Being and Stay Single

Being single is not easy for anybody's social life. You know the routine, friends, relatives, even close families often think that they have the right to order every single people. Like usual, the order is ALWAYS masquerade as questions like "Where is your girl/boyfriend?" or "When will you marry?". You know, questions that were asked in passive-aggressive tone. Most single people will just shut their mouth even though they are pissed by those orders. Not me. I already prepared an elaborate answer that shut the hell up of everyone who dare to give me those "perfectly camouflaged" order.

Middle Spot

Folks, let me remind you of 2 facts:

1) A good relationship is INFINITELY BETTER than being single.

2) A bad relationship is INFINITELY WORSE than being single.

Society remembers the #1, this is one of the reason they keep nagging, demanding that all single people have to have relationship. At the same time, society know perfectly well but ignore or forget #2. This 2 polar opposite facts bring us to the conclusion:

Being single is located IN THE MIDDLE of the happiness curve.

And, what is so bad about being in the middle? I heard "everything have to be in moderation" is today's mantra for happiness? That is not all. This sweet spot in the middle is even sweeter than you thought! Usually that is enough to deter those pesky friends & families, but in case they still insist ...

Calmness is good

There is also the problem that arise from the dynamic nature of a relationship. Some relationship can turn from good to bad in a second. And, it is not only the "bad relationship" that hurts, the downward movement from good to bad is EVEN WORSE! Just ask people who have been through divorce. So, people who stay single by intent, avoid all those dramas. They consciously choose to live in the calmness of the middle spot, without any movement anywhere for awhile. That calmness actually enhances the happiness! The only thing that can disturb that calmness, that sea of tranquility, is the pesky-nagging friends and relatives. 

It is not that all single people must stay single, to defend the "calmness" forever. Single people can also decide to take a risk, and seek for "mr/mrs right" and finally have a good relationship. But it is THEIR decision when and how to do it, not their friends, not their family. And let's speak about family.

Family

Oh, you are their family so you think you have the right to covertly order them? You LOVE to give them a lot of "between the lines" to be read by anyone in your family that is still single? Let me ask you this question philosophical question: 

IS IT YOUR LIFE OR THEIR LIFE?! 

Ordering anyone to have romantic relationship is easy. Making any relationship works isn't. Unfortunately, those people who give the order are not the one who suffer once the relationship gone sour. Who do you think will receive the shits when they are forced to date or, heaven's forbid, marry someone they don't like only because of social pressure? Not you, not their family, it is THEY WHO SUFFER. 

A sensible strategy

Found this quote from Niall Horan shortly before I finished this
article..He got it right.

What? You said I am too pessimistic? I don't count the potential rewards of a good relationship? Screw that, society already screaming about those rewards ad nauseam with bullhorns. It is time to for me to scream back:

"HELLO, 50% of all marriages have ended in DIVORCE! Thinking about a relationship gone sour before it happens is not pessimistic, it is realistic and rational! Any risk manager will agree with me!"

It is the opposite, people who don't calculate that risk, even after being reminded, are the one who is ignorant, or delusional, or both. 

So, stop worrying! Being single and consciously choosing to stay single is actually a sensible risk-management strategy!


Bonus: The Oatmeal already pointed out similar phenomena about having children

Melissa Bachman and Hunting

US TV presenter, Melissa Bachmann posted her hunting photos in South Africa. Then, tons of people are screaming about that. Some in the comment section of any article about that even wish her dead. Thousands sign a petition to ban her from entering South Africa.

First, let me start with a disclaimer: I HATE HUNTING. I am not interested in shooting animals! I never, and will never ever hunt anything to spend my freetime!

How to pay the bill?

At the same time, I know that running a National Park is extremely difficult and expensive! Especially in Africa, where tons of heavily armed poachers roam freely. At the same time, millions live in abject poverty nearby the park. At the same time, local governments there ... okay, no need to say anything about them. That means, a national park in Africa is far more expensive and difficult to run than a national park in a 1st world country. The situation is of course a little bit better in South Africa, but it is definitely far worse in other poorer African countries like Tanzania, Kenya, etc.

That means, national parks in Africa needs to pay more bills. They need to buy, install, and maintain miles of fences. They need to hire, equip, and pay lots of park rangers with guns to deter poachers. In many (or all?) African countries, they can expect less helps from their government. The park needs every single cent they can get! And surprise, surprise, hunters pay thousands of Dollars for the hunt! Thousands of Dollars that can be used to pay their bills! Check this list from South Africa as an example of hunting fees: African Sky

Criticizing Melissa Bachman means deterring the hunters to hunt in general, specifically in Africa. Stopping those hunters from hunting means stopping thousands of Dollars cashflow to the national parks. That will make the conservation far more difficult than today's condition, to say the least.

Overcrowding
Then national parks also have overcrowding problems: too many animals inside the national park.

What? That sounds nuts, how come there are "too many endangered animals"? The problem is, national parks have limited space. Animals, especially big one, needs space to provide food and water for them, to provide roaming area, in general: to support them, that means the limited space of national park can only support limited numbers of animals. Small herbivores like antelope and warthog can be controlled by the carnivores, but what about a top predator like lion? Or enormous herbivore with no predator like elephants? Once they are comfortable (the goal of any national park) they will breed, their numbers will grow exponentially. Too many elephants will devastate the grass and trees, killing small birds and rodents, and start a domino effect on the ecology. Too many lions will devastate the herbivores, starting another domino effect. So, what is the solution?

Relocation -> Moving the surplus animals to other place. It is difficult and expensive. The animals can be stressed and die because of it. Plus, for some animals, there are not enough demand, i.e., no place to be relocated.
Contraception -> Limiting the number of birth. This is another method. It is not as difficult and expensive as relocation, but it only solve the problem in the long run. National parks need immediate solution to solve this problem right now!
The last option is of course killing the surplus animals. If you expect that every killing done by veterinarians, you can also expect that the park receive far more bills. If you expect the ranger to shot the animals, then we return to the initial problem, plus unlike hunters, park rangers don't pay the park for the kills.

