You know you have a problem in your social skills

if throughout any conversation, and you realize that whoever you're talking to is sensitive,

and you literally have to remind yourself "don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole, don't be an asshole"

and then, before you know it, you have been an asshole, and the conversation is over.

Yeah, that kinda sucks.

With extra cheese.

We had a guest speaker today, a politically charged, fat, white, British lady who does newspaper comics.

Sounds like a stereotype? I think it does.

But thats not the point. The point is that I don't believe that vegetarianism (vegans? what?) make sense. I don't think the whole logic behind 'animal rights' - and as a result, human rights - and I believe that the logic of how we shouldn't eat inhumane meat products is just a load of crap made by people who are too well off for their own good.

First of all, it's this general consensus that its ok to kill and eat plants, who are also alive. The basic logic is 'because they don't feel pain.' Well, lets take that apart. What this essentially means, is that the main criteria in determining the rights of an organism is its capacity for consciousness. The more biologically complex and sensitive you are, the more rights your life deserves.

Vegetable people, anyone? Find me a good liberal animal rights activists who uses this criteria. Ask them if they had a dumb (literally) child, they wouldn't mind me killing it because they have no concept of 'pain'. A person can be physically inable to feel pain; so I can kill them too? They have no rights?

And if we stretch that logic a bit, we can say that human beings are superior than all animals, because we have the capacity for history, math, education, and all that high class intellectual activity which seems to net these people nothing better to think about whether a cow cares about how its killed.

No. If you are going to argue for rights of life, then all life should be considered equal. If you're going to say that the life of an animal is worth more than a plant's, then you are accepting the fact that one organism is inherently superior to another by default. And at that point, to demand rights of an 'inferior' organism as a human being becomes ridiculous.

So, no. The capacity for pain is out of question.

Then, they say, the method of killing matters too. And to this I say, "Does it? Does it, really?"

Death is one thing I believe where the ends justify, or more like override, the means. It doesn't matter how you die. Once you're dead, it doesn't really matter anymore.

If you disagree, then you are essentially saying that there are different values to forms of death. That one kind of death is worth more than another. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

I like to point at WWII for this issue. I don't mean to be anti-semetic, but the number of Jewish killed in concentration camps are 6 million. The number of Soviet soldiers killed was something near 30 million.

And to be frank, people don't really give a shit about the Soviets. For two reasons. One, that they were soldiers. Two, that they were commies (I don't think anyone says this aloud.)

So....what they are saying that if you die as a civilian, your death is more important than when you die as part of the military? But that is what they are essentially saying, right? The fact that the holocaust is more politically explosive than any number of casualties proves this. These soldiers were people, too. They had families. They had reasons to live. But they died, all the same.

Are you really saying that these people don't matter as much as the people in the concentration camps?

Then you are saying that a death of one organism is more important than another. And that essentially means that one organism can be inherently more important than another. Which returns to the first clause.

So...yeah. I mean, if you're going to argue for the rights of animals, then you should argue for the rights of plants too. Because, after all, they are living organisms just the same.

I believe this to be true. All organisms are equal in life. We are all born, and we are all given unfair amount in our capacity to live. And that's just how nature works. That's what makes life, life. The sheer unfairness of existence is almost the meaning to existence in itself.

The reason, and this is sort of my conclusion, that people can really demand animal rights, and even human rights, is because there is a larger structure, or a more powerful being, that has complete control over them.

If a herd of cows, at any moment, could gather together and destroy human civilization, would we really care about how we kill them? Would we still care then? If they could kill your family, destroy your house, desecrate your religion, demolish your culture, would you still care about how we treat cows like crap?

 And I know they can't, but I'm saying let's cut the crap. The very fact that these people are trying to protect these animals prove that they believe, somewhere or another in their head, that people have complete control over whether these things live or die anyways.

Much like human rights. I mean, I'm not saying that there aren't responsibilities that a government has to its public. No, but I'm saying that the entire logic that people should have certain 'rights' from birth is bullshit. Because they don't. They don't. The reason that Governments can even remotely care about the rights of the citizens is because they know that the citizens don't have the capacity to gather together and destroy the government. This is what makes democracies revolutionary, because for the first time, it acknowledges that the people are the country, not the government. That was how monarchy worked, and we all saw how that ended. But no. That does not mean that there are inherent rights to life. There aren't.

Being born itself is a previlege. Some may disagree, but then I have to ask, 'Are you telling me, that you wouldn't care if you never existed in the first place?' What can you say to that?

So no. We are all born. That is the only right to life we got, and we exhausted when we were born. After that, it was battle royale. It always was. It always will be. We just agreed to stop killing each other after a certain point. And hey, that's fine with me. That's why hindi vegetarians are fine with me.

But don't give me that bullshit about what we 'should'. I like my burgers cheap.

And if I do, shoot me.

I visited a friend this past break. It was nice. It was comfortable.

And I drank alcohol. Yes, that probably had something to do with it.

The thing is though, in a phone conversation with his girlfriend, I accidentally overheard(I was right next to him, after all) him apologizing to her.

Now I mean sincerely apologizing. Like begging.

That shocked me. It really did. Cuz I've known this guy for what, 4 years?, and he is the last person that I can imagine apologizing for anything.

