Are Some Religions More Correct Than Others?

''Religion,'' and ''a set of provable facts'' are two different things; different concepts. Religion operates on faith. Knowledge is something you learn by observation. How can you even find out if a religion is correct or not, if you can't prove or disprove it?

NOW, some INTERPRETATIONS of some religions are not as CONDUCIVE to the fulfillment of the diversified field of goals that are in accord with the principle of lifeward progression; and THAT can be construed as ''some religions are more correct,'' but that's not what's really going on.

Each person is a human, and each person is different from all the others...for the most part. Is one person more human than the others? *just let go of that Rob Zombie song for a minute* Am I, as a human, more correctly/ more accurately ''human'' than other humans? F*ck no! I'm a human. Being diverse is part of being human. Being different is a quality of being human. All these others need to be here, too, since their humanity is connected to my own.

Behold! The End Draws Nigh!

HIGH SCHOOL -- 1957 vs. 2007

Scenario 1:
Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his truck's gun rack.
1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to his car and gets his own shotgun to show Jack.
2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again... Counselors called in for traumatized students and teachers.

Scenario 2:
Johnny and Mark get into a fist fight after school.
1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up buddies.
2007 - Police are called and SWAT team arrives -- they arrest both Johnny and Mark. They are both charged with assault and both expelled even though Johnny started it.

Scenario 3:
Jeffrey will not be still in class, he disrupts other students.
1957 - Jeffrey is sent to the Principal's office and given a good paddling by the Principal. He then returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.
2007 - Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie. He is then tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.

Scenario 4:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad gives him a spanking.
1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college and becomes a successful businessman.
2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist is told by Billy's sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison. Billy's mom has an affair with the psychologist.

Scenario 5:
Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.
1957 - Mark shares his aspirin with the Principal out on the smoking dock.
2007 - The police are called and Mark is expelled from school for drug violations. His car is then searched for drugs and weapons.

Scenario 6:
Pedro fails high school English.
1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English and goes to college.
2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by the state. Newspaper articles appear nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for graduation is racist. ACLU files a class action lawsuit against the state school system and Pedro's English teacher. English is then banned from the core curriculum. Pedro is given his diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a living because he cannot speak English.

Scenario 7:
Johnny takes leftover firecrackers from the Fourth of July, puts them in a model airplane paint bottle and blows up a red ant bed.
1957 - Ants die.
2007 - ATF, Homeland Security and the FBI are all called. Johnny is charged with domestic terrorism. The FBI investigates his parents -- and all siblings are removed from their home and all computers are confiscated. Johnny's dad is placed on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly again.

Scenario 8:
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

Murphy's Law only applies if you believe in it. Right? Then belief is not ''true or false,'' but ''good or bad.''

1.) Disregarding ''absolutes'' such as mathematical facts, belief is the cause and creator of perception and reality.

2.) Each person believes a different thing.

3.) Then there is no such thing as a misconception.

• a.) ''According to your belief, it is done unto you.''

• b.) ''As a man thinks in his heart, so will he be.''

• c.) ''the thing I have dreaded has come upon me!''

4.) What we choose to believe is never ''true or false;'' since those labels apply to knowledge, while faith/belief is like reaching out your arm to accomplish a task. Belief accomplishes something, while knowledge accepts what it is told. Can the incipient workings of faith be ''false?'' I reach out my arm and grab a light switch with my finger, and flick it ''ON.'' The lights turn on. Is my hand false? How would that even make sense? Beliefs accomplish something--always. They begin things. Knowledge, observed conclusions can be false. The quest for knowledge, shunning faith is all the while fueled by a faith that faith is invalid.

Seeing has NEVER been believing;
Faith has never been dependent upon proof
Faith produces its own proof.
Belief has nothing to do with an intellectual deduction.
Beliefs are measured by the merit of the things they elicit.
Belief/faith is a moral issue, not an intellectual one.