That means, license hunting is a solution for overcrowding! Let those hunters kill the extra animals, designated by the park! That means hunting actually solve two problems with one shot!

No wonder the national park defends the hunters. Good!

Conclusion
In the end, it boils down to two options:
1) Stop the hunters, depraving the national park of the fund, and take from them one tool to solve overcrowding problem, therefore endangered the whole park, the whole ecosystem, and killed many animals.
2) Let them hunt and kill some animals, let them pay for what they have done, therefore supporting the park both financially and ecologically.

Yes, that means "animal lovers" have to choose between two evils, but that is just the facts. Life is not always easy, we have to take tough, difficult choice. C'est la vie.

Suggestion

Of course those options are the current option. I have the 3rd option, but this is the hardest one.

Here is my suggestion to "environmentalists" or "animal lovers" who love to equate those hunters with Lucifer: donate thousands of Dollars to replace them BEFORE you scream with a bullhorn. Not only now but routinely like the hunters do. Oh, you need to pay even more as a compensation for any overcrowding. Devising a cheap-humane solution for overcrowding will also be very helpful.

Oh, you can't because you don't have money? You don't know how to solve their problem? Then, SHUT UP, and stop obstructing the conservation! Yes, it is counter-intuitive to say that hunting may save more animals than animal lovers, but that is objectively what happens here since hunters pay the conservation bill, while environmentalists scream to stop them! 

What? You don't like people killing animals for fun? I thought protecting the animals is more important than our ego? The fact stands: those hunters pay for conservation and help them solving the overcrowding problem while the animal lovers work hard with love to stop the hunters! Hey, I got news for you: love alone doesn't pay the national park bills! Love alone doesn't solve the overcrowding problem! So sorry to point this out, so sorry to prove objectively that your hated "animal killers" actually help more than you do, but painful truth is far more useful than comfortable falsehood.

By the way, I am not surprised with this nonsense. Private ranches in Texas are the only hope for scimitar-horned-oryx survival. They got their money from the hunting licenses there. Guess what,they experienced this bullcrap. What can be a win-win condition between survival of a magnificent species and hunters is ruined by some holier-than-thou treehuggers. 


Last words, I think this quote is fitting to close this writing:
"The truth will set you free ... but first, it will make you miserable!"

Other article:
Elephant overcrowding problem
Lion overcrowding problem

Scientists, Artists, Heaven, and Hell

"The greatest joy in Heaven is in watching the torments of the damned in Hell--a spectacle far more pleasing than any upon earth."
-- Tertullian in De Spectaculis

Yahweh is pissed. Many scientists are atheists who reject His existence. On the other spectrum, many artists also rejected religion and some even blasphemed His name because of their free-spirit and "everything for art" mentality. He decided to send them all to hell.

After some time, He noticed that more and more people are eager to go to hell. Many who have the right to go to heaven even rejected it, and chose Hell. He decided to pay Satan a visit, and what He saw appalled Him.

Hell became a very beautiful place. Full with music, marbles, fountains, etc. People in hell partying all the time. All kind of parties in different palaces or outdoor settings. Discos, eating buffet, LAN-party, etc. Only very few were tortured in some dungeon, and ... they keep asking for more torture, not asking for mercy. Furious, He approached Satan, and this dialog started:

Yahweh: What the hell is this?

Satan: DUH, yes this is Hell, should I explain the obvious?

Yahweh: This doesn't look like Hell.

Satan: Oh, you don't like this "Workplace improvement"? This is all thanks to thou! 

Yahweh: Me?

Satan: Indeed, so let me say these words that I previously thought impossible for me to utter: thank you God for giving me such blessing!

Yahweh: What trickery did you do?!

Satan: No, no, not trickery. I never initiated it. It was you who created it, indirectly. Remember when you send all those nerds with thick glasses here? When they arrived they instantly spot it: this unquenchable fire is a source for infinite energy! After millions of experiments and thinkering, they figured how to isolate the heat and harness it. Yes, there are some mechanical failures here and there, but usually we are fine.  After those geeky nerds invented and maintains this technical wonder, those hippies started to do their magic. That's why we have all this beautiful fountains, musics, and so on! Thanks a lot dude! Without those nerds and hippies, I won't enjoy this job like now!

Yahweh: THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE! Now people are eager to go to Hell!!

Satan: Dude, do you remember our previous arrangement? You complained that so many assholes did good only because their fear of hell, and love of heaven. What a bunch of hypocrites you got there! Now that is no longer the case, from now on only your hardcore fans go to heaven! Hey, you got quality over quantity dude, why the complain? Think positive! Just embrace it and be grateful!

Yahweh: This is wrong on so many level! Hell is for infinite torture, heaven is for infinite reward! You and those nerds and hippies are acting way out of place!
Satan: Dude, chill down! Nobody here bothering you or your heaven when we enjoy our parties. Our world here is sound-proof! What's the big deal?
Yahweh: Are you kidding? The fact that they are neither tortured nor miserable bothered me and many pious followers of mine!
Satan: Woa, woa, so ... our misery is essential for the happiness of heaven?  Let me get this straight, you are against this because you want to torture people in billions infinitely and see them suffer?

Yahweh: That's the entire point of Hell! Do you think I create this to make a Disneyland? Everyone know that! How dare you NOT to torture those people!

Satan: Dude, I am a sadistic bastard who love to see people suffer, but I am also a selfish bastard. Look, if I still torture them after they provide such upgrade for my office, everything will falling down. I am sneaky as a snake, but not an omni-scient being who can maintain this wonder indefinitely. Those nerds ... they are nasty human, you know that right? They will figure it out how to screw my if I screw them first. 
That's why my selfishness trumped my sadism, that's why I let them enjoy their eternity here in good atmosphere, as long as I can enjoy it too. Relax, there are so many things to enjoy in this universe! Like ... torturing those masochist! You have to see them dude, they ASKED to be tortured! That's why you still see some were still tortured.
Yahweh: How dare you telling me what to do! I have ordered you, and millions, BILLIONS of people have to be tortured for eternity, not a fraction of it, not because they ask it, and that is final!
Satan: (Shaking his head.) Until today they still call you the good one? Hey, who is your P.R guy, I really want to meet him!

