Forums » Writing Workshop » Read Thread

Hey, I've got this thing due tomorrow.  Can you guys help me grammar/coherence check and whatnot?  It'd be a huge help.  Thanks. :D   

     Reluctance to make sense seems to have really caught on with people today.  Often a time, I've found myself in a debate or argument that ends up just not being worth my time.  Just recently, I had a debate about gay marriage, and one thing lead to another, making me have to sit there and thoroughly explain each and every one of my opponents' faults.  They stated their reasons and when I questioned them about how ethical they were being, they restated them.  I was confused - I had not asked them to repeat themselves - though, in order to make it more clear to me what was being said, I asked them to tell my why those points were important.  Again, they persisted with their personal beliefs as a reason for a man and another man not to get married.  Then, I questioned the stability of their beliefs - Did they, like logic and reason, apply to all?  They were baffled at the thought that one could believe in a Christian God and still support gay marriage.  After some repetitive arguments, I came to realize that their only reason for supporting this oppressive proposition was that they believed it to be the Christian thing to do and found no wrong with intervening in other's lives, even if their beliefs did not match all others.  After much time spent, neither them nor I came to any sort of agreement; on the contrary, they left angry at the fact that I remained unmoved, even though they were the ones without logical reason the entire time.  In fact, we ended our discussion because they did not want to hear what I had to say, and when I did make a counterpoint to their argument, they totally neglected it.  It truly is hard to explain to someone why they are faulty, as they often don't want to hear it.  People must first have a firm grasp of all aspects of a subject before they enter a debate.
     I've looked into they way people debate extensively and wish for you all to do the same.  In my studies, I've also found that when one asks a difficult question, it's often neglected.  This is a sign of H.R.Clinton Syndrome, a severely mind crippling disease that makes the victim act as though they have a grasp of the matter, when in reality, they've no clue.  One could think of this heinous disease as a sort of necrosis of the mind, as it unnaturally kills the brain cells, and is caused by the lack of intelligent influence.  Three out of four people today suffer from this, and it seems to appear most often in public forums.  There is, however, a cure - if we can all, as a people, open our minds to new concepts instead of shutting out the things we don't necessarily like or understand, there is hope.  H.R.Clinton Syndrome is a "fictional" disorder, but it's distressing just the same. 
    Sometimes, one has believed a certain thing for so long that they don't question it.  That isn't how we're to make decisions in our lives - we can't just believe something without understanding it even the slightest bit.  You must first take a step beyond "that’s that," and think about what "that" actually is.  Afterward, apply it to life and see if it, in your opinion, should be.  Then, if any opposition to your position is found, which it always will be, instead of sweeping it under the rug, you must pursue that and uncover all of the truth you can.  When you do that, you learn to debate with your actual knowledge, instead of just what’s been told to you.  If, in the end, you changed your opinion, it doesn’t mean that you lost, it means that you’ve gained knowledge.  If ever you argue that same debate, you’ll have both view points and will present a better argument.  Not only that, but your new position will be that much stronger.  If your opposition has a change of opinion, then you can rest assured that you know what you're talking about and why.  The way you apply your knowledge is the only you can show your understanding of a subject.
    In the end, I hope to influence others to look at this manner of thinking, compare it to their own, and repeat the aforementioned process.  It can never fail, as if one should find fault with it, paradoxically speaking, they would have had to have taken and applied this process in order to come up with their conclusion, as they’d have to apply what’s told to them and compare it to what they already know.  So, unless my logic here is flawed somehow, I encourage all to take this into account.  I'm tired of the same old arguments, and I swear, if this happens to me again, I'm going to write an editorial about how mad it makes me.

Seems I posted this one minute too early...

Nice editorial, it just about sums up the way I feel about fundamentalists. And racists. And teachers. And Twilight readers.

Hahah... Twilight readers. 

Thanks.  I added a paragraph and turned it in today.  Hopefully I'll get a fair grade.

My teacher said that she's turning them all in to the school newspaper lady, and that one of them will get published.  Though, haha, I highly doubt that this would get on there.  You wouldn't believe the common stereotypical crap that is put into our paper.

lol JJJ

You pretty much nailed it up the butt, Zero. Although you would go insane if you tried to convert people to making-sense-ism over XBox LIVE. Or worse, the pre-pubescent fucktards that infest LIVE. It's funny, but mostly depressing.

And another thing about gay marriage; I actually had a debate about it in school during classtime. It was an activity that we did where one side of the class was for a subject, the other side of the class against. The topic was gay marriage (which received giggles from the less-mature demographic of our class, which I rolled my eyes with disgust at) and I was for it.