''Emancipate yourself from mental slavery''

If you're not happy, why not? You've been trying to be happy, trying to chase down your contentment...That causes stress, and you'll never ''catch it,'' anyway. Life is a reflection of our thoughts/beliefs/actions; it's no good to chase contentment because that brings to life the reflection of lacking and poverty. You have to BE the contentment. Chasing it only underscores the truth that it is far from you.

First, distance yourself from the strivings that cause you nothing but stress and a fistful of wind. The problem starts when we try to reason with our happiness, as though it were a logical issue: ''if only I could get this, surely I will be happy.'' And when it isn't working out, we try more desperately to get it. More stress. The more we strive for happiness, the more unhappiness we heap onto ourselves. You didn't really want all that extra stuff; All you really wanted was the contentment you thought was attached to it.

So let it go. Be like the tree in the wind. It's flexible and happy. All that it needs to be happy and to thrive is right there with it. Don't be so rigid that the smallest upset breaks you. Everything you need to be happy is everywhere with you.

KFC, don't give in! We need you to stick it to the little man!

Totally not swayed by this, especially because it's from PETA. That's just how it's done. Of course, making sport of the birds and pre-slaughter breaking wings and legs is unnecessary. That doesn't make it wrong to consume chickens.

Chickens are not ''the same as people.'' They don't need the same treatment that we would, and that's one of the big problems with messages like this. These people try to personify the chickens, and make a chicken's death EQUAL with a human's. Wait, who drew that ''line?'' Well, what if someone ELSE wants to draw a different line, and say that it's only evil to eat people, but cows, pigs, and chickens are okay? Doesn't the ''other guy'' count, too?

Chickens have to be kept in a place where they can't pile up onto each other, since they frighten easily, and will kill each other by climbing on top of other chickens. The cramped quarters are for their own good. Their beaks are clipped because chickens are also prone to aggression and cannibalism. This is so they don't all kill each other, as well.

The bone breaking and ''making sport'' of them is not necessary, but think about it...WHO ELSE takes a job killing chickens, but those who can find at least a little enjoyment in it? I'm not saying that part of the slaughter is RIGHT, but it seems this video is using the ''shock factor,'' since they're betting that most people have no clue as to how chickens are raised and slaughtered.

This video is old, too. In a 2003 article, the issue is addressed:

''Bachelder "jumped on the corporate jet and flew to PETA's hometown of Norfolk," PETA's website crowed, acquiescing to five of PETA's eight demands. According to the organization's victory report, among other matters, Bachelder pledged to install cameras in all of KFC's 29 slaughterhouses by the end of next year, with a plan to audit the tapes monthly. KFC also agreed 1) to ensure that its suppliers would add stimulation devices to the perches in the chicken sheds; 2) to move quickly to kill chickens in electric stun baths rather than merely immobilizing them; 3) to implement humane mechanized chicken-gathering systems; and 4) to provide increased space for chicken housing. KFC promised to report back to PETA on a regular basis to verify its compliance.''

The whole thing can be found here: http://www.discovery.org/a/1515

''And so I genuinely felt obliged to call...'' ...you out.

I know, I know, ''it's just a picture, Mike!'' and I should ''chill out.'' But I couldn't help but think that some people accept this without any further thought on the matter. So here we go:



1.) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Before I get too far into that, let me preface with this: God is love. Forced love is no love at all. If God created no possible avenue for humans to choose evil, that would be God, forcing us to do what He wants. If God imposed His will for perfection on us, He would no longer be who He is. ''So you're saying that God has limits?'' I'm saying that God is bound by His love for us, and His intolerance of evil. He allows us to make choices, even if it breaks His heart that we choose our own destruction. God does not force anyone to do anything. This is not an issue of ability; but an issue of God giving us a chance to choose for ourselves.



2.) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is the author suggesting that if God doesn't ''step in,'' and put a stop to all evil, that God, Himself, is evil? I suppose it could appear that way to some. But what if God forced each person to surrender all freewill to Him; and to do exactly as He wishes? He would have a bunch of ''robots.'' He wouldn't really have ''us;'' --that would be God, just taking what He wants. He could have a bunch of robots any time He wants, but what God really wants is us. This is why our ability to choose is so important. Malevolent? No. Heartbroken? Yes.



