Tagged: philosophical musings

Spam: it makes you think (aka I need a break from abortion posts)

Today’s life lesson from the spam filter:

Testing proves the presence, not the absence, of bugs.

Thanks, erectile-dysfunction-drug-peddling bot.

It’s the reason the classic Internet theists vs. atheists argument will simply never end.  You can’t “prove” God doesn’t exist.  You can probably establish that it’s highly unlikely, but people who have faith aren’t much swayed by “but consider how IMPROBABLE the existence of God would be!”  Heck, it only encourages some of them.

The flip side was summed up rather expertly by Douglas Adams:

“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”

“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don’t. Q.E.D.”

“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

But this is the Internet.  It wouldn’t be the same without the pointless screaming matches.*


*Feel free to read into this what you will.

The “oh, not scum like YOU” rule

It’s a sure sign of someone talking out their ass: they make generalised statement after generalised statement, [group] are scum, [group] make no contribution to society, [group] don’t deserve human rights like real people do.

And then someone turns around and says, “Actually, I’m a [member of group].”

And then the ass-talker says, “Oh, but you’re different, I didn’t mean [group] like you, just [group] like those scum.”

It’s been brilliantly illustrated in the comments of two recent posts at the Standard.

Continue reading

The TV Couple of the Noughties

Lauredhel at Hoyden About Town posits a fascinating question – what TV couple defines our decade, the difficult-to-find-a-non-dodgy-nickname-for 00s?

My answers, a bit more fleshed out (and not in any particular order), follow – shouldn’t be any fear of spoilers as NZ TV? Not great with the screening-things-any-time-soon.

Continue reading

Vacation? So soon?

It is the nature of fun things that everything goes fine for a little bit, you’re lulled into a false sense of security, and then BAM! the Universe decides to shake things up.

In less obscure terms, someone in the household had a week off work and seems to have spent ALL of it on Youtube. Thus, we are throttled to sub-Dark-Ages-dial-up speeds and this makes my usual daily blogreading/getting angry/ranting routine go pear-shaped. Back in … about a week.

Your Experience Is Not Universal

A huge problem in any dialogue about any issue is this: a lot of people do not get the above. They assume something doesn’t offend them right off the bat, so anybody who claims to be offended is, well, wrong.

Take the very first comment on this post at Feministe, in relation to a … questionable Vogue cover, saying straight up: “I do not see what you are seeing”: while it’s nice to hope we live in a world where that statement is simply an offering of alternate viewpoint without an inherent, unspoken “Ergo you are wrong”, I’m not sure what else I’m meant to take from it.

And in regard to the by-nowfairlyubiquitous images in a recent feminist publication, the same has been said again and again: it’s ironic, it’s retro, I don’t see what you’re seeing so it cannot exist.

Continue reading