I soon found myself running the team and the enemy. I would respond to and defeat every argument that the enemy posed. I suppose it wasn't fair because I have developed my stance on gay marriage over the course of some time, while my enemies had really just started contemplating it.

Anyway, the gist of the debate was me pwning bitches, and the enemy team spewing lame reasons and retorts and then repeating the aforementioned idiocy.

It was fun as hell. Although I hear hell isn't that fun, so maybe fun as Heaven. Or perhaps gay buttsex, but I'll never know.

for someone who bitches that i got my nose in everything, you sure like dragging my ass into it to get me there. (go ahead anubis, make a gay ass joke. i know you want to.)

nate

Hey, what if I want to make a gay joke?!  Would you delete mine, and not Anubis's, because I'm not gay?  What the hell, man!?

:p

i havent deleted recent gay jokes. one set, let on the christmas list thread was simply moved. so far, the rest has been fairly sparingly, thus going along with rule 3. however, as for my invite to anubis, too bad! :P''' lol

nate

Fleshy, you do realized you're in the process of giving me permission to make you my bitch, right?

no, i didnt realize you took it that way lol the original 'invite' had to do with you making an ass joke.

nate

I was actually joking... I said that you would delete my gay joke because I'm not gay.  And implied that you'd leave Anubis's up because he is gay.

aye... So many problems in the world because people use their (unfalsifiable!) beliefs as the bedrock of their "reasoning". Theologians like that have a lot to answer for...

so, everything must be scientifically reasoned rommy? so much for philosophy and religious beliefs

nate

Religious, yes. philosophy, no. Philosophy is open to new, challenging ideas and can shift the foundation of it's reasoning. What we are doing now is in fact philosophy. But when you have proven the cause of something scientifically, it carries greater weight, because the results can be reproduced and are evident in reality, not just thought or belief. Science is just proven philosophy.

My main annoyances in this area are creationists and those who hate violent or explicit video games, role playing games, movies and comics (but strangely enough, not novels or news), because they believe without proof that they cause harm.

Zero, I got your joke. I lol'd and said to myself, "Zero you son of bitch, you!"

Fleshy, I know it's a joke. I made my own joke right after that. Do I really need to put "lol" after everything I say or can I leave it up to you to lighten up?

Rommel, very true. I get so pissed when anti-Video game people say "Well, there's this study that video games increase violence." WHAT THE HELL?! What's that supposed to mean? Who are the subjects, which games, what time variables, who conducted it, has it been scewed or exaggerated, are you just bullshitting the Fox audience, what the fuck is your problem!?!!??!

Aaahhhhh. I need to go chainsaw someone to death. IN GEARS, btw.

Wow.  This is an amazing discussion!  Great editorial!  I may not agree with your stances on gay marriage, etc., but that's not the point.  The point is that people believe things without a clue as to why, avoid the tough questions instead of confronting them, and... well, you know what I'm saying.

The essential problem I have with what Rommel said about science is that science, like philosophy and religion and all human reasoning for that matter, is subject to perspective.  It's great to reason things out and examine things scientifically, but a perfectly reasoned or scientific argument can always still be false due to incorrect information taken into effect.  It's like an algebra problem in which you follow every step correctly and reach a valid answer only to realize that you transcribed the problem incorrectly to begin with.

I spent several months of my life struggling with questions about faith and reason and all that (shortly after Sir Lancegalawain's disappearance, by the way) and discovered that, as it turns out, they go hand in hand.  I challenged and questioned everything I believed, I confronted the problem instead of avoiding it, and I came to conclusions.  Some of them supported what I had believed before, some things were totally different.

As for creationism, I don't purport to be able to give an exhaustive and scientific account of how everything came to be (and if anyone here can, I implore you, come forward now), but everything I've seen tells me that every effect has some kind of cause.  You can take that back as far as you want.  X caused Y, W caused X, etc., but ultimately, there had to have been something to set the whole thing in motion, and that's kind of why I find "scientific" explanations of the origin of the universe a little farfetched.  But I'm totally open to discussion.

Thanks. :)

Something I thought of while reading your post...

Like you said, everything is subject to perspective and these sciences are performed by people, who are imperfect.  It's said that the human is the only being intelligent enough to study itself - or rather, it's only brain.  Well, what makes us so sure that we're even getting accurate results?  These machines and procedures are all made and conducted by humans, therefore, they must have our human errors along with them. 

How can a person possibly know how we came to be?  How can we even being to conceive such a phenomenon?  There are many things in this life that we're unsure of, but really... our creation?  As my Biology teacher said last year, "I don't know what causes a hiccup.  To be honest, no one does.  You can check the internet and all sorts of other sources - there are so many theories, it's not even funny."  After hearing that, I thought, "Ok, so we can theorize about the 'big bang' or things of the like, and teach it in schools, but when it comes to hiccups, it's 'just' a theory."