3.) Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

He is both able and willing. ''Then how did evil come to be?'' We are the ones God allowed to choose evil or good. Any evil in the world exists because we chose it. God doesn't force us to do anything.



4.) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him ''God?''

He has given us sovereignty over our own destinies. He will eventually deliver us over to whatever it is that we have chosen for ourselves.



So? That still doesn't prove God exists!

Correct, but it does deconstruct this argument.





And about the comment at the end ''Atheists. Winning since 33 A.D.'' I can appreciate a good joke, and that was clever.

...Except the fact that this was actually the dawn of Christianity. Since Christianity is ''just one more theist religion'' to atheism, the dawn of Christianity is more accurately described as the point in time that atheism began to fail more and more, as time progressed to present day.

On a hike!!

Here are some pictures I took from these hills my friends from work and I took a hike on :-)

There were frogs, coyotes, avocado groves, eucalyptus trees, thorny plants, long, steep climbs, and ALL kinds of FUN! :-D

Devil's Advocate

A good friend from high school commented on the post ''Negativity:''

Sorry Mike, I must play devils advocate here, but in it may gain you perspective.

Violence is bad, hate is bad, chaos is bad, lies are bad, mmmk. I'll get that outta the way.

But there has never been reform without violence (sad but true). Which means, no one in power (read power as corrupt, as we all know absolute power corrupts) is willing to sacrifice that without violence (violence here, is read as "revolutions and retaliations" against said power). From chaos, comes order, and from order, comes chaos.

Hate is a negative emotion. True. I personally hate, hate :P. But without such emotion aren't we all idle when people without much culture and love hit the scene? When our brothers and sisters are killed, we could never keep the streets clean without a inkling of such emotion. Ever want to run up to Charles Manson and give him a big hug, and tell him everything will be ok? Naw, he deserved to rot in jail because he didn't just hate, he spread it. So my point here is, fire sometimes, sadly, must fight fire. Hate and love can go hand in hand. I, for instance, am filled with hate with politics lately, due to its corrupt nature, and that springs from my love for the American people. I love the fuck outta them. So I hate seeing the repetitive bad choices that are made for us by these people "representing us".

Chaos and disorder. Ahhh, here is an interesting one. How is this defined? Its a very difficult one to truly define. If the universe was built on a big bang, a nuclear explosion of sorts (pure chaos, random subdividing) has it not created order? We see planets revolving around stars and amazing beauty that has defined for us, the laws of physics. Don't get me wrong, I believe in God, this is just an example. Another example is, if we create enough law, do we not therefore create chaos from it all? We are granted freedom of speech by our bill of rights, yet if we speak our mind in public its illegal. If we speak our mind in court its contempt. If we speak our minds about somebody in a way they don't like, its libel. If we speak in protest, its illegal. If we speak about not liking a president, treason. Sounds pretty chaotic to me, almost like a law that isn't enforced (freedom of speech) is creating chaos by being layered over by a bunch of laws that are enforced. Create enough laws, and you have created chaos.

Lies are in the same grouping. But its on the same page as the others, if you lie to save a life, its not bad. We all know this much. Its in deceptive evil that lies are truthfully bad. To deceive someone in order to do something else evil, which is normally where the problem with lies is. Truth sometimes is sometimes falsely confused with fact in some peoples heads. Fact, is fact, it is infallible, no way to argue it. But truth, realize, most of the time is not infallible. It deals more closely to peoples perspective then fact does. Fact cannot be argued, but sometimes we find that peoples "truths" can be. Which does create more problems, but it remains keyed to observational ability and perspective regardless what we do.

:)

Figured I'd throw that out there... Not arguing with your points, they're very valid. I just believe in exceptions to every rule. Or, chaos, if you will. :)

Kudos, and hope your doing well out there Mike.
Take care bro




This is not an argument, but it is a peaceful debate.



