panoramic imaging is, and how no other phone on the market can do it.
Oh, except pretty much every Android phone with Android 2.3.
Moving on, the final, and I mean absolute final thing that Apple has pointed out about their fucking amazing and highly innovative item, is the new earphones that come with it.
That's right, instead of bragging about the new iOS6 and how it's basically iOS5 but corrects the battery life so you don't get 30 minutes from your phone; instead of talking about the A6 chip and how it gives you 3% extra power compared to the A5 chip; instead of talking about how Siri is the exact same useless piece of shit as it always was; they decide that the third biggest selling point of the iPhone 5, apart from the brand name of Apple, of course, is that its headphones aren't fucking round anymore.
How amazing, Apple! A third of your sales pitch of the iPhone isn't even about the iPhone, it's about a shitty pair of headphones that are essentially outdated for those who use the ear plug style earphones or those who use actual headphones, you know, the ones that wrap above your head?
The next turd is the iPad Mini; something so ludicrous, they actually had to wait for Steve Jobs', as stupid as he was from all the weed he smoked every day, to die.
Do you know why? Because the idea is fucking stupid to begin with. I assumed something like this would happen, except I thought that they'd just re-market the iPhone 3GS as an iPad mini, and then say that you can also make phone calls with it, and then they'd be able to charge you the stupid $1,000 or whatever people are willing to throw away for the "next big thing."
The iPad Mini is stupid because it achieves absolutely fucking nothing; it's STILL too big to comfortably fit in a pocket (something that, up until the iPhone 5, their phones and iPod products COULD do), but now it's too small to compete with the tablets on the market. And as much as I hate it, it's going to sell because Apple says it will. Everything Apple makes turns to gold because of their consumer fanbase, and I say fanbase and not userbase, because most other technologies have users; you're not an Android fan, you just use Android. Similarly, you're not a Windows fan, you just use (and probably prefer) Windows. But for some reason, people who buy Apple products are fans, not users, and to tell you the truth I believe them. If I spent $1,000 on a phone that is basically a battery upgrade to a phone released two years ago, I'd have to sell the idea to myself, and then get defensive on the topic if anyone so much as hints that they think I made a silly investment decision.
Apple is the pinnacle of ludicrous and I hate them. While I'm sure I can say a whole lot more, I think at the end of the day that's that, and my opinion is only as good as those who agree with my opinion.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
I hate Foxtel; Hollywood; the movie industry.
A few weeks ago I saw an advertisement pertaining to the Movie Networks channel on Foxtel. In this ad, and the thing that annoyed me most of it, was the incoherent gender roles it placed within the ad. What I really hated was, and I will paraphrase through lack of a full quote:
Now the thing which is actually balls is that they're fucking right; it's hard to look at any headlining film and think "wow, this looks witty." Nope. It's almost invariably going to be a film where better than 50% of the budget went towards the special effects.
I don't give a shit about special effects.
The difference between movies of the 1960's and the 2000's was that the 1960's had film and literature innovation because of a lack of visual stimulus and technology. Some of the most intelligent, thought provoking, witty, and sometimes even funny films came out between 1950 and 1980, and it wasn't really until Star Wars (I suppose) came out that the movie industry started really exploring special effects.
The end product is what we have today: abominations such as The Marine (or any WWE supported film, for that matter), Transformers, Star Wars episodes 1, 2 and 3 (the original trilogy I consider more to be an epic but with generic story telling than a special-effect-athon), and brain-dead films which deserve half as much intellectual credit as they actually receive, such as the Iron Man series (or anything comic-book related to be honest), The Fast and the Furious, Avatar, Prometheus, and all those other spectacles of modern visual improvements. But they're nothing more than shallow mediums for a visual spectacle. They are, in essence, like watching a building collapse, in the most physical, literal sense.
I'm not going to go as far as to say special effects have destroyed the movie industry. In a lot of ways special effects have been able to fully develop specific ideas within films that through standard photography wouldn't have been able to capture, and have aided in the advancement of very specific genres, most notably science fiction and fantasy genres, which before the widespead introduction of special effects were a very taboo genre because of their generic and wooden (or plastic) look. Examples of these are Star Trek, the original series, Dr. Who, and Lost in Space.
In relation to my original intent, it actually irks me that such a large demographic of males only watch movies for the action, without ever giving a thought to the intelligence, wit, or brain behind the script and the plot. I don't give a shit about romantic comedies either; they're hardly humorous, and they are generic and conservative to the point of aggravation. But as it stands, I don't see how so many people watch movies exclusively for the over-the-top action and boring special effects which account for up to and over 50% of the movie's budget. What wrinkles my brain even more is the fact that it has, in many ways, become a stereotype of men, and that women are the only gender that can truly appreciate "smart" or "witty" films. And that romantic comedies are smart and witty.
Fuck.
"Smart, witty(?) rom-coms for the girls... [and] action packed block buster films for the boys."It actually boggled my brain to try and accept that this company has found a demographic which fits into this, enough to actually make it into a stereotype. It is essentially classifying every male as an illiterate person who doesn't care for story telling or intriguing plots in exchange for a lot of violence and explosions.
Now the thing which is actually balls is that they're fucking right; it's hard to look at any headlining film and think "wow, this looks witty." Nope. It's almost invariably going to be a film where better than 50% of the budget went towards the special effects.
I don't give a shit about special effects.
The difference between movies of the 1960's and the 2000's was that the 1960's had film and literature innovation because of a lack of visual stimulus and technology. Some of the most intelligent, thought provoking, witty, and sometimes even funny films came out between 1950 and 1980, and it wasn't really until Star Wars (I suppose) came out that the movie industry started really exploring special effects.
The end product is what we have today: abominations such as The Marine (or any WWE supported film, for that matter), Transformers, Star Wars episodes 1, 2 and 3 (the original trilogy I consider more to be an epic but with generic story telling than a special-effect-athon), and brain-dead films which deserve half as much intellectual credit as they actually receive, such as the Iron Man series (or anything comic-book related to be honest), The Fast and the Furious, Avatar, Prometheus, and all those other spectacles of modern visual improvements. But they're nothing more than shallow mediums for a visual spectacle. They are, in essence, like watching a building collapse, in the most physical, literal sense.