Yahweh: That's it, this has to stop! 

Satan: (Laughing his ass off.) What do you want to do? Sue me? Before the first scientist or artist was born, you already send every single lawyer here!

Yahweh: I'll see you in court.

In the court, every single lawyer were in Satan's side. When they called for "expert witnesses," they have infinite numbers of scientist who objectively prove Satan's point. On the other hand, all witnesses from Heaven are dismissed because they refuse to give any coherent testimony, they only start praising Yahweh. But those witnesses are not needed. The judge and jury have conscience. They don't think that infinite torture is a good think to be upheld  In the end, Satan can keep his Hell, and Yahweh got a court's order to stay away from Hell. Thus from that day, he and Hell's population are  free from infinite torture.

What? Do you expect me to say that they live happily ever after? Hey, don't denigrate escaping from infinite torture! That is at least as valuable as "live happily ever after"! Especially when He who wants to torture you infinitely has good PR, millions of fanatical followers, and omni-in so many ways.

As for Yahweh, Tertullian, and many heaven's population ... they lost their "live happily ever after" status, because they can't watch the misery of hell anymore. Founded upon the torment of others, such happiness crumble once the torment ends. That is what I call a good ending!

The Bible, Modern Morals, and Zeitgeist

I have argued that many Bible stories have despicable morals and should not be followed.

Many Christians argued back "You can't use modern moral to judge those stories"! Or in more fancy words: The Zeitgeist has changed. 

Err ... yes I can. And no, the Zeitgeist has nothing to do with it.

1) You start it by using ancient history as modern moral compass

The problem is they want to make the bible today's moral compass. For example, they ask repeatedly to put the bible in school, not only physically but also in the curriculum! They want to harass today's homosexuals based on the Bible. And now suddenly they are upset when I pointed out that many morals in it are despicable? That's the whole point! The Zeitgeist has changed,  that's why today we have no excuse to use ancient rules from different Zeitgeist. 

2) We can say that because we are imperfect, fallible, and mere mortals unlike the all-powerful God.

Of course we have to put the Zeitgeist into consideration, because Moses don't get the idea of human rights, equality, democracy, etc.

But WAIT!! We never speak about Moses or Abraham or any other mere mortal, we are speaking about God himself! Moses and pals were only "the hand." They are definitely NOT "the brain." An omni-benevolent and omniscient being doesn't have an excuse for such imperfection. What? That kind of standard is impossible to fulfill? That means your God is impossible to exist.


3) In fact, some other religions already set higher standards SINCE ANCIENT TIME
I am not a big fan of Islam, but one thing I can't deny: their holy scripture treated slaves far more humanely than the Bible.

The Quran is not the only one. The Zoroastrians' holy scripture even prohibit slavery totally.

If the writer of the Bible is the perfect God ... how come OTHER holy scriptures exceed its morality?


So, yes, the bible was written in ancient time, according to ancient Zeitgeist, proving that it was NEVER written by an omniscient and omni benevolent being. That is the reason why it is NOT an up-to-date moral standard that we can use today. Only some parts of it are usable in that way. Some. Not every part. Definitely not all parts.

Einstein and an Atheist Professor

One "inspirational" story that is said and posted REPEATEDLY is "How the young Einstein humiliated an atheist professor." Here is the story:

The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?" A student answered bravely, "Yes, he did".

The professor then asked, "If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil. The student couldn't respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had "proved" that "belief in God" was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, "May I pose a question? " "Of course" answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked : "Professor does Cold exists?"

The professor answered, "What kind of question is that? ...Of course the cold exists... haven't you ever been cold?"

The young student answered, "In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot."

"And, does Dark exist?", he continued. The professor answered "Of course". This time the student responded, "Again you're wrong, Sir. Darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light. Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have created to describe what happens when there's lack of light."

Finally, the student asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?" The professor replied, "Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world, and those things are evil."

The student responded, "Sir, Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man."

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn't answer back.

The young man's name was ALBERT EINSTEIN. 

This story is so wrong on so many levels. Unfortunately, religious people, like my Christian friends, take it at face value. They regard it as a prove that Einstein is a theist, therefore as the prove that God exists. So, how can we started ... let's put it into 4 level of bullshits:

Einstein, 14 years old

1) Existential

God/Yahweh has so many properties. He cares about this world and repeatedly interferes. He is omni-benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, an omnipresent ... wait, OMNIPRESENT? Doesn't that means he ALWAYS EXIST? By saying that God didn't exist during those evil occasions, you prove that your version of GOD doesn't exist. No omnipresent being can be ABSENT at any point. It is like there is no triangle with more than 3 sides.

2) Ethical-Moral

Basically that story is about PASS THE BUCK from God. Sorry, you can't do that. Let me put it this way, if your God really interferes on this world, while being omni-benevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, that means NOTHING CAN ESCAPE HIM! You see, like I say before, more power means more responsibility. Infinite power means infinite responsibility. You can't pass the buck. Seriously, you can't.

3) Philosophical

There is one long, elaborate philosophical rebuttal of this argument. Basically, the student confused "secondary qualities" with existence. Here is a paragraph that for me crystallize the whole rebuttal perfectly:

"So, if someone murders your mother tonight, nothing happened? There was just an absence of morality in your house? Wait, I forgot... she's not dead... she's just experiencing an absence of life, right?"

4) Historical

My first reaction to that story is "Did Einstein really said that?" Nope. He never said that. Let me emphasize it: NEVER. Einstein is NOT a theist. Whenever he said anything about "God" or "religion" it is not about "Yahweh" or "Judaism" or "Christianity." Most of the time he refer to the cosmos, the universe itself, to the natural law. Not to God or Jesus or Allah.