Here's what I said:


Being devoid of hate doesn't mean always being a ''nice guy.'' Hate towards another person destroys its host. It's okay to hate our enemies, as long as a clear idea of our enemies is maintained: our enemies are hate, ignorance, fear, arrogance, poisonous ideas/beliefs. Flesh and blood are not our enemies. Love does not mean withholding punishment, and love does not mandate that evil should be tolerated. Sometimes violence is necessary to apprehend those who spread evil.


Perhaps humans can create laws, but that does not mean that they are creating order rather than disorder with those laws. It's easy to tell which one came first: order or chaos. Shuffle a deck of cards. If they come out in bridge order, then time is moving backwards and chaos creates order. Indeed, as time progresses, order ''loses'' to chaos. Chaos is the absence of order, not the other way around.



Not all lies are in the same grouping. If a lie can stop a murder from occurring, then that lie must've been a little closer to ''virtuous'' than other lies, based on the intentions of the liar and the consequences of that lie. The person who told the lie had greater things in mind than simply preserving truth at any cost; a valiant undertaking, but there are, at times, more important things. Our version of truth is not all encompassing of everything that truth is, so, to sacrifice the other virtues so that our own distorted version of truth might be kept unbroken, will not create ''good.''


This also means that the virtues, as we know them, can't be trusted as 100% pure. But it still stands that they're much better than their respective ''voids.''

Now this is the California I came back for

He was totally oblivious to me until I whistled to get his attention.




A sea anemone! They try to grab you if you touch 'em! (yeah, it's actually their poison/stinging cells that shoot into your flesh, but it's on such a small scale that it feels like it's just really ''grippy.'')

This all used to be under water back in the summer.

At least the fires made some vivid sunsets.

The water was lavender. Wow.

Negativity

Negative emotions. I've had beef with them for a long time. I think I have a little more insight on them now. This is a work in progress.

Since it's in the blog lately, I'll use ''No on Prop 8'' protesters as an example. Specifically, those who shout obscenities, make obscene gestures, throw things, and generally be violent, rude, and disrespectful. They try to fight back against hate with even more hate.

Now, rather than just being wronged, and being beaten that way, they have turned around and surrendered themselves to the guidance of the very mindset of hate that defeated them in the first place. They enslave themselves to it, accomplishing the goals of hate, and being completely ruined.

Hate has never defeated hate because hate is just a void of love. If you add a big hole in the ground to another big hole in the ground, they don't cancel each other out. They make a hole bigger than either of the first two.

It's not only ''not worth it'' to hate a person, it's counterproductive, self-destructive, crippling of free-will, hypocritical, since we hate their actions, and yet we let hate drive us to retaliation....the only thing worth hating is hate itself; but even that can't be carried out with hate. Hate must simply cease to exist if it is ever to be stopped. Love fills the void that hate is. It displaces hate into nonexistence.

There are principles to order and truth, yet none to disorder and lies. Order and truth hold information, patterns, and evidence of design.

Voids (chaos, lies, disorder, hate) are easy to define. There is no pattern, information, or design in chaos, for example. There is simply nothing there; it is a void. In that respect, hate is no different.

Virtues (love, truth, order) are harder (or impossible) to define, just like many who struggle with questions like ''what is love?'' and ''what is truth?'' with much time spent scratching the surface of these questions.

Anger can never stop anger. Fear will never stop itself in its own tracks.

Nevertheless, be true to yourself. You can't do right to deny what you're feeling, but you do have the ability to define what you feel. Align yourself with virtues, and don't let an unguarded thought infect your mind with a void. If you do, it will cause your thoughts to reproduce more copies of itself, and they can take over, just like a virus.

Proposition 8: restores hetero-marriage--and religious oppression

The real dilemma with Prop 8 comes from this fact: We don't live in a Christian nation. It's true that many people SAY so, but really, we don't.

There were a lot of Christians in the beginning, but this nation was not even founded on Christian beliefs, no matter what anyone says. This whole idea of ''America,'' ''Land of the Free, Home of the Brave,'' ''USA'' and whatnot, was only ever conceived in the first place to ESCAPE RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION. Freedom from religious oppression.