That I found to be  little strange, but regardless.  I don't think that people can possibly know what it was like in the beginning, and even if we did have some "scientific evidence," it would undoubtedly contain human error as well.

When it comes to theology, it's just that.  It's also theories or beliefs people have, but because we associate great things that happen in our lives with these beliefs, they become much more than just theories to many.  Much like a scientific theory, when you find more evidence, you begin to believe it more and more.  Just because we're imperfect, doesn't mean we're wrong, but that there's always room for mistakes.  If we begin closing doors to things that contradict what we believe (science, theology, or whatever), then we're truely in the wrong, because we're refusing to better our understanding of things, which is the whole point of having theories in the first place.

You are correct there, badly reasoned or "junk" science is perhaps even worse, because it masquerades as the most pursuasive and concrete reasoning, but is in fact just people searching for "evidence" that fits what they want to hear, for example, Exxon Mobile's studies on climate change. But that's what peer review is for. If it can't be duplicated, it cannot be accepted as proof. Even when it is, it can be disproved later on by the same process. The key difference between philosophy and science is proof, and when something is backed up by evidence tested multiple times, that argument must carry more weight.

Creationism... When you talk of that you are not talking of the creation of the universe and everything as we know it. Creationism purports the formation of the planet Earth, and all the inhabitants, took seven days, and can be attributed to a 'designer'. This is recent enough for scientific research, and the fossil record, carbon dating, astronomy and the laws of physics cannot be reconciled with the earth being created in seven days. Creationists mainly attack evolution because it is the least secure of all the challenges it faces. But they do little to answer questions about the viability of their own "theories" because their reasoning, at it's core, is that the book of genesis is an accurate historical account. This is a book, written by people thousands of years ago, translated many times (possibly with errors), and deeply immersed in poetry. So what do people choose? In fact, in the US people want to get it taught in schools. Science classes, no less.

Lol, well, I understand your anger, and I'm not making any suggestions or comments as to what ought to be taught in public schools' science classes, because, frankly, it's not a subject I know enough about to say anything about either way.  And yes, there are people here in the U.S., especially the midwestern region that I call home, who want a literal account of the first chapter of Genesis to be taught in science classes, but for the most part, at least with the Christians I know, it's a non-issue.  What I'm talking about is quite different.  Motion.

It's pretty darn obvious that many things in our world are in motion.  And nothing can be in motion unless it is first in potency (the potential ability) to motion.  Motion is the reduction of potency to action.  But nothing can be brought from potency to action unless acted on by something already in action.

Something could be in action in one way and in potency in another (like something could be actually hot but potentially cold) but nothing can be both in action and potency in the same way at the same time (nothing could be both actually hot and potentially hot at the same time).  Since it takes a force already in action to bring another force from potency to action and nothing can be both in potency and in action at the same time, it follows that nothing can move itself from potency to act, thus that everything that is going to be moved has to be moved by something else.  But that something couldn't've brought itself into action either, by the same principle, so something must have brough it from potency to action, and whatever brought that something to action must have been brought to action by something else, etc., etc., etc.

But that cycle couldn't go on forever into the past, because then there would be no initial force, already in action, to bring to action the first thing in potency.  And if there were no first mover, then nothing else could have been set in action.  In order for there to be any motion in the universe, it seems to me that there would need to be a first mover, something that wasn't set in motion by anything else.  And that's what I understand to be the God of the Abrahamic religions, although we definitely haven't got so far as to even begin to equate the idea I just presented with any kind of established faith.  And come to think of it, this is one of those places reason and faith go hand in hand, because my reason arrives at the conclusion that some initial being must have been in action from eternity, and then faith steps in with an exposition of what that being is.  But then of course you can accept that explanation or reject it, but the first conclusion doesn't disappear.

Well, I've rambled quite long enough, so there's my piece, with apologies to Thomas Aquinas.

Are you talking about entropy?

At the start, the universe was filled with the simplest particles, but not spread evenly (the inexplicable starting point)

Heat diffuses out

Simple things mix into complex ones

In effort to make things simpler (by using a centrifuge) you are wasting energy and therefore making things more complex

Eventually, you get the most complex scenario where all the hydrogen has been converted to heavy elements, the stars die and the universe becomes totally inert (the heat death)

Yes, no-one can explain why the universe started this way, because to start, it must at one point have not existed, and no-one can go further into the past than the point of non-existence.

I have no problem with that, I just find it easier to try explain and understand the here and now.