So ... that means you end your argument by putting false claim? Nice way to end your argument there. 

When I for the first time encounter this, my Christian friend responded by saying "So what? It is not really important if Einstein never said it." If you think like that SHAME ON YOU! Let me put it this way. Check back again the long philosophical rebuttal in #3. I could add to that story:

"And the name of professor is ... Karol Józef Wojtyła alias Pope John Paul II."

What? Are you offended? Are you pissed when I just falsely claim that a pope argued AGAINST your argument? Of course you are. That is because NOBODY want to eat bullshit. Not you, not me, not anyone. That's why I would never try to claim such bullshit in my argument. That's why YOU should be ashame when you say the truth is not important. Oh sorry, maybe the truth is not important to you. Maybe CONVERTING ME is more important.

That means, next time a smug Christian tries to convert you, try to b.s. that evil is the absence of God, just ask back:

"So it is moral for me to beat you with this monkey wrench and take your money now? Hey, pain is not exist, pain is only "the absence of health," and you won't be broke, you just experience "absence of money!" Thank Lord for the non-existence of misery!"

Criticism of Religion & Racism

Civilized people agree that racism is wrong. Anyone who declare that another race(s) is greedy, stupid, weak, or any other negative label will look like a fool, or a jerk. Or both.

Nowadays, people try to equate all criticism of Islam with "Islamophobia." After that, they equate "Islamophobia" with racism. See how Sam Harris, because of his criticism of Islam, was accused of first Islamophobia, THAN racism. Heck, they even tried to put this in the UN! Repeatedly! Of course this is not only about Islam, some people from other religions also think that their critiques are some sort of racist.  All of this reminds me of the authoritarian dictator named Soeharto from Indonesia, who equate religion with race and class conflict in his SARA policy. That is the context of this discourse, an authoritarian effort to silence critics. A "Big Brother" style effort to censor, and squeeze freedom of speech.

So, why criticisms toward religions are totally different than racism? Why criticism of religion is a sine qua non of a free society?

1) Genetic vs culture

Race is a genetic fact. Your skin color is imprinted inside your DNA. Not even plastic operation can change that. Religion on the other hand is a set of believe. It is a matter of choice. Anyone can reject their old religion and pick a new one anytime.

2) Your religion is not God

God is by definition above criticism. But religion is not God. Religion is a system, an ideology that was BELIEVED that it was written by God, then written and maintained by mere mortals. A critic of religion is a critic to a HUMAN. Don't insult God by equate Him with your preachers or prophet. They are 2 different beings. Oh, what is this has to do with race again? Doubting the truth of some of this believe is racist? Get real! 

Yes, we know you were offended, but your rage
also offended us!

3) Do they have the balls to be criticized?

None make a prohibition to criticize Einstein theory of relativity.

None persecute who hate Picasso's work. 

How come? Because both of them are ballsy enough to be criticized. Because their admirers are sane. smart, mature, and ballsy enough to let others criticized those 2 maestros. They don't throw "RACIST" accusation whenever anyone criticized Picasso's painting or Einstein's relativity theory. The lack of courage to be criticized really put the claim that those religion represent an omnipotent-omnibenevolent-being into great doubt.

4) I am offended!

You know this cliche: "I am offended, therefore I have the right to burn, loot, maim, and kill!" Are you kiddin? Everybody get offended EVERYDAY! An offensive statement is not a racist statement per se. Those people who react against offensive statement with violence are just whiner. They actually proved the point that their religion is a religion of war, of violence. They also humiliate their own religion, making it look far more insecure than other religions. Yes, there are tons of trolls and idiots, who criticize solely with name-calling, ad hominem, and without any substance. Let them embarrass  themselves. No need to make any physical threat to them, let alone attack them with machete. Don't embarrass yourself or your religion.

5) All religions made mistakes
Do you notice that many religion actually REGULATE slavery? Some religion also ordered genocides. Now ... imagine if anyone who try to abolish slavery was attacked as "blasphemer" ... oh right, silly me, that happened all the time. 

So seriously, if that is still not clear enough let me spell it for you: religion IS NOT RACE!

Hiroshima Nagasaki: How We Learn to Love the Bombs

Many peaceniks from the Left blame the US for everything. Now they even don't get the idea that the US has every right to disarm Iran, North Korea, and many other countries. One of their favorite argument is:

"The US is a hypocrite since they already nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore they don't have the right to prohibit others from acquiring nukes!"

That means they never read history. Or choose to ignore it. Here, let me enlighten you guys: 

The Terror of Imperial Japan

Hey, peaceniks, if you think USA is nasty and hypocritical, just try dealing with the Imperial Japanese of the 1930s & 1940s! They raped and massacred the whole city of Nanking, and created a systematic sexual slavery across their vast territories! Yes, let me stress it again: SYSTEMATIC SEXUAL SLAVERY! Got that? Oh, they also spouted that we have to support their empire, since they were creating "The Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Yeah, they had the nerve to declare sexual slavery as "prosperity"!

None of us buy that b.s. We in Indonesia have a saying "350 years under the Dutch is nothing compared to 3.5 years under the Japanese." Heck, my own grandpa told me the stories how the Japanese stole EVERYTHING from his house, even every single nails and bolts.

And don't let me start about their war mentality. They are baffled by the idea that any surrendered enemy combatants has to be treated with respect. Hey, who can blame them? In their honor-based culture, "surrender" is the apex of disgrace. That's why they keep fighting and fighting, AND RAPING in between. That continued even after the Allied started sending waves and waves of B-29 bombers in mid 1944. The destruction of their fleet, and the end of their oil supply from Southeast Asia in October 1944 didn't convince them to surrender either. Any sane government would throw the towel after that, but nope. To hell with sanity and the well-being of their people, the Imperial Japan keep fightin since their priority is THEIR HONOR!