Half the signers of the delcaration of independence were deists and/or masons/freemasons. same thing as those who signed the constitution. (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html, http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/mashist.htm, http://deism4u2xplore.tribe.net/thread/03ef5d80-932c-436a-a3fb-eecf70645e62)

What will happen with Prop 8 is this nation, designed to be ''religiously impartial,'' will be offering special rights to a certain religious group, and not to another. There are rights that only married ( http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/wedding/f/MarriageBenefit.htm ) couples share.''Freedom from religious oppression....just as long as you're Christian'' is what Prop 8 really stands for. If it were really after sanctity of marriage, why would it only attack gays? Why not the divoce rate, as well? Why not those drive-thru wedding places in Vegas?

--Hold on...I'm about to rant, and it won't be pretty--

Just because God rained down fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, doesn't mean that you should try to emulate his actions. Let me ask you a question...that ''great commission thing'' where you're supposed to go into all the world and convert it to christianity...how's that going for you? When you told the gays they were going to hell for their evil lifestyle, did that win anyone over? Then why the hell would you get a different response when you try to make a LAW against gay marriage? Does that ''great commission'' tell you to go and make laws, or does it tell you to make converts? You're really bad at this.

You know what you're showing the rest of the world with Prop 8? You're showing them a person who will fight TOOTH AND NAIL for something that doesn't affect ANYone else. Why not attack smoking? Make that illegal. That destroys the temple of the holy spirit, and second-hand smoke is deadly! Why not put a tougher punishment on drunk driving? See, those things actually kill people. Gay marriage? Not a chance. And what's more sacred, marriage, or life itself? Let's face it: Love your neighbour: FAIL

So I went to Crystal Cove today...

Note: some of these pictures are huge.

Pictures galore!

This is the kind of beauty one gets accustomed to in Dana Point.

I wrapped it up with a big bang here; this one's not scaled down from the original size. Click it and pick your favourite part! :-D

It's my new car!

Awww he waited for me!

Just a block or so north of 17th street and PCH; look over to the far right and you can see Ruby's on the Pier.

To the persecuted carni/omnivores:

I apologise for being so confusing in my previous post. I will clarify with a more organised version:

Given:
X.) As we live on earth, we must eat to survive.
Y.) Anything we eat must die.

Scenario # 1: ''Hierarchy''
ALL lives are valued differently, and some lives are more valuable than others.

What we can conclude:
A.) Cows deserve to live more than plants.
B.) Humans deserve to live more than cows.
1.) Wait, how did I arrive at Conclusion B?! The same way anyone arrived at the conclusion it was less evil to eat plants than cows.
C.) It is not wrong for humans to kill cows for food.
D.) It it less wrong for humans to kill plants for food.

IF Scenario # 1 is wrong to say that some things deserve life over others (Human > cow > soy ), then everything has the same right to live as everything else (human = cow = soy).

Scenario # 2: ''Pervasive Equality''
ALL lives are valued equally and have an equal right to life.

What we can conclude:
A.) It is just as bad to kill a cow or plant for food as it would be to kill a person for food.
B.) Humans still must kill in order to eat.
C.) Rather than killing humans; cows and plants are killed, incurring the same guilt nonetheless.
1.) if you have killed a carrot by eating it, you may as well have killed a cow or a person.
D.) In this scenario, killing a cow or killing a plant deserves no condemation, since all must kill to eat, so all are equally guilty.
1.) if you farm cows for food, you ARE killing more plants than those who eat strictly plants; however, ALL are murderers in the gravest degree.
a.) Mathematically speaking, the cow farmer has caused more death, but how many times must one kill before he is considered a murderer?


Conclusion:
Scenario # 1.: Eating animals is okay. Eating plants is ''more okay.'' Neither action is bad. Eating humans is the most evil thing to eat.

Scenario # 2.: Eating animals is terrible. Eating plants is terrible. In order to survive, we must do terrible things. Eating humans is just as bad as eating anything else. Just...please, don't eat humans, okay?