Religion is so ridiculous. Sorry Road, but I can't stand organized religion.  Anyone who claims that the world was "constructed" by an architecht in seven days and then when challenged provides absolutely no evidence except: "you must have faith." Is off their knocker.  Show me on concrete piece of evidence to support creationalism.  If I wrote a book and said it was written by God, would it be taken as proof of whatever is written within it?

What I'm trying to say is that if you have absolutely no evidence for something, there is actual evidence against it (see carbon dating) and all you can point to is a book (see Rommel's comments on this book), how can you possibly claim it as truth?  It's simply propostorous.

Let's take this one step further.  Look at who stands to benefit from a religion.  Those in power make OBSCENE amounts of money.  The Catholic church makes more money than almost any businesses (if not any businesses) and pays no tax at all.  A religion is a money-grabber and a power-grabber. Face it. What do you think the purpose of the crusades was? Did all those people deserve to die?

It's often used as a tool to control the population. "Don't do this or you'll go to hell."  LOL!  It was really useful with medieval serfs.  Don't commit suicide, keep working for us, if you commit suicide then you'll give up for eternal souls afterlife.

Let's look at the basis for religion here.

A man in the sky watches every single persons movements and thoughts, awarding sin for whatever. If you do anything he doesn't like, he puts you in a terrible place called hell.  He also needs your money and your uncoditional support.  You must be blessed from birth to dispel your original sin.  So you're made in his image, but you're made with sin. Ridiculous. HOWEVER, he LOVES YOU.  L-O-L

and tolerance and understanding go zipping right out the window....

*sitting in awe at how fast it goes*

nate

(3j, you forgot predestination, too.)

Question: If God is all-powerful and all-loving, then why is there a hell?

Answer: People choose to go to hell.  They have sinful natures that lead them away from God.

Question:  But he's all-loving. 

Answer:  Well, that's what Jesus is for.

Question: but if he died for everyone's sins, why don't we all go to heaven?

Answer: You still have to accept him as your Lord.

Question: Shouldn't he love me anyway?

Answer: He does.  It's your fault for not accepting his love.

Question: If he's all powerful, why does he allow me to disbelieve?  Why can't he make everyone believe and be saved?

Answer: Free will.  He gave us free will.

Question: If the only freedom we have is the freedom to sin, how is that really free will?

Question: Why is everything I love sinful?  Why would a loving god place me in a situation where in order to be in compliance with his will, I must reject everything I enjoy, everything I love, to be obedient to him?  How can God love me but still demand that I give up myself to serve him? 

Answer: Because that's when you'll really be happy.  Only when you give everything to God will you really know peace.

Question:  Then why do I exist?  If my true purpose in life is to worship the Lord- why would an all-loving father create beings whose sole meaning in life was to give up themselves to serve and worship and adore him?

That's what I can't reconcile.  No matter how hard I try, I can't believe that I am something evil.  I can't believe that I am worthless, given purpose only to serve Christ, and that the true meaning of my life is to deny all that gives me joy in the hope that God's love will somehow make up for the loss of everything I loved.

look up pascal's wager gem. thats it in a nut shell. its not been a useful tool for me when discussing religion though.

nate

Because really, if God is all-knowing, he has to know you took your best bet, right?  I suppose we could argue this but- belief is not something controlled by the conscious mind.  I can say "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in ghosts," but that doesn't make it true "in my heart" as it were.   I can even say "I will do my best to live my life according to what I think God wants," and still not believe.

Sorry, Zero, this doesn't help you very much.

Also, any and all Christians/Muslims please don't think I'm hating you personally or calling you stupid.  These are just my opinions, and of course I could be wrong.

IMO, it's a system to enforce laws. Integrate such a belief into someone's mind and it will serve as a "moral compass" for the rest of their lives. Pretty much all cultures do this, but sometimes you get really nasty results. On the plus side, you can get tolerance for human life, compassion and respect for other humans, but also fear, superiority, intolerance, and "Divine right".

So religion in practice can either have beneficial or harmful effects. Some are just a gathering of people. Others are money spinners. Still others are recruitment centres for suicide bombers.

The amount of contradiction between the branches of christianity and islam is staggering, because a holy book thousands of years old that has been translated through many languages can be interpreted in a myriad of different ways.

Also, people who claim to have a connection with a divine power can make their followers believe anything they want. Role-playing games are evil, etc...

I don't see how any of this has to do with debating, but ok.  Haha...  It's definitely a debate.

I don't want to get into it really.  This is the debate that truely never ends... There will always be religion and those who oppose it.  It's like abortion - I say "who gives a shit?  Let 'em do what they want.  I don't know them."  Although, there will always be those who oppose it and whatnot.  Doesn't mean that I like it, but that's how it is...

Ok, I know I'm about to branch off and "Anubis out" here, so I'll just stop.  Finals.  Study.  Study.  Study.