I'm not going to go as far as to say special effects have destroyed the movie industry. In a lot of ways special effects have been able to fully develop specific ideas within films that through standard photography wouldn't have been able to capture, and have aided in the advancement of very specific genres, most notably science fiction and fantasy genres, which before the widespead introduction of special effects were a very taboo genre because of their generic and wooden (or plastic) look. Examples of these are Star Trek, the original series, Dr. Who, and Lost in Space.
In relation to my original intent, it actually irks me that such a large demographic of males only watch movies for the action, without ever giving a thought to the intelligence, wit, or brain behind the script and the plot. I don't give a shit about romantic comedies either; they're hardly humorous, and they are generic and conservative to the point of aggravation. But as it stands, I don't see how so many people watch movies exclusively for the over-the-top action and boring special effects which account for up to and over 50% of the movie's budget. What wrinkles my brain even more is the fact that it has, in many ways, become a stereotype of men, and that women are the only gender that can truly appreciate "smart" or "witty" films. And that romantic comedies are smart and witty.
Fuck.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Android Party Shuffle!
It's been more than a year since I posted this article and every day I go over it, thinking how appallingly amateur it is, and I promise that I'll fix it up to make it look almost legible.
I'll start by explaining what the Android Party Shuffle is and isn't. The party shuffle makes a randomly populated playlist with a maximum 16 songs. From this you have all the options you would with a normal playlist, such as adding and removing songs, changing the queue order, and skipping songs. It differs from a regular playlist, however, because it updates its song list when there are less than 6 unplayed songs in the playlist. This means that basically, the only real rule that the party shuffle follows is that there must be at least 6 songs following the song currently playing in the playlist at all times.
The thing to remember under the song list of 16 is that it is split up into three (uneven sections): already played (10 songs); currently playing (1 song); and to play next (5). The 'currently playing' section is the only constant, as the 'already played' and 'to play next' sections will equal each other out as opposites; For example, if you have two songs in the 'already played' section, then you will, naturally, have 13 songs in the 'to play next' section. If you a song, the skipped song isn't forgotten forever (as would happen with regular shuffle), but put into the 'already played' section (which is, well, uh, yeah...).
For example, if you have 5 songs in the 'to play next' section, and you skip ahead two songs, then the last two songs in the 'already played' section will be removed from the playlist and two new songs will be randomly selected and placed at the end of he 'to play next' section, so that the 'already played' section will still have 10 songs, and the 'to play next' section will still have 5 songs.
This changes a bit, because if you are skipping at the list to the playlist, then the 'to play next' section will always have at least six songs and the 'already played' section will have at most 9 songs, whereas if you are at the song/album art screen, then skipping songs will mean that the 'to play next' section will always have a minimum of 5 and the 'already played' will have at most 10.
Thankfully, I managed to delete the old text that was here. Good day.
I'll start by explaining what the Android Party Shuffle is and isn't. The party shuffle makes a randomly populated playlist with a maximum 16 songs. From this you have all the options you would with a normal playlist, such as adding and removing songs, changing the queue order, and skipping songs. It differs from a regular playlist, however, because it updates its song list when there are less than 6 unplayed songs in the playlist. This means that basically, the only real rule that the party shuffle follows is that there must be at least 6 songs following the song currently playing in the playlist at all times.
The thing to remember under the song list of 16 is that it is split up into three (uneven sections): already played (10 songs); currently playing (1 song); and to play next (5). The 'currently playing' section is the only constant, as the 'already played' and 'to play next' sections will equal each other out as opposites; For example, if you have two songs in the 'already played' section, then you will, naturally, have 13 songs in the 'to play next' section. If you a song, the skipped song isn't forgotten forever (as would happen with regular shuffle), but put into the 'already played' section (which is, well, uh, yeah...).
For example, if you have 5 songs in the 'to play next' section, and you skip ahead two songs, then the last two songs in the 'already played' section will be removed from the playlist and two new songs will be randomly selected and placed at the end of he 'to play next' section, so that the 'already played' section will still have 10 songs, and the 'to play next' section will still have 5 songs.
This changes a bit, because if you are skipping at the list to the playlist, then the 'to play next' section will always have at least six songs and the 'already played' section will have at most 9 songs, whereas if you are at the song/album art screen, then skipping songs will mean that the 'to play next' section will always have a minimum of 5 and the 'already played' will have at most 10.
Thankfully, I managed to delete the old text that was here. Good day.
Friday, June 15, 2012
Vasectomies, a critical analysis from an immature argument
<Me> says (7:29 PM)
I'm considering
getting a vasectomy
<Jeffrey>
says (7:29 PM)
why?
<Me> says
(7:30 PM)
idk
<Jeffrey>
says (7:33 PM)
it's actually
stupid to get vasectomy now
like really
Not only are you
too young, your opinion will change later in life.
and you're closing
off options
<Me> says
(7:34 PM)
I'm talking about
after my 18th
lol
<Jeffrey>
says (7:34 PM)
still too young
<Me> says
(7:34 PM)
I disagree;
<Jeffrey>
says (7:34 PM)
under 30-40 is
basically too young.
<Me> says
(7:34 PM)
you can argue that
my opinion might change.
But the fact of
the matter is there are so many more benefits than consequences
<Jeffrey>
says (7:34 PM)
such as
<Me> says
(7:35 PM)
Typically, the
only consequences of a vasectomy are
Lowered sex drive (studies have shown around a 6% sex drive reduction
post-vasectomy)
Inability to have children
<Jeffrey>
says (7:35 PM)
Inability to have
children is a big one..
<Me> says
(7:36 PM)
The first comment
is questionable and is solely dependant on the variables used, such as the
target demographic, the range of the sample, and the sample itself
The second one is
redundant because there are several ways to have children post-vasectomy
Remember that a
vasectomy is reversable
<Jeffrey>
says (7:36 PM)
really?
I never knew
that...
<Me> says
(7:36 PM)
yes.
it's very
expensive
<Me> says
(7:37 PM)
but it is
reversable
You might be
thinking of castration, the physical removal of the testes
<Jeffrey>
says (7:37 PM)
No
I know what it is
<Jeffrey>
says (7:38 PM)
always thought it
was permanent
<Me> says
(7:38 PM)
A vasectomy is
simply the tieing of the vas deferens, cutting off the supply of semen to an
ejaculation
<Me> says
(7:39 PM)
It is considered
"permanent" contraceptive only because of its difficulty to reverse,
as opposed to more conventional methods such as the pill and barrier
contraceptives
<Jeffrey>
says (7:40 PM)
why do you even
want to have a vasectomy anyway
<Me> says
(7:40 PM)
<Jeffrey>
says (7:29 PM)
why?