What cannot be is (human = cow > soy) Either there is total Pervasive Equality, or there is a hierarchy. If some lives are equal to humans, and other lives are not, who gets to make such an arbitrary judgement which determines the morality of everyone else's food?

*here's the reason this post was originally written*
Those who still eat meat are made to feel guilty (by SOME vegetarians/vegans, not all) by means of the ''Pervasive Equality'' idea. If Pervasive Equality is true, then everyone who lives is a murderer, and to point a blood-stained finger and shout through dripping red teeth at your brother or sister they are a murderer is more evil than necessary.
*that was the reason this post was originally written---^*

For the record, I identify with the ''Hierarchy'' idea. I addressed ''Pervasive Equality'' to show, in its entirety, the reasoning being used to condemn omnivores/carnivores for eating animals when, according to some, there is more equality across different life forms than others are aware of.

For example, let's say you draw the line at cows, and say it's wrong to eat cows. That's fine for you, but to push that guilt system on someone who loves hamburger is wrong. You have drawn the line, but what about that other person? What if THEY want to draw a line? Doesn't it matter what they say, every bit as much as what you say? Who wins? Either: (Scenario#1).: lines can be drawn by everyone, or (Scenario#2).: no lines can ever be drawn; otherwise it just gets tainted by one person's personal arbitration. This means that ''Pervasive Equality'' is the only other viable scenario to the ''Hierarchy'' idea (i.e.: ''If they're not all unequal, then they are all equal.'')

This is different from your own personal code of ethics. I won't touch that. This is talking about the institution of a policy on all people (something I wouldn't attempt, but it seems others are more bold than I am.) in Scenario # 1, it's not wrong to eat cows. Stop putting guilt trips on me. In Scenario # 2, how can you condemn me while the blood is still fresh on your hands?

Also, please don't ask me to defend ''Pervasive Equality'' (questions/statements such as ''why don't we eat humans, then?'' and ''well, your cow farms kill more plants than we do.''). It's not my stance. I know that cow farms cause the death of countless plants. I don't care about plants that cows eat. You (though not ALL of you) wanted to condemn me based on ''Pervasive Equality,'' why are you asking me to defend your own position?

Cali Pics

Click the pics for larger versions :-)

My first night in California, Miss Ortal took me to Moonshine, an adorable restaurant in Malibu, just off the Pacific Coast Highway. It was perfect. Good food, fresh ocean air... :-)

A few days later, Miss Joni and I met up at In 'n Out and fed the little birdies our leftover french fries :-) awwww look at 'im! :-)

Then we went to huntington beach, where we first met :-)

I wrote in the sand and took a picture of what I wrote, because that's how I roll.

And here's California, being photogenic, again ;-)

Then today, I was driving around and found this place near Camino Estrella and Camino Capistrano, in Dana Point. That's a good view of Dana Harbour in the distance.

High tide of the same scene I took pictures of about a year and 5 months ago.

Look at all those pelicans hangin' out on that rock... pelicanning.

That's right between the pelican rock and the big rock. See in the distance, there would be a walking trail to go around to the cave, but it's allllll under water! So, I went to the jetty.

This is about halfway on the jetty, looking south.

Same picture, with the moon at the top :-)

Hey man, you should watch where you're walking. I bet that rock's slippery.

Oh, hey guys! I mean...gulls ;-)

This one gallie said...

Warning! Warning! Rant in... 3... 2... 1...I'm sick to death of listening to people talk about how much they love animals and care about the environment, how much they want to save the world...PUT DOWN YOUR STEAK! If you loved animals and the environment so much, you wouldn't be eating animals and thusly killing it. There are so many facts and figures I could throw at you, but instead I'll repost something from this...

"#6, is a first time mother. She is frantic. Her baby is missing. She is pacing desperately up and down the paddock, bellowing and crying, and calling for her lost boy, fearing the worst, having her fears confirmed. She is one of the thousands of defenseless females born into a quaint, verdant, organic dairy farm. She will spend her entire short life grieving the loss of baby after baby. She will be milked relentlessly through repeated cycles of pregnancies and bereavements. Her only experience of motherhood will be that of a mother's worst loss. In the prime of her life, her body will give, her spirit will break, her milk 'production' will decline, and she will be sent to a horrifying slaughter, along with other grieving, defeated, 'spent' mothers like herself.