USA vs Others?

Hey, with that mentality, how can you protest when the US finally nuked their cities? They had it coming. Others wouldn't be that nice. Let's say the Japanese faced nuclear-equipped Russians instead of Americans at that time. The Russians are never as squeamish as the Americans. To ensure the maximum effect of the atomic bombs, they would start nuking Tokyo and Kyoto, the political and cultural capital of Japan. If they have more bombs, they would nuke Osaka, Kobe, and other major cities too.

And now you peaceniks think that Americans is immoral? What other options they have? Here, let me show the other options to you:

A) Stop the war by agreeing "peace" with the Japanese, accepting their terms.

The Japanese were eager to keep China and many other "Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Good luck telling that with a straight face to the Chinese. They would be enraged! They would continue their war against Japan. People in other area like Indonesia would either die in millions because of the harsh treatments, or die in millions because they finally rebel, but the Japanese use superior firepower to massacre them.

B) Asking the Japanese to surrender unconditionally and immediately, renouncing all of their conquest.

Do you live in a fantasy world where "HONOR" were never a part of Japanese culture? Like I said before, they would do EVERYTHING to avoid losing face, even keepin a losin war goes on and on. What's next, asking lions to be vegans?

C) Just keep bombin and blockadin Japan until they surrender

The famine in Japan would be amplified. There would be outbreak of nasty diseases. Japanese would die in millions, slowly, excruciatingly. 

Oh, same thing would happen in their colonies too. That means, another millions would die in China, Indonesia, Indochina, etc.

Oh, the Russian actually planned to invade Manchuria, Korea, and Northern Japan. That means not only Manchuria and North Korea, would fall into communist hand. South Korea and Hokkaido would be grabbed by the communist. Say hello to the "People's Democratic Republic of North Japan." Say hello to total domination of Korea Peninsula by Kim Il Sung's dynasty.

D) Direct invasion to Japanese Homeland

US Navy and Army planned this invasion because they were unaware of the atomic bombs until last minute. They knew the invasion would be ... nightmarish at best. Not only thousands of Allied's and Japanese sailors and soldiers would die, millions of Japanese civilian would perish too. Hey, they already taught their CHILDREN to use a sharp bamboo spear to disembowel Allied soldiers! Those who can't fight would choose suicide instead of surrendering to the Allies. We know that because that was what happened in Saipan and Okinawa. The civilian population plunged to a cliff WITH THEIR BABIES in their hands, instead of surrendering. I can say 5 millions civilians dead already sounds optimistic.

Oh, since the Allies busy with the invasion, nobody would dare to question the Russians when they rolled to South Korea and Hokkaido.

As you can see, the other options are FAR WORSE than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima-Nagasaki. It was THE BEST CHOICE among several nightmarish options. The root of the nightmare is the honor-based Japanese culture. Even the peace party in Japan couldn't convince everyone else. They need Hiroshima-Nagasaki, AND Soviet invasion to silence the war party. Blamed Tojo, Hirohito, and other Japanese militarists, not Truman or the US. 

Don't like that? C'est la vie, life is not consisting of easy black-white option. Grow up and stop whining about  your never-exist childish dream. Hard choices have to be made, and we will be damned if we close our eyes and fool ourselves that all choices are easy.

Reasons Against Gay Marriage

Once again "gay marriage" become an issue in the US. Some people want to ensure the legality of gay marriage. Others try hard to stop it. So, what is the argument against gay marriage? 

It undermines the institution of marriage!

So ... you mean if gay marriage is legal, there would be more divorce? Or you would divorce your spouse if gay people start marrying? Wow, are you really that insecure? 

It paves the way for incest, bestiality, and other barbarity!

Funny isn't it, this argument was also used to stop inter-racial marriage. Funny how exactly the same kind of people, the conservatives, try to stop gay marriage now. History loves to repeat itself!

It is not natural because they can't procreate!

Seriously? By this logic, anyone who is infertile can't marry. Anyone who lost their fertility also has to dissolve their marriage. Including old people. What? That is atrocious? That's because this argument is atrocious!

A child needs a father and a mother! Not two mothers! Not two fathers!

So, what are you waiting, JAIL ALL SINGLE PARENTS! Take their children from them! Give their children for adoption! A mother and a father for every single child! NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND!

It is God's order!

What? The same God who forced us to do incest? The same God who demanded us to be sycophant 24/7? The same God who threatened us with infinite torture but has the nerve to claim that he is just? The God who thought that regulating menstruating women is more important than prohibiting slavery? Seriously? I need to obey this monstrous entity? Tell you what, my conscience, my empathy, my intellect, and my decency actually say that I have ONE MORE reason to legalize gay marriage: to piss that slavery enabling dude! Oh, by the way, am I arguing against "God" or against people who are arrogant enough to know "God's will"? Never mind, whatever the case, gay marriage would piss a jerk.

Marriage is between a man and a woman!
Excuse me, please speak with the people who use "God's order" as their argument. Their holy scripture said that marriage is also between:

Oh you two are the same person? So ... I bet you get your wife after burning and looting her country? Yay?

I AM A CONTROL FREAK! I WANT TO CONTROL YOUR LOVE LIFE! YOUR SEX LIFE!

Well ... nobody said this blatantly, but that is what they imply when they try to stop gay marriage right? They may use God, the Bible, biology, or anything as justification, but in essence, this is the foundation of their argument. They are so full of themselves that they think they have the right to control how others love, how others fuck. 

So, are you a control freak? Really, that is the only relevant question in this debate. The rests are cosmetics.

Terrorism, Religion, Fanatics, Moderates

In today's world, thousands, or even millions religious fanatics used terrorism to reach their goal. Suicide bombing, mob attack, pogrom, etc. are practiced repeatedly. For many, such monstrosity is baffling. How could those religious fanatics do that?

Fanatics vs Moderates
Well, basically, religious fanatics give this kind of arguments to validate their terrorism:

"Quetzacoatl ordered us to kill them!"