<Me> says
(7:30 PM)
idk
<Me> says
(7:41 PM)
Anyway,
<Me> says
(7:42 PM)
the pros of
vasectomies are
-relatively
non-intrusive and very little pain
-less than 0.1%
failure rate in first year, and after sperm count has dropped to zero has
perfect failure rate (0.0% failure rate)
-Sex without
condoms
-you can't get
framed for being a daddy later in life from a drunk one night stand with a
stupid whore who got pregnant from someone else
<Jeffrey>
says (7:43 PM)
lol, I guess
<Me> says
(7:45 PM)
point in case: I
personally can never see myself being a father. I believe that through my own
intelligence and knowledge, if I ever were to become a father, I would be
negligent and, by societical judgement, a "bad" parent. I'm very
impatient and cannot stand having to explain things to people, let alone having
to teach a kid a language from nothing.
I think that the
benefits, under these circumstances, outweigh the "negative" of not
being able to have kids (which technically is a positive at this point in time
anyway)
<Jeffrey>
says (7:47 PM)
your mindset would
most likley change when you actually get a kid
<Me> says
(7:53 PM)
unfortunately
that's not solid proof to your claims.
You might be
right,
but this is about
providing a supporting case as to why it's legitimate based on absolute ideas.
It's no secret
that I hate kids, that I don't believe in love, and that I never want to be a
father or get married or even be in a seriously long term relationship.
<Me> says
(7:54 PM)
brb
<Jeffrey>
says (7:54 PM)
k
<Me> says
(8:13 PM)
k
your reply?
<Me> says
(8:14 PM)
Leks
Dysleksic
<Jeffrey>
says (8:15 PM)
i DON'T THINK i
CAN REPLY TO THAT
invert the caps
<Me> says
(8:15 PM)
fair enough
So I win?
<Jeffrey>
says (8:16 PM)
It's not something
you can win or lose...
<Me> says
(8:16 PM)
I treat it as such
<Jeffrey>
says (8:16 PM)
since it's not an
argument of right and wrong
<Me> says
(8:16 PM)
Jeffrey,
the interesting
court cases are never an argument of right and wrong
it's an argument
if "who is less wrong"
<Jeffrey>
says (8:16 PM)
But it's not
mutual agreement either.
<Me> says
(8:16 PM)
wat.
oh
yeah, so?
<Me> says
(8:17 PM)
mutual agreement
is boring
<Jeffrey>
says (8:17 PM)
Well, for one
you're being neutral.
I might be right
<Me> says
(8:17 PM)
either you just
accept that my point of view is better than you,
yours*
or that I won
or present your
rebuttal to my claim
<Jeffrey>
says (8:17 PM)
How can I make a
rebuttal to a neutral statement..
<Me> says
(8:18 PM)
<Me> says
(7:53 PM)
unfortunately
that's not solid proof to your claims.
You might be
right,
but this is about
providing a supporting case as to why it's legitimate based on absolute ideas.
It's no secret
that I hate kids, that I don't believe in love, and that I never want to be a
father or get married or even be in a seriously long term relationship.
I replied to your
claim of being "your viewpoint might change"
<Jeffrey>
says (8:18 PM)
yes
<Me> says
(8:18 PM)
which means that
either my view is now all-encompasing and you can't argue against it (solid
evidence, i.e. I won)
<Jeffrey>
says (8:18 PM)
lolno
<Me> says
(8:18 PM)
or you can
argue against it, and I do employ you to do so
<Jeffrey>
says (8:19 PM)
if you think you
won, you're retarded. I can't argue against an opinion
because no matter
what
you can't change
your opinion based on that
<Me> says
(8:19 PM)
well the thing is
that it's not about changing your opinion, it's about accepting the evidence.
I managed to
argue, effectively, against your opinion
<Me> says
(8:20 PM)
and my opinion
was, although neutral in a sense that it revolved around pros AND cons,
still was an
opinion and was never swayed towards the "I don' really know if it's
better or worse" that is true neutrality
I still have an
opinion, and that is that despite the negative connotations you believe
surround a vasectomy, I still strongly believe it to be a sound idea and
reasonable decision to make when I turn 18
<Jeffrey>
says (8:22 PM)
The economic costs
are not worth it as opposed to cheaper alternatives.
The fact you may
change your mind should signal that you may want to have children later in life
thus shouldn't get it. What if something happens and it turns out it's
irreversible.
You cannot acquire
your spawn.
<Me> says
(8:25 PM)
success rate of
condoms: 95% (with around 97 to 98% if used perfectly)
success rate of
the contraceptive pill: around 97 to 98% if taken perfectly
success rate of
vasectomy: >99.9% in first year, 100% after approximately 16 ejaculations
<Me> says
(8:26 PM)
There are sperm
banks and methods of sperm preservation to make sure if you change your mind,
there's no backing down.
there are also surrogate
programs and artificial insemination methods thanks to advances in modern
science so even if you don't have your own sperm and not enough money for the
reversal, you can still have a child
<Me> says
(8:27 PM)
99% of raising a
child is watching them grow, and they are even considered by parents to be
"pets that eventually learn to talk"
<Me> says
(8:28 PM)
If both parents
are fully accepting of the child, regardless of the biology of it, they will
embrace it totally as their own.
<Jeffrey>
says (8:28 PM)
true, but it won't
be your genetics
<Me> says
(8:28 PM)
what I just said
bypass the "genetics" argument
<Jeffrey>
says (8:29 PM)
you'd always have
the thought that it's not your genetics, even if you do love the child.
<Me> says
(8:29 PM)
but the idea
behind the genetics isn't even a negative thing,
after only a few
years of raising the child, it is as close to yours as it could possibly be,
anyway
<Me> says
(8:30 PM)
Very few parents
actually reflect on their children as an extension of themselves,
and think,
"wow, there's
a part of me in him/her"
As I explained,
the majority of parenthood is watching the child grow
and the enjoyment
from things like its first step, its first word, going to school, and even
watching it grow up,
is purely from an
emotional, not biological or genetic, standpoint
<Me> says
(8:31 PM)
As long as you
want the child, there will be no worry about it not being your own,
legitimately.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
YouTube ads, by request
This will probably be a short one because I really don't understand why faggots still complain about ads.