She is the face of organic milk.

"You cannot care about animals or the environment THAT MUCH as long as you go on consuming them and their bi-products.


So I said:

Dear _________, you had to know you'd get some people riled up with a post like this. I love ranting like this, though, so I can't say much about that.

I will say this, though: soy is still murder. It's just that soy doesn't scream when you kill it, so those who kill it don't feel so guilty.

We're a part of the earth, so eating other things on earth will happen.

Suppose eating soy is decidedly not as bad as killing cows. Fine. In that case, some lives are more valuable than others.

1. Is a human life, then, more valuable than that of a cow?
2. If so, then why is it less important that humans to live and be happy than it is for cows?

However, if a cow's life is significant to such a degree that humans ought not eat cows, then all life, likewise, shares that same pervasive significance; even though one must still eat living matter to survive.

1. In that case, it is the same sin to eat soy as it is to eat cows, and we might as well eat cows if we're going to ''mercilessly slaughter'' countless soy plants.
2. It would be better to kill just a few cows, so that less lives will be snuffed out.

either way, using cows for food is not as evil as you make it out to be.

you're as ________ as you think you are

having things and being happy are two different things.

1.) it can be right in front of you, everything you wanted, but if you're not convinced in your own heart/mind that you are happy, you will be miserable.

2.) on the other hand, you can have what some would consider a ''shit life'' but can be convinced that you are truly happy in it.

a person is rich in proportion to the things he is willing to live without.

100% of people who live will die. the things that make you cry the happy tears on your deathbed can't be bought with money.

And really, the ''things'' that make you cry happy tears on your deathbed aren't ''things'' at all. they're ideas.

happiness, or more accurately, your state of mind, has effects on the physical world, not the other way around.

That which you imagine, feeling its end, will bring itself about. your imagination is creative. it creates what you live: happy or sad.

disagree? well it sure isn't gold that makes you happy ;-) it isn't a bunch of ppl who make you happy either. you know you can be surrounded by lots of friends, and yet feel all alone.

you also know you can talk to just one really good friend, and they don't say a word, and you feel better. what has that good friend done to make you feel better? nothing. absolutely nothing. the ''healing'' took place in your mind, in your perception of your friend. it all depended on what you were convinced of.

you are convinced of the truths that govern your life, and that is the only thing that makes them true. yes, the line is drawn in some places; proving that there is an absolute truth** that keeps everything within certain boundaries. but as far as having a happy and successful life are concerned, it's what you imagine, feeling its accomplishment, that shows itself on the screen of your ''life movie.''




** Note: absolute truth has been dealt with in the previous entry ''perception is delusion.''

you'll never get the patent for this idea...

brake lights that extend all the way across the back of the vehicle, and the harder the brake pedal is pressed, the more of them light up. THAT way, you can tell how hard the person in front of you is braking, so you can either avoid being in a pile-up, or tell if the person in front of you is just riding his brake down the hill.


And while we're at it, let's add a similar apparatus to the dash, so the driver can tell if he or she is braking harder than normal because let's face it...some people brake extrememly hard: they wait till there's 15 feet of stopping distance to go from 50 mph to''0.''


and don't give me that ''oh, that's a worthless invention.'' The WHEEL SENSOR was a worthless invention. just check your air monthly like you're supposed to, right? All it does is cost ABSURD amounts of money, be complicated, be easily broken, slow down the tire changing process, and my idea would actually be used all the time to save lives and improve the flow of traffic...make it not so much of a stressful thing, too.

Awww look at little Plantie! he thinks it's springtime. Aww :-)

And here is Little Sprout. i know the seed came from plantie, i'm positive. maybe it was the milkman... i don't even have a milk man, so i should have suspected something when he showed up that one day...

don't worry, i'm going to find out very soon what kind of plant Little Sprout is...he's actually starting to form bark already, and he's got a few flowers starting. he's only a few months old!