"Quetzacoatl told us that those who rejects him are sinners, and deserves to be killed as a warning for everyone!"

"Quetzacoatl has wrote a holy book that explain to us that it is correct to kill them all!"

Etc. I think you got the point.

Basically, religious moderates give these kinds of arguments to counter terrorism:

"Quetzacotal order us to love everyone."

"Quetzacoatl told us that killing is prohibited."

"Quetzacoatl has wrote a holy book that explain to us that we have to be friend with everyone!"

Etc.

What are the problems with those counter-arguments from the moderates? 

1) Who can judge what Quetzacoatl really said and ordered?

2) How to falsify or prove any order or words from Quetzacoatl?

That means, the moderates use theological arguments to counter the fanatics claims. Since as far as I know Quetzacoatl never deny or approve ANYTHING from ANYONE in our current time, that also means, the moderates use flimsy-unprovable arguments to attack the fanatics' flimsy-unprovable arguments. It is like witnessing 2 small children arguing which one will won the fight between Superman vs Ultraman. And there is another hole in this kind of argument too.


Fanatics AND Moderates
One similarity between any kind of fanatics, are their own assumption of the total primacy of their religion. Or ideology.

Every Nazi insist that the "Aryan identity" is the most important, to hell with gender, profession, nationality, religion or any other identity.

So does an Interhamwe militia in Rwanda. For them "ethnic identity" is the most important. Kill all Tutsis, regardless their gender, profession, nationality, etc.

So does any religious fanatics. Only their religion matters for them. Gender, profession, nation, etc are irrelevant  or even ... distracting so has to be suppressed with zeal!

The problem with the religious moderates' theological argument is, that means they ACCEPT this premise and try to fight the fanatics on their ground. This kind of discourse confirm and strengthened the premise of the total-primacy of religion.

Fortunately, that is not the only way to debate a religious fanatics. Secularists, nationalists, and many others attack the moral ground of the fanatics differently.


Fanatics vs Secularists, nationalists, etc.
Basically, the arguments against religious terrorism from them are:

"We have our official criminal laws, and killing is a criminal offense!

"Have you ever heard about the human rights? One of those rights is the right to live. Others are the freedom of religion."

"Do you realize that such terrorism is bad for business? Do you know that the income of millions of people's will be destroyed by terrorism?"

Etc.

That means, the secularist, nationalist, etc used philosophical-pragmatical arguments to counter the fanatics claims. Unlike theological arguments, these arguments are not based on unobservable-supernatural explanations, therefore they are debatable, falsifiable, and provable.

But such arguments could only work if you debate with a normal person. A brainwashed fanatics often couldn't get any philosophical or pragmatical reason. They could easily dismissed any moderates who try to reason this way by branding them "hypocrite cherry-pickers" or even worse "traitors."

So, how if we try to convince the fanatics with theological arguments, while arguing with non-fanatics with philosophical-pragmatical arguments? The problem is, that means we argue incoherently. We have to start with the fundamental first: is there any PRIMARY identity that trumps every other identity in every occasion? Who actually has the authority to interpret God's law? Trying to debate in different ways without answering this fundamental question only undermines your argument. Anyone can pointed out that you are cherry-picking your religion, only using verses that suited your point of view, etc. So what is the best way?


The Best Method?
In my opinion, to be consistent we have to remind EVERYONE that they are not God, and no human can equate themselves with God, because it is a blasphemy. Heck, not only they are mere mortals, their prophets who wrote their books and scriptures are humans too!Their prophet is not God.

What? One of their prophet LITERALLY believed to be the incarnation of God despite all contrary rationals and historical evidences? And they even try to explain his Godhood with absurd argument, and pointed out since it is absurd, that means he is the true God? Wow ... okay ... let's see ... is that an exception or is there anything like that in another religion ...

Oh, here is its "sister religion" who claimed that God is singular, and no human can claimed to be God! Let's see .... anyone who draw the picture of their prophet would be beheaded? Pointing out that prophet had done some wrong also offended every single follower of him? 

... OK, I give up. They prefer to insult their own God, my intelligence, and everyone else while insisting that we have to respect them! 

Dear the rest of humanity, let them speak their minds. Let them reveal how vicious, how ignorant they are. Just make sure they STAY AWAY from any kind of power. 

Oh wait, many of them wields FORMAL POWER in some countries that prepared to go nuke. We are really screwed ...

Context, Language, and Holy Scripture

Another favorite argument from Bible or Quran or any other holy scripts apologist:

"We have to put everything in context."

Or in similar spirit:

"You got it wrong. That is not what it say in original language."

They argue that the "universal message" and "perfect moral code" in the scripture is so good that everyone can use it, as long as the context of each verses is correctly assessed. 

Oh, you want to talk about context? Yippee, sounds like fun!

1) Thou shall not kill! Thou shall not steal!

Remember the 10 Commandments? We have to put that in context. Just like the whole book, it is basically a screw-up moral guidance, omitting many important morals while disregard freedom of religion. But that is not all! The context of the #6 and #8 commandments is actually "Thou shall not kill fellow Israelis! Thou shall not steal from fellow Israelis!  So, if you put it in context, we shall not kill anyone who believe in God, but we have to fight EVERYONE who refuse to worship Him! Oh yeah, don't forget to loot them too!

Why the context is like that? Hey, this is 3 thousand years before our current time, people at that time are TRIBAL. They don't speak about humanities. Not yet. They speak about their small tribes in the Levant. Gary Blecher has a say about tribal mentality: "My tribe YAY! Your tribe BOO! As simple as that."

Oh yeah, don't forget, after giving the 10 Commandments, God ordered the Israelis to kill everyone in the promised land, and of course loot their lands, livestocks, etc. Actions speaks louder than words folks! Q.E.D., the context of the 10 commandment is "Those non-believers are sub-human!"

You see ... even your precious 10 commandments IS A TRAVESTY if you put it in context! You still want to put everything in context? I am all game!