If ads on YouTube keep YouTube free, then so be it. YouTube is a company, just like almost every other website. It's ethical to make sure that the people who use the website are the ones contributing to the upkeep of it; and Hell, the ads could be a LOT worse than they are.
The way I see it, a 15 second ad is better than a 30 second ad you can't skip. And I'm talking about websites like NHL and NineMSN which, every time you watch a video, will bombard you with a 30 second ad.
Non-intrusive is a big part of the site. Yeah, it's there and very noticeable, and yeah, sometimes it IS intrusive. But fuck people, you've got two options. Either you fix it. And I mean stop using it; boycotting, getting public awareness on it. Hell, even paying for the costs of upkeeping the website and its millions of gigabytes of user-submitted content.
Or you just nut up and deal with it. It's as simple as that.
Edit:
About two years ago, when intrusive ads first started appearing on YouTube, I was violently in opposition of them. Why? Because I figured, I was paying money for broadband to do things I wanted to do online, not to watch ads.
Now while my old argument is slightly valid, it is only because at the time of writing I was heavily capped in my internet allowance per month.
If ads on YouTube keep YouTube free, then so be it. YouTube is a company, just like almost every other website. It's ethical to make sure that the people who use the website are the ones contributing to the upkeep of it; and Hell, the ads could be a LOT worse than they are.
The way I see it, a 15 second ad is better than a 30 second ad you can't skip. And I'm talking about websites like NHL and NineMSN which, every time you watch a video, will bombard you with a 30 second ad.
Non-intrusive is a big part of the site. Yeah, it's there and very noticeable, and yeah, sometimes it IS intrusive. But fuck people, you've got two options. Either you fix it. And I mean stop using it; boycotting, getting public awareness on it. Hell, even paying for the costs of upkeeping the website and its millions of gigabytes of user-submitted content.
Or you just nut up and deal with it. It's as simple as that.
Edit:
About two years ago, when intrusive ads first started appearing on YouTube, I was violently in opposition of them. Why? Because I figured, I was paying money for broadband to do things I wanted to do online, not to watch ads.
Now while my old argument is slightly valid, it is only because at the time of writing I was heavily capped in my internet allowance per month.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Commenting on a YouTube video is like sniffing a fart!
Recently I viewed a video on YouTube in which I commented negatively on it, saying that "I clicked [the link] to the video, just so that I could thumbs it down.
Naturally, I got something like 39 likes on it (because I care so much and social media is just a popularity contest), so that means it's open season for some people to make their rebuttals.
I wouldn't say rebuttals so much as slander.
For example:
So I replied as so:
So now, his entire insult is as follows.
My reply questioned his insult; I mean it's already been established that he's an idiot by resorting to insulting rather than constructively arguing, so I felt it was the same to reply sarcastically instead of trying to play his game.
His "thank you" was in reply to my compliment, stating that his last statement (as noted above) was very intelligent, and that he is the pinnacle of the modern human.
I really do feel that he stopped trying to argue after my original breakdown of his points; after all, he can then claim that he was trolling if he gets his ass handed too badly to him. The problem that I have with these people is that they try to make themselves out to be on some sort of Holy Crusade against people with different opinions to them. What they don't understand is that to be able to start an argument you really should develop a thesis which you want to argue, and then make sure you actually HAVE arguments to support your claims.
Not only did this person not have a thesis (and hence, any argument in support), but he didn't have any common sense.
He told me to study, but he forgot to mention that out of him taking the time to reply to my comments (the average 2 line comment took around 8 minutes for him to think up; probably because of his incessant need for a thesaurus), he hasn't been studying at all himself.
So after "studying" I found these comments this person has also made on YouTube, either to another user, or towards the video or content of the video:
Way to go dipshit! By encouraging me to study, you have, yourself, lost out on precious study time while you had to read, interpret, translate, and then reply to my comments.
And from the comments I made, and the comments he made, I think he's the one that needed the study the most.
Naturally, I got something like 39 likes on it (because I care so much and social media is just a popularity contest), so that means it's open season for some people to make their rebuttals.
I wouldn't say rebuttals so much as slander.
For example:
Get a fucking job bro...A reply, made 3 days ago, to my comment made at least 2 weeks ago.
So I replied as so:
Still a student. But good advice, next time I'll think before writing a seemingly unimportant comment on a pseudo-anonymous social network/sharing site. Thanks!I waited a few days before he replied as so. And I am not paraphrasing, this is exactly what he wrote.
No worries, fag fart smell.He then went ahead and corrected his message, and wrote:
Fag* fart smeller...
So now, his entire insult is as follows.
No worries, Fag fart smell fart smeller. ...Good work on the English language department there, and also a very good method of having to correct your own message just to make sure I can understand it.
My reply questioned his insult; I mean it's already been established that he's an idiot by resorting to insulting rather than constructively arguing, so I felt it was the same to reply sarcastically instead of trying to play his game.
Don't you think that one of those insults is a bit redundant? I mean, the insult "fag" is fair enough, but to add another noun/verb title to the already devastating insult is a bit silly. For reference, are you calling me someone who sniffs farts made exclusively by homosexuals? Or are you calling me a fag, and then daringly continuing to say that I also sniff farts?So there you go: because I had the audacity to comment negatively on a video saying "I was literally bored enough to thumb down the video I hated", means that I sniff farts excreted by gay people.
Edit:
I received a message just recently (within the last 5 minutes)
from my friend.
So I nitpicked with his comment. So what?
His reply was:
Get a life bro...study for your exams like I am...Wtat are you doing anyway? ''Introduction to Retardedness" or some shit you felching gay fuck stain! I'm a student as well, yet I work... God I love keyboard warriors who like their own comments...!
As I pointed out to this person, there are many things wrong with
his comment.
First off. And this is really petty of me, but how can he tell me
to get a life when he's doing the same thing as me? Is that hypocrisy at its
finest, or is he God's gift to multitasking? If you ever tell me to get a life;
I instantly assume you're getting blown by a really hot upper class female
while sitting in a club in Downtown Manhattan. And if you aren't, then I assume
you're a retard and that you don't deserve to breed.
