Alright everyone, this kind of blows my mind when I think about this. But some people have the audacity to believe NASA never sent astronauts to the moon...ever. Maybe it is just their ideology, I don't know. I hope at this point, you realize how ridiculous sounding it is (if any of you do not believe that NASA went to the moon, my tone is not meant to be insulting. I'm sorry if you get offended anyway.). I try to be apathetic, but stuff like this gets me fired up. I literally just want to sit down with all the disbelievers out there and lecture them for hours on end. And if they still don't believe me, I'll have no choice but to defibrillate them. But seriously, I do not understand why this topic has become almost as controversial as other scientific topics like evolution and the age of earth (yes evolution is real and the earth is 4.5 billion years old.). The NASA moon landings were some of the greatest moments in history, yet people deny their existence. I don't know if it's because these people want to be ostentatious rebels or what? Now I am very zealous about a topic like this, so I'll try not to be biased in my argument. Do any of you know how we know how far away the moon is. I'll give you a hint, NASA does not use a tape measurer. What they do use is a beam of light, other wise known as a laser. Scientists point a laser at a reflector on the facade of the moon. This reflector reflects the light back at the laser pointer. Because we know the speed of light in a vacuum is 3*10^8 meters/second, we can use the time it takes for the light to hit the mirror and come back to figure out the distance between the earth and the moon, which is about 384,400 kilometers. But how did those reflectors get on the moon? It seems obvious that someone had to go to the moon and put them there. But maybe a robot (by robot, I mean a computer that can act like a human and do individual tasks. So this is like the Mars rover. The shuttle does not really fall under this definition of a robot. But it is a robot) put these reflectors on the moon. I find this rather hard to believe, because in the 1960's, robot technology was rather limited. In fact a modern cellphone has more computing power than the entire Apollo spacecraft. Even so, if this evidence does not convince you, I have more. Moon rocks are some of the coolest objects ever to be created. I mean...if you don't think moon rocks are cool, you probably are just a moon rock hater. But many people believe they are fake, because a robot has never gone to the moon and returned. And since they also believe that NASA never sent a man to the moon, these rocks must have been completely fabricated in a lab. There are some problems with this notion. If you look at a moon rock, there are lots of holes in it. This is because the moon is constantly bombarded by tiny asteroids. The earth is too, but they burn up in the atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere to protect itself. If you look at a moon rock under a microscope, there are very very very very tiny holes. Some holes are only a few micrometers in diameter. These rocks could not have come from earth, as these holes I just mentioned are too small to suggest the rocks originated on earth. A meteor that could produce a hole that size would never survive the trip through the atmosphere. To make these microscopic holes in a lab would also cost a fortune. So, it'd probably just be cheaper to go to the moon. Also, there are traceable remnants of the cosmic rays that were beating on them for a few billion years. The levels that have been detected in the moon rocks could not possibly have been so high if they originated from earth. This is again, due to the atmosphere. With all this stuff, I hope we can infer that NASA has sent astronauts to the moon.
Well...if I didn't convince you, don't worry about it. You'll just fall into that category of indecent people that I call "The Bawdy Ones." This select group includes the people who don't believe the earth is round, believe relative velocities simply add together, and those who still think Pluto is a planet. Ugh..it's all just so...weird. It's a very select group of people, but I'm sure it's a fun time. I love being in the group of people known as...well...I don't really belong to a group of people. But that's ok. I love being a loner who ruins people's days by debunking scientific lies they have been taught. Well, I hope I didn't ruin your day by debunking this one.
The disbelief of the moon landings sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. I often find it hard to believe that people expend so much if their time and energy on ludicrous theories such as this one. The reasoning that backs most conspiracy theories is flawed, and has no basis. In this example, there doesn't seem to be any good reason as to why NASA would fabricate stories and evidence to corroborate a fake moon landing. In addition, believing in the falsity of the moon landing requires that one ignore scientific facts. This would imply that proven facts can be ignored, validating breathing underwater without help and living without vital organs. As one knows, this is not the case. However, conspiracy theories are often presented in such a way as to convince the reader that they are true. They play on the reader's fears and ignorance, and hope to shape their opinion. They must be debunked in order for people to understand the truth.
After bashing and stereotyping the entire male population in my last essay, I feel as if I am obligated to make amends for and glorify the importance of men. Men are able to fulfill some tasks that women cannot, and although I am obviously not a mysoginist, no matter what standpoint women have about feminism, the male population is a beautiful and vital part of creation. Men are important in life for many reasons besides the obvious reproduction of the human species. I know from personal experience that men are very handy. I always find my brothers or my dad fixing things around the house, even if I break them. Men are usually very strong, and although I am not saying that girls are not, boys are capable of moving pianos from house to house, building functioning houses, and fixing my car when it breaks before school. They take care of the big projects and little details around the house and neighborhood when the family or friends need something done. Also, men are usually built to be taller than girls. They can reach the top shelf when girls cannot, which is a big help. Families need a fatherly figure for many reasons. Scientific studies show that children with a positive male guardian in their life excel physically, socially, intellectually, and emotionally above those without. Dads are usually extremely fun to play with while growing up. My dad always played games with us when my mom was fulfilling her own obligations. I do know that he taught my brothers and I a lot of skills that a mother alone would not be capable of teaching us. Two parents provide more time for more, much-needed attention. It was not some sort of serendipity that Mother Mary was given a caretaker and a father for her baby. In fact, when she decided to be the Mother of God, Joseph was far from zealous. He did not know how she could have gotten pregnant, and the whole ordeal was an anomaly. When women got pregnant out of wedlock back then, they were blamed immediately and were stoned to death. Joseph had the audacity to leave Mary quietly and take the blame when she broke the news to him. Although he was upset and confused, the respect and tone of voice he used when talking to her greatly exceeded that of which could be expected in a normal situation for any other contemporary couple. This example of a good father begins when the baby was not even born yet. He showed his strength and character when he accepted Mary into his home, despite the criticism from the town. Men can be respectful and kind, and without Joseph, Mary would have had a hard life. I agree that some teenage boys are far from being socially acceptable and demure, but there is nothing humane about defenestrating their importance in a relationship and in existence all together. Boys often feel as if they need to impress their peers by acting "cool" in front of them. Whether this means bullying the weird girl, going against the