2) What is the context?

You may argue that I put the 10 Commandments in the wrong context. Okay, what is the correct context? To know the correct context, you have to know the ancient language of that time, their daily life, the geo-political situation of that time, the Zeitgeist of that era, etc.. IF you know more about those things than me, than you can argue that my "context" is not that accurate. That means ... you have to be an ancient historian to exactly know the context. That means ... at least 4 years in college, studying all existing documents in all forms from that era.

What? I thought you said that your holy scripture is a universal moral guidance? How come it is UNIVERSAL if you have to be an ancient historian to know the context? Silly me, when we talk about religion, FAITH reigns supreme, LOGIC is tossed from the discussion from the beginning!

3) Another context: the history of the Scripture.

Bart D. Ehrman explained eloquently the history of the new Testament. Basically, it was copied BY HAND, and in many cases BY ILLITERATES. Is he kiddin me? No, he is serious. Since Christianity is a religion for the low class at its infant stages during the ancient Roman time, where literacy was defined as "able to write your own name," it was understandable that most of the people who copy its document were actually illiterate.

You see where this is going right? If you ask illiterates to copy a text, rampant omissions, errors, and redundancies were INEVITABLE! 

That is the context of the Bible. Every single chapters and words were copied for hundreds of years by illiterates. Only after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, experts started to do these important duty. So ... you expect me to be 100% sure that this text is IDENTICAL to the ORIGINAL one wrote by Paul, Peter, John etc.?

Oh, the Quran was better, but not much. You see, the Quran was COMPILED after the death of Muhammad SAW. Wait ... so ... you say that the people who compiled it were PERFECT and couldn't make a mistake? Sorry, as far as I know, in Islam, only Allah is perfect. Don't expect me to put those compilers above criticism.

4) What language again?

Oh, mistakes in copying is not the only context to doubt the authenticity of any historical script. There is a language barrier too. You see ... many of the texts written in ancient language. Everyone who master more than one language know that THERE IS NO PERFECT TRANSLATION! Even when the language is close, like English and German, when you translate it from one to the other, in many cases it is very tricky. Here I have to give credit to the Quran, since it insists to use Arabic!

But that open another problems. First, I can easily say that means God is not fair, since he favor the Arabs. Isn't that a cultural imperialism at its best? The people who were subjugated never felt it since they thought it is God's will. YAY, important note for all tyrant and dictator wannabe:used religion to subjugate and control people! It works! Wait a minute, they already did that repeatedly! Silly me.

Second, you may preserve the authenticity of the script, but in the end, the laymen, the mass has to translate it IN THEIR HEAD to get its message. That means, we have to master Arabic in order to get its LITERAL meaning perfectly. So ... you have to spend HOURS in learning a foreign language only to get the correct moral guidance? So ... what is so universal about this book again?


5) How they wrote it?
Fine, I suspend my disbelieve. I give modern translators the benefit of doubt that they PERFECTLY can translate it, just like modern translators translate English to German or to Mandarin perfectly. The problem is, many of those original texts written in scriptio continua, which means they didn't use spaces, and only used capital letters. Oh yeah, forget about comma, period, question mark, and exclamation mark too! Scriptio continua is literally continuous script, without any break.

ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDIN ME? Even modern English in scriptio continua, is troublesome! Ehrman gave an example: "GODISNOWHERE" It can be "God is nowhere." It can also be "God is now here." Which one is the case? And you used text like this for your moral guidance?

You see, when you start to put "everything in context" you open a Pandora box. That only open thousands of ways to criticize your holy scripture. The context often makes the verse invalid in our time, because OUR MODERN CONTEXT involve human rights, scientific progress, etc. You know, shit that God of the ancient time FORGET to write, so secular-humanist, philosophers, and other non-believers have to figure by themselves. Once you read it "in context," that means you actually FILTER your holy scripture. You know "Look, at that time genocide is normal, so God order His people to genocide, but today it is not acceptable anymore." Err ... that means you put that filter above the words of God. Hey, here is a think, forget your scripture, JUST USE YOUR FILTER as your moral guidance. That is what Deist, humanist, atheist, agnostic, and free-thinker do all the time!

"The context" prove that your holy scripture is a horrible moral guidance. Most likely it is not authentic. Definitely it is not universal. Don't like it? Blame your God who is a lousy writer since He forget to put coherence, human rights, and so many other important traits of a good moral guidance. Blame God who refused to write any of His scripts in universal language, understood by every humanbeings. I never created this mess, I only point it out.

Further reading:
Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman.

Female vs Male Shopping!

Image from the SLS Blogspot

Many male complains about how their girlfriend or wife love to shop. 

They are baffled, so they moans and groans, "Why women really obsessed to shop?" 

I think that is a misguided complain. Man also love to shop. If you throw me into a big book store with credit card that will be paid by God of Money, I will definitely spend HOURS there, and buy DOZENS of books!Fictions and non-fictions! Many male don't like books but love audio-equipment like speakers, amplifiers, and headphones. Give them the same credit card, and throw them into an Audio-equipment expo. They will spend hours there and act similar like a woman in a department store. Well not 100 % the same, because there are differences in how they shop and what.

1) General vs Specific

Female usually love to shop general stuffs. You know, stuffs that you can find ANYWHERE. Shoes, clothes, hats, etc. Pick any shopping mall or plaza, I bet at least half of it sell those stuffs.

Male on the other hand love to shop specific stuffs. You know, stuffs that you can find ONLY at specific shops which is not that common. Stuffls like books, computers, electronics, audio-equipments, cars etc. Pick any shopping mall or plaza, usually only some shops sell those stuffs. Except if you go to a specific mall that specialized in selling that specific stuffs. (Electronic mall, Computer mall, etc.)

2) Small vs Big

Remember again stuffs women love to buy, they are usually small stuffs. It is not that expensive, so female are able to buy TONS of them in one spree. And the size is usually small too! You can lift all the stuffs that you shop easily!