The next thing I noticed was his rhetorical question. It was as if
to imply intimacy, just to deny me the pleasure of replying by answering his
question. "Introduction to Retardedness".
A cunning strategy for such an all-knowing master of language.
So I Google searched a definition of "Retardedness", and
would you look at that, I couldn't find one! Is this man so intelligent that he
invented a new word to express things he couldn't find in any other word, or is
he just an idiot?
Next I noticed his insult. Again. "Felching gay fuck
stain!" Is the exact quote. And I could tell he was being serious because
it was a comment notable enough for an exclamation mark.
I did a definition search of "felching" and found this:
Felching is a sexual practice involving the act of sucking semen out of the vagina or anus of one's partner after sex.
Felching is a sexual practice involving the act of sucking semen out of the vagina or anus of one's partner after sex.
So he essentially just called me a "sexual practice involving
sucking semen out of an anus or vagina gay fuck stain!"
That's a great way to use a verb as a noun. Shit, this guy REALLY
knows how to put it to people.
Then he goes on to explain that he's not only a student as well; but
that he works too!
No way. I would never have known; or cared.
The statement implies that he's better than me because he has a
job. Therefore he probably earns more money than me, right?
Doesn't matter, because what he earns is directly contrasted with
his intelligence.
Then
he went to tell me that I'm a keyboard warrior. Funny thing is I didn’t
see an entire unwarranted insult on my behalf, in the entire “argument”. So I really
don’t know how he came to that assumption, considering I was only defending my
own point of view (or more so myself, as he wasn’t trying at my point of view
or arguing constructively, as anyone with half a brain will realize is actually
the best method of seeming intelligent online).
Since
this statement, I have received two more “arguments” from him:
No fag fart felching cum sucker out of another mans anus after you fucked him up there....Faggot alert! Gay-Dar alert!And…
Thank you....What a kind compliment from a cunt like yourself...Go study kid!
His "thank you" was in reply to my compliment, stating that his last statement (as noted above) was very intelligent, and that he is the pinnacle of the modern human.
I really do feel that he stopped trying to argue after my original breakdown of his points; after all, he can then claim that he was trolling if he gets his ass handed too badly to him. The problem that I have with these people is that they try to make themselves out to be on some sort of Holy Crusade against people with different opinions to them. What they don't understand is that to be able to start an argument you really should develop a thesis which you want to argue, and then make sure you actually HAVE arguments to support your claims.
Not only did this person not have a thesis (and hence, any argument in support), but he didn't have any common sense.
He told me to study, but he forgot to mention that out of him taking the time to reply to my comments (the average 2 line comment took around 8 minutes for him to think up; probably because of his incessant need for a thesaurus), he hasn't been studying at all himself.
So after "studying" I found these comments this person has also made on YouTube, either to another user, or towards the video or content of the video:
Go fuck a duck you unemployed/non-student arse licker...Yeah you heard me, fuck some men in their arseholes, felch him, burp, and go back for a second helping you faggot.Right off the bat is something stupid. "Go fuck a duck"... "yeah you heard me, fuck some men in their arseholes". I can't make this shit up, really. This tool just told someone to "fuck a duck", then confirmed what he said (on a text-based medium) by contracting his original statement and changing "duck" to "men".
Eminem was clearly fucked up offa methadone, hydrocodone, oxycodone, MDMA, marijuana, psylocibin mushrooms, diazepam, zoplicone, from about 1992 (20) to about late 2008 (36). 16 year addiction is pretty hard to break. Michael Jackson sucked it in the end.
He sucks dick. He wrote that shit down. New York hates Justin Gayber. He can suck a dick!
This as incredibly lame. For a starters, the nigga said some shit about 'Fuck Suge Knight" and Kurupt was like who the fuck is this nigwit? He's a wannabe street thug....Fuck this nigwit who mad eh=this video. I want my 3:58 seconds back for watching this shit and typing this response...This particular comment irked me. If you want your time back, how about you be more intelligent with writing, and instead of taking your time (averaging 4 minutes per line) to write something non-constructive or intelligent, just don't write anything at all? Not everyone needs to see your writing, dipshit.
Eminem is still a member of D-12 you douchebag! What the fuck do you know?
Fuck, I'd hate to live in the South of the U.S.A., wherever inbred motherfuckers like this racist lowest form of human shit reside!Oh, the irony of that statement. It really is something else. Holy shit this guy is an idiot.
you suck cock, don't you smartarse?So not only is he intolerant; he's an idiot. He has shown he has a rudimentary ability to pull facts from his ass from Wikipedia, even when they're not necessary or even that relevant (see: his expert list on drugs Eminem used from 1992 to 2008).
Way to go dipshit! By encouraging me to study, you have, yourself, lost out on precious study time while you had to read, interpret, translate, and then reply to my comments.
And from the comments I made, and the comments he made, I think he's the one that needed the study the most.
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Why video games are dying, and why no-one should do a thing about it
Six games, from six different producers, and six very distinct genres.
But yet these games are all the same.
Has anyone seen the thing that links them yet?
They're all fucking sequels.
SEQUELS PISS ME OFF.
Now sometimes sequels are necessary. Sometimes sequels work.
But a sequel for the sake of a sequel (Every Call of Duty increment ever, for example) is just a money hungry attempt at being safe.
And I mean safe as a literal term.
And yes; for Super Mario Bros. Wii, the term "sequel" isn't an all inclusive term; what I AM talking about, however, is franchise sequels. Rather than making a game and then getting the writers to make a new universe (franchise), they would rather just rehash the same story or revolving theme for several games. Hell, now they're even re-making old games (Halo: Anniversary, that Tomb Raider one, etc.) just to make the graphics more pretty, and then slapping a full price tag on it.
It's not a storyboard "sequel" as per se, but it's still a continuation of the franchise.
And yes; for Super Mario Bros. Wii, the term "sequel" isn't an all inclusive term; what I AM talking about, however, is franchise sequels. Rather than making a game and then getting the writers to make a new universe (franchise), they would rather just rehash the same story or revolving theme for several games. Hell, now they're even re-making old games (Halo: Anniversary, that Tomb Raider one, etc.) just to make the graphics more pretty, and then slapping a full price tag on it.
It's not a storyboard "sequel" as per se, but it's still a continuation of the franchise.