I'm not going to lie, ladies. I don't know what he did. I don't know if he really screwed up and had to apologize so sincerely.

But I know this guy, and he's not one to make really serious mistakes. And what more, the conversation continued for at least several hours, in the same sort of manner, I imagine.

And I'm just lying on his bed there, thinking to myself:

Is that what every couple end up being like?

I certainly hope not. But I mean, this was the last guy I expect to be in that kind of relationship.

And to be frank, he's not the only one that I've seen.

I don't mean to be harsh on the ladies, but I have seen way too many relationships where the girl wields absolute power, and kinda swings the guy by his heels above her head.

I mean, I know one low down loser who was feeding, clothing, and providing a house for his girlfriend. And you know, I'm fine with that. But she was acting like this was what she deserved, and still treated him like crap. And in crap, I don't mean she beat him or anything. No, girls do it worse.

They cry. They cry in pain, in agony, in PMS; I mean, whatever problem they have, they cry for a solution. And poor suckers have no choice but to grant their every wish.

Now I know some of those cries are genuine. But I know too many single girls who can take care of that shit without really giving a second thought. Are you seriously telling me that you want your boyfriends to take care of a stomachache? He's an econ major for christ's sake!

But I digress.

I know enough to see that these guys really do want to do these things. They want to, because they think it'll make the girls happy. And maybe it does. It really should.

And I know that a lot of ladies don't act that way. They do think about what their guys need. And most really are very thankful for the submissive behaivior of their men.

I also know that there are many relationships where the mechanics are in reverse, and it is the guys who are obnoxiously abusive of their relationship. I know they exist, but I haven't seen one yet. So I couldn't directly describe it.

And I'm fine with that, if you are. Hey, whatever fits, right?

But is that the best we can do?

I mean, seriously, love is supposedly the pinnacle, the zenith, the holiest of all human relationships.

Is that love?

Really? Seriously?

Where's the understanding? Where's the comfort? Where is the trust?

Why aren't these people able to trust the fact that they care for each other, without having to test/prove it at every turn?

I mean, come on. Some of you kids have been together for 4 years, and thats how you relate? Its your 10th relatioship, and thats how?

I don't get it. I really don't get it.

Bah.

Ridiculous.

I hope I never go that way.

It has been a while

considering this is the only place where I get some freewriting in english, I guess that shows how much I care about my english writing.

and obviously not enough to write a new post.

Very sexist, but what the hell.

Someone (may or may not have) once asked me: 'what would be the easiest way to understand the relationship between the Government and the People?'

At the time I was cranky and working on a paper, so I just said 'The hotdog and the bun,' which means absolutely nothing, believe me.

Now I am noticably less cranky...but still working on a paper. Either way, now that I think about it, a Gov. and its people are very much like a husband and wife.

And I mean this in the most stereotypical and demeaning way that one can use these terms.

The husband often has the authority to rule in the house (the nation), but often has to compromise in order to get certain things from his wife (elections. taxes. prolonged rule.), and if these compromises are not made, the wife is prone to take certain measures to make sure he realized its importance (immigration, revolt, support of other parties).

Meanwhile the husband also takes care of most of the business outside the house (diplomacy, war, trade) and the wife supports him and enjoys the spoils (income, more territory, colonies). However, when the wife does not agree with the husband's decisions outside of the house, the husband usually has to convince her otherwise, lest she takes matters into her own hands.And when this happens, it is usually not very pretty, as wives are much more concerned about the well-being of the members of her own family and reacts emotionally or violently (strikes, demonstrations, vigils, riots), even when the external circumstances require some use of finesse to navigate through.

Of course, these days, wives are often highly educated, and disagree with the husband on much more complex choices based on priority of values, (ideologies, missions, ethics) rather than simply gains and losses for the familiy. However, most husbands still remember the illogical and emotional wives from the past, and tend to dismiss their opinions, considering them to be rooted on ignorance.

Meanwhile, in the rare cases where the husband is completely inable to secure incomes from outside sources, wives often grow very resentful of their husbands, and often believe it is up to themselves to take the power from the other men who are taking advantage of her weak husband. However, because other men are used to dealing only with men, the respose of the women are often ignored. Continued abusing of the husband, however, will often result in the wife having 'enough' of it, and often cause them to go find a new husband, hopefully stronger than the one before.

Often, this change of spouse for security of interests is seen in a negative light, especially by other men, and the original husband may sometimes be encouraged to take his wife back, by force is necessary. If successful, these 'takebacks' often result in a horrible mess of a family, which the other men - who encouraged it - often turn a blind eye to.

Other than that, certain cases where the wife is timid and the husband is physically powerful enough for him to abuse his spouse has began to catch the attention of the other families in the community, and more and more interventions by other men are occuring. These abusing husbands are often forced down by law enforcement and are tried for crimes.

However, sometimes the other men really like the husband, as he is often a really generous fellow to his friends, and will agree to silently allow these abuses to continue. These situations often lead to great tragedies, which the other wives are shocked to find out. However, they are quickly forgotten, for wives are often forgetful of things outside the house.

Whew. I stopped specifying what part of politics are like the events in a house to make it a more interesting read.

But yeah, thats how I see it.