Remember again stuffs male love to buy, they are usually big & expensive stuffs. That's why male are able only to buy those stuffs monthly. Oh, many of those stuffs are also big and heavy too. I think books is the only exception to this trend because books are not that expensive and are not that big or heavy.

So males, don't be THAT grumpy when your girlfriend or wife shops. You love to shop too! You only love to do it differently ...

7 Deadly Sins

"Seven Deadly Sins" is one of the most prominent things from Christianity, although it is never written in the Bible. It is an interpretation of the Bible, and I have to admit, it's a good one ... and confirm that the Bible is a horrible book in general. Why so? Just check those sins:

Lust

Mostly interpreted as: excessive libido. 

More concretely interpreted as: No pornography! No masturbation! Missionary is the only acceptable position! Heck, maybe the "no condom" rule also stem from this one!

For me it is: The church tries to control the sexual life of the people.

Yes, excessive libido is bad, yeah we get it. And? Suddenly they try to CONTROL our sex position? So the logic goes like:
1) Excessive libido is bad!
2) Therefore we can rule how you position yourselves during copulation!!

So ... let me guess, " "having fun" or "be creative" during sex" is equal to excessive libido?  I tell you, these guys are CONTROL FREAKS. And no, "these guys" are not limited to the Catholic church. I know TONS of Protestant church that has the same mentality. It is not about the danger of uncontrolled sex, it is about THE CHURCH CONTROLLING OUR SEX LIFE!! It is about the church forcing you not to enjoy one of the most basic activity in life!

Gluttony

Mostly interpreted as: excessive eating

More concretely interpreted as: Surprisingly, I can't figure it out ...

For me it is: Seriously, I don't know. Looks like they miss this one.

Seriously, after trying to control our sex life, looks like the church back down at this one. I don't know any bad rule based on this "sin." Maybe I were wrong and those clerics as not as bad as I thought? NAAAAH, wait till you see the next one.

Greed

Mostly interpreted as: excessive desire.

More concretely interpreted as: Be charitable! Donate 10% to your church! No, not other church, not other foundation, MY CHURCH FIRST!

For me it is: Ordering you to give money, while threatening you with eternal torture, FROM MORAL HIGH GROUND!!

YEAH BABY, I love how the church exploit this sin! Religion is the only way to looks righteous even after you scare other people shitless with your bullcrap, get tons of money from it, and even got people's thanks! Have I mentioned to you that the church look righteous even after doing this ass-pull? No wonder religion still alive today, there is always a weasel who see this and use it to get your money ... and political support!

Sloth

Mostly interpreted as: laziness.

More concretely interpreted as: You must praise the Lord all the times!

For me it is: SICK SICK SICK!!

How low can you go? For the church, "Demanding YOU to lick their imaginary friend's buttock 24/7" low. NAAAAH, they can go lower. Just check the next sins!

Wrath

Mostly interpreted as: Uncontrolled anger.

More concretely interpreted as: Thou shalt be full of forgiveness!

For me it is: Good ... but a double standard.

This rule is actually very good. Anger could be used to our advantage, but uncontrolled anger almost always lead to misery and regret. The problem is, the Bible itself REPEATEDLY wrote about "The wrath of God." So ... "follow what I say but not what I do"? So ... God asked us to follow a moral guidance that HE HIMSELF can't follow? Hypocrites.

Envy

Mostly interpreted as: excessive desire, 

More concretely interpreted as: the #10 commandment from the 10 Commandments

For me it is: YAY! More excessive rule from the same control freak! BOY, I REALLY ENJOY THIS!

The 10 Commandments are horrible laws. Individually, some of them are good. As a set, they are the product of a barbaric age. Seriously, which omni-benevolent & omni-potent ruler FORGET to say "thou shall not enslave" and "thou shall not genocide" but remember to put "thou shall remember that the 7th day is MY DAY!"?? 

After some thought, the #10 rule is the worse of them all. Hey, let me tell you something, NOBODY CAN FOLLOW THAT RULE!! Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY can be totally free from envy. Here is a fundamental rule of a good law: make a law that PEOPLE CAN OBEY!! Ratifying an impossible law only makes the writer looks stupid ... oh I forget, that is not the case. They already get away with asking people to lick "the writer"'s bottom 24/7, looking stupid is the least of their concern. Silly me. NEXT!! (More on this in the conclusion part.)

Pride

Mostly interpreted as: Egoism, Arrogance, Self-Centered-ness.

More concretely interpreted as: Don't be arrogant! Remember about others!

For me it is: The sign of ultimate arrogance from the church.

This sin is considered as the highest one, the source of all sin. Same like many previous sins, excessive pride is really dangerous. But the church actually try more than curtail excessive pride. They remind you that YOU, individuals, are beneath God, beneath the church! YOU have to remember to give your 10%. You have to remember to praise Him all the time. You have to shut your mouth whenever your mind speak against the representation of God in this world, the church. 

To me, this is the sign of the ultimate arrogance. The people who say that they represent God in this world say that Pride is bad? The people who claim to KNOW WHAT GOD HATE claim that pride is a sin? The people who repeatedly equate their position with GOD and those against them "against God" want to lecture me about how bad "pride" is? Appalling!

You see the trend? The church picks a normal, very human feeling, exaggerated how bad it is, and label it as a "SIN" without putting the word "excessive" in front of them. Why they do that? Simple, the same reason they put the #10 commandment:

THEY WANT TO MAKE YOU FEEL GUILTY!!

Yes, since those are very humane emotions, it is a no-brainer. EVERYONE has done it at least once in their lifetime. Like I said before, ordinary impossible law only makes the writer looks stupid, but this is not ordinary law, this is God's laws! So instead of making the writer looks stupid, it will make everyone feels guilty. This is one of the oldest trick in mind-control: make your target feels guilty. "Guilt" will make people more vulnerable to b.s. like religions, religious laws, and religious clerics.