The average person who plays video games is phobic of change; if a new game comes out, they're not going to pay good money for it unless it's got a name behind it.
And sequels are the easiest way of doing this; it's essentially extortion.
Worse than sequels, are the new thing that video games are doing.
Originally, a game would be packaged and the shipped product would be a two or three years worth of creative content and hard work bundled into a game.
These days, games are about being conservative; they're about making a yearly installation (Call of Duty and Need for Speed, especially) to appease to a hole in the producer's calendar.
And now, instead of making a game which is entertaining and fun, they're bundling it being
1. A sequel
2. incomplete (i.e. Mass Effect; Diablo 3)
3. yearly, or close to yearly (every sports "simulator", Need For Speed, Call of Duty)
4. released within a very specific time period (generally, around August to mid December is the most common time for a game to be released)
5. Comes with complimentary DLC which isn't an expansion as much as it is either a hint at a sequel (Fable 2) or just a continuation of the half-assed plot.
It's as if game companies really just don't give a shit anymore.
Actually they probably don't.
It's so rare to see a game that is actually innovative and creative, it really isn't funny. Game companies, and the video game industry, is like a giant money laundering service. They'll happy give you a "game" if it means that they get to mind your wallet for a short time, until they've finished the DLC (or released it within 24 hours, as some games are doing now).
My last argument I'm not even going to explain.
Three different games, from three different game developers.
Trends on Australian TV that make me want to attack inanimate objects
COOKING AND DANCING AND COOKING AND DANCING AND COOKING AND DANCING AND COOKING AND DANCING.
Now, normally I don't watch TV; apart from a select few shows I actually enjoy, Australian television broadcasting (including Foxtel, a commercially funded pay-to-view television company, and one of the highest on my list of things to boycott effectively) is beyond a joke.
And it's beyond a joke because there are set rules which stations love to play at. Their idea of "seasonal programming" is "decade-long", so you can be guaranteed that every new TV show they make themselves (when they're not airing reruns of "great" shows like The Bold and the Beautiful, Charmed, Medium, and Cooking with the Stars) has to have a shelf life of at least 8 years.
This has opened way for a new breed of television show; shows so pointless they actually make the Australian junior high school curriculum look like an effective method of education.
And these shows are TV competition.
Shows like Masterchef, Junior Masterchef Dancing with the Stars, Dancing on Ice, Australian Idol, The Biggest Loser, The X Factor, Australia's Got Talent, Beauty and the Geek, and It's Academic.
What really irks me are the dancing/"talent" TV shows, and the fucking cooking ones.
Now I'm not just talking about Masterchef, where people compete against each other to see who has the most orgasm-inducing food to rub over their genitals as they participate in an off-the-camera circlejerk after the show. I'm talking about cooking shows in general; they're everywhere.
Now some of them can be good; you've got ones that open the Average Australian's idea of food from "steak and chips is a full meal that is suitable for a family of 4, at least 5 times a week" to "steak and chips should only be served once or twice a week, and never more than that."
And then you've got other interesting cooking shows like... uh...
With the exception of the culturally based cooking shows, everything else is tripe. It's a copy of a copy, and it is pretty much a non-interactive iteration of what video gaming has become. A TV show now hasn't the intention of showing a selected target audience something new, to entertain, challenge, or enthrall them. It's now about copying the last show, "because it worked, why shouldn't ours?"
And that is what brings me back to my statement; I hate the competition shows. They are the definition of conservative; they are filmed in front of a live audience, using people who don't cost the company a cent to appear on. They are bent and warped to the company's will and pleasure, and their reward is nothing more than a mutual pat on the back and maybe a free wristy no dramas.
This is almost universal with television shows; it also means that "actors" (contestants; gladiators; mules; test subjects, etc.) are disposable in the television show. These shows don't challenge the viewer in any way; they don't require any higher order thought processes to watch; they don't need character development or intelligent plot.
I am quite literal, this is the formula for an entire episode:
"A disclosed number of contestants are faced with a weekly or daily challenge, obstacle, event, or item. They must present their piece which must adhere to this challenge/obstacle/item/event. The person with the weakest presentation will be evicted."
The only exception I can see to this is the singing ones (like Australia's Got Talent, Australian Idol, and The X Factor). But these are hardly valid because the judging there is already established to be so arbitrary and full of double-standard it isn't funny.
And the worst thing is that these also adhere to my original statement of "seasonal" being "decade". These shows are aired because they're a "safe bet". People will watch them because people love pretending like they personally know someone who appears on TV each week; hence the personal interviews during these shows, and incessant use of close-ups.
They air them because they know that the gap they have called "prime time" can be filled for this particular decade with this show, and they know that people will watch it regardless of what tripe it is.
And the worst thing is that the companies don't deny that these shows are retarded, and essentially demean quality television.
Hey look; an oxymoron.
Now, normally I don't watch TV; apart from a select few shows I actually enjoy, Australian television broadcasting (including Foxtel, a commercially funded pay-to-view television company, and one of the highest on my list of things to boycott effectively) is beyond a joke.
And it's beyond a joke because there are set rules which stations love to play at. Their idea of "seasonal programming" is "decade-long", so you can be guaranteed that every new TV show they make themselves (when they're not airing reruns of "great" shows like The Bold and the Beautiful, Charmed, Medium, and Cooking with the Stars) has to have a shelf life of at least 8 years.
This has opened way for a new breed of television show; shows so pointless they actually make the Australian junior high school curriculum look like an effective method of education.
And these shows are TV competition.
Shows like Masterchef, Junior Masterchef Dancing with the Stars, Dancing on Ice, Australian Idol, The Biggest Loser, The X Factor, Australia's Got Talent, Beauty and the Geek, and It's Academic.
What really irks me are the dancing/"talent" TV shows, and the fucking cooking ones.
Now I'm not just talking about Masterchef, where people compete against each other to see who has the most orgasm-inducing food to rub over their genitals as they participate in an off-the-camera circlejerk after the show. I'm talking about cooking shows in general; they're everywhere.
Now some of them can be good; you've got ones that open the Average Australian's idea of food from "steak and chips is a full meal that is suitable for a family of 4, at least 5 times a week" to "steak and chips should only be served once or twice a week, and never more than that."
And then you've got other interesting cooking shows like... uh...
With the exception of the culturally based cooking shows, everything else is tripe. It's a copy of a copy, and it is pretty much a non-interactive iteration of what video gaming has become. A TV show now hasn't the intention of showing a selected target audience something new, to entertain, challenge, or enthrall them. It's now about copying the last show, "because it worked, why shouldn't ours?"
And that is what brings me back to my statement; I hate the competition shows. They are the definition of conservative; they are filmed in front of a live audience, using people who don't cost the company a cent to appear on. They are bent and warped to the company's will and pleasure, and their reward is nothing more than a mutual pat on the back and maybe a free wristy no dramas.
This is almost universal with television shows; it also means that "actors" (contestants; gladiators; mules; test subjects, etc.) are disposable in the television show. These shows don't challenge the viewer in any way; they don't require any higher order thought processes to watch; they don't need character development or intelligent plot.
I am quite literal, this is the formula for an entire episode:
"A disclosed number of contestants are faced with a weekly or daily challenge, obstacle, event, or item. They must present their piece which must adhere to this challenge/obstacle/item/event. The person with the weakest presentation will be evicted."
The only exception I can see to this is the singing ones (like Australia's Got Talent, Australian Idol, and The X Factor). But these are hardly valid because the judging there is already established to be so arbitrary and full of double-standard it isn't funny.
And the worst thing is that these also adhere to my original statement of "seasonal" being "decade". These shows are aired because they're a "safe bet". People will watch them because people love pretending like they personally know someone who appears on TV each week; hence the personal interviews during these shows, and incessant use of close-ups.
They air them because they know that the gap they have called "prime time" can be filled for this particular decade with this show, and they know that people will watch it regardless of what tripe it is.
And the worst thing is that the companies don't deny that these shows are retarded, and essentially demean quality television.
Hey look; an oxymoron.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Reconciliation Week...
So this week, Australia has been celebrating a thing known as "Reconciliation Week"; a week-long commemoration of all the bad things that our ancestors have ever done to the Aboriginal people past and present of Australia, essentially culminating in the total acceptance that although the majority of Caucasian people living in Australia had nothing to do with any mistreating of any Aboriginal still alive, it is still just as much our fault.
Now, I'm very intolerant as a person; I would never be a good teacher or educator. However I think the entire racism thing is more about decency and having a slight apathetic opinion, rather than tolerance.
Tolerance implies in most forms, that although you don't really agree/accept a certain situation, you still live with it, or "tolerate" it. Which I think is almost as bad as all-out racial supremacy. To be apathetic towards another person, regardless of their race or gender, is to truly treat them the exact same as you would everyone else, and at the end of the day the eradication of racism should be the ignorance of our differences and only really concentrating on the fact that we're all sentient beings living on this planet, and we all collectively refer to ourselves as human. To highlight other's differences and then say you "tolerate" or "accept" them is to say that they're not the same as you, which is then to imply exclusion, if not inferiority.
But I really can't understand the logical idea behind reconciliation week as not only an event, but an entire week.
I can see the politically correct nature of the government, and I can see that things like the stolen generation, the treating of Aboriginals as animals, the "Terra Nullius" name of Australia, and the idea of out-breeding Aboriginal genes in an effort to eradicate the "species" in only about four or five generations, is very wrong.
And I don't doubt that. And this is why I fully supported and respected Kevin Rudd and his efforts to apologize to the victims of such efforts at the hands of our ancestors, when he made the thirty or so minute "sorry" speech back in 2008. It really did seem like a turning point for Australia, considering John Howard's "10 Point Plan" (which, and although I'm not complaining, really was a "deal with it" approach to the situation) and its connotations.
Now although I fully supported the sorry speech, and I fully respect Kevin Rudd for making it, I don't believe at all that it should be a recurring event in our national calendar.
This isn't the best metaphor, but it fits the job in as good a way as I could think of.
Think, if I had a friend who's name is Lance. Now when Lance and I were 20, I stole a considerable amount of money from him. Although his money was taken and never returned, and he suffered many years of hardship because of which, he eventually continued with his life, and had a wife and children. After a while, when the damage has been done and Lance is a progressive member of society, I apologize to him sincerely.
Now imagine if every year, I explained to Lance and his family about that time I stole a considerable sum of money from him, and then express my pseudo-apology for it, making my own family participate in the apology, even though they weren't in my life at the time of the incident, while emphasizing the act more than the resolution at every instance.
The only logical thing I can think of is that Lance will never truly be allowed to forget that event. His wife and their children, who weren't present during the event, will grow up with the belief that me and my family aren't to be trusted, because if they could be, why would they be apologizing about something as serious as theft?
Now the plot holes in that are huge, but still in keeping with the original story. Quite literally, Caucasian Australians would go into Aboriginal villages/homes/settlements and abduct children. They'd take them to church-run education precincts where they'd be taught English, given a new name and a new identity, and forced to forget about their previous life and their family.
And this is exactly why I don't agree with re-hashing this and having a constant need to have the nation, or at least the nation's leaders on behalf of the nation, apologize. I can imagine thirty or forty years down the line, still having the reconciliation week in full effect; even though all the people who have been directly affected by the stolen generation and similar crimes of human indecency, have passed away; similarly, those who committed the crimes have themselves passed away.
It will be bringing up a new generation of Aboriginal people who (and this is a general assumption, and I in no way make this out to be fact) although could achieve great things, are instead too preoccupied with what happened to their ancestors decades ago, and drawing links between their ancestors and what happened to them, and why they live the way they do now.
It's not right, and it's not fair.
As Morgan Freeman said in his role of Nelson Mandela: "Reconciliation starts here. Forgiveness starts here too."
Now, I'm very intolerant as a person; I would never be a good teacher or educator. However I think the entire racism thing is more about decency and having a slight apathetic opinion, rather than tolerance.
Tolerance implies in most forms, that although you don't really agree/accept a certain situation, you still live with it, or "tolerate" it. Which I think is almost as bad as all-out racial supremacy. To be apathetic towards another person, regardless of their race or gender, is to truly treat them the exact same as you would everyone else, and at the end of the day the eradication of racism should be the ignorance of our differences and only really concentrating on the fact that we're all sentient beings living on this planet, and we all collectively refer to ourselves as human. To highlight other's differences and then say you "tolerate" or "accept" them is to say that they're not the same as you, which is then to imply exclusion, if not inferiority.
But I really can't understand the logical idea behind reconciliation week as not only an event, but an entire week.
I can see the politically correct nature of the government, and I can see that things like the stolen generation, the treating of Aboriginals as animals, the "Terra Nullius" name of Australia, and the idea of out-breeding Aboriginal genes in an effort to eradicate the "species" in only about four or five generations, is very wrong.
And I don't doubt that. And this is why I fully supported and respected Kevin Rudd and his efforts to apologize to the victims of such efforts at the hands of our ancestors, when he made the thirty or so minute "sorry" speech back in 2008. It really did seem like a turning point for Australia, considering John Howard's "10 Point Plan" (which, and although I'm not complaining, really was a "deal with it" approach to the situation) and its connotations.
Now although I fully supported the sorry speech, and I fully respect Kevin Rudd for making it, I don't believe at all that it should be a recurring event in our national calendar.
This isn't the best metaphor, but it fits the job in as good a way as I could think of.
Think, if I had a friend who's name is Lance. Now when Lance and I were 20, I stole a considerable amount of money from him. Although his money was taken and never returned, and he suffered many years of hardship because of which, he eventually continued with his life, and had a wife and children. After a while, when the damage has been done and Lance is a progressive member of society, I apologize to him sincerely.
Now imagine if every year, I explained to Lance and his family about that time I stole a considerable sum of money from him, and then express my pseudo-apology for it, making my own family participate in the apology, even though they weren't in my life at the time of the incident, while emphasizing the act more than the resolution at every instance.
The only logical thing I can think of is that Lance will never truly be allowed to forget that event. His wife and their children, who weren't present during the event, will grow up with the belief that me and my family aren't to be trusted, because if they could be, why would they be apologizing about something as serious as theft?
Now the plot holes in that are huge, but still in keeping with the original story. Quite literally, Caucasian Australians would go into Aboriginal villages/homes/settlements and abduct children. They'd take them to church-run education precincts where they'd be taught English, given a new name and a new identity, and forced to forget about their previous life and their family.
And this is exactly why I don't agree with re-hashing this and having a constant need to have the nation, or at least the nation's leaders on behalf of the nation, apologize. I can imagine thirty or forty years down the line, still having the reconciliation week in full effect; even though all the people who have been directly affected by the stolen generation and similar crimes of human indecency, have passed away; similarly, those who committed the crimes have themselves passed away.
It will be bringing up a new generation of Aboriginal people who (and this is a general assumption, and I in no way make this out to be fact) although could achieve great things, are instead too preoccupied with what happened to their ancestors decades ago, and drawing links between their ancestors and what happened to them, and why they live the way they do now.
It's not right, and it's not fair.
As Morgan Freeman said in his role of Nelson Mandela: "Reconciliation starts here. Forgiveness starts here too."
Sunday, May 27, 2012
"Sneaky Relationships" As Recommended By My Girlfriend
Alright, so I got asked to write an article first on homosexuality, then on "sneaky relationships".
That's pretty vague but I'm going to have a crack at a relationship, probably a teenage or pre-age of majority relationship, which involves the parents of one or both parties being oblivious to the relationship.
Why parents? Because by the time you get to an age where you think relationships are important (or worthwhile at all), you should have no problems with telling people about who you're being sexually frustrated with. Right?
Anyway, once the topic was explained as "hiding it fromeveryone", I excluded the word "everyone" and replaced it with "their parents", because if you're afraid of what your friends think about your choice in women, kill yourself.
Aftermuch consideration absolutely no time or preparation at all, I decided that I didn't want to talk about the relationships as much as I wanted to talk about parents who indoctrinate their children, and deny any sort of social maturity until their age of majority (and in some cases, until they move out of home and can support themselves).
Their argument is "while you live under this roof", or "it's my house, it's my rules". But we're not talking about a fucking house; we're talking about an imperative part of social growth and maturity within humans. The entire argument that you must obey the parent because you happen to live with them is fair in some aspects (especially when it comes to things such as drug abuse and underage drinking/smoking), but totally ludicrous in this context.
Now yeah, some parents know better than their children, and I agree that it is important to instill important life lessons into your children at an early age, but sheltering them is just going to make them crash socially once they're not "under your wing". This entire idea of "not allowing your kids to progress socially because you're afraid they'll make mistakes" card is overdone and outdated; after all, if you haven't taught your teenager about safe sex, appropriate alcohol consumption, and that DRUGS ARE BAD LOL, then by the time they're 16 and legally allowed to have sex (by Australian federal law), you're never going to teach them.
As for relationships: why does it have to be sexual? How can the parents fully and aptly assume that if they start holding hands, it means that he's sticking it in? And more importantly, how have we gotten to a stage in our society where we'll let 13 year old kids watch R rated movies with horrific violence, but shudder in fear at the slightest idea of a natural human physical and biological interaction?
That's pretty vague but I'm going to have a crack at a relationship, probably a teenage or pre-age of majority relationship, which involves the parents of one or both parties being oblivious to the relationship.
Why parents? Because by the time you get to an age where you think relationships are important (or worthwhile at all), you should have no problems with telling people about who you're being sexually frustrated with. Right?
Anyway, once the topic was explained as "hiding it from
After
Their argument is "while you live under this roof", or "it's my house, it's my rules". But we're not talking about a fucking house; we're talking about an imperative part of social growth and maturity within humans. The entire argument that you must obey the parent because you happen to live with them is fair in some aspects (especially when it comes to things such as drug abuse and underage drinking/smoking), but totally ludicrous in this context.
Now yeah, some parents know better than their children, and I agree that it is important to instill important life lessons into your children at an early age, but sheltering them is just going to make them crash socially once they're not "under your wing". This entire idea of "not allowing your kids to progress socially because you're afraid they'll make mistakes" card is overdone and outdated; after all, if you haven't taught your teenager about safe sex, appropriate alcohol consumption, and that DRUGS ARE BAD LOL, then by the time they're 16 and legally allowed to have sex (by Australian federal law), you're never going to teach them.
As for relationships: why does it have to be sexual? How can the parents fully and aptly assume that if they start holding hands, it means that he's sticking it in? And more importantly, how have we gotten to a stage in our society where we'll let 13 year old kids watch R rated movies with horrific violence, but shudder in fear at the slightest idea of a natural human physical and biological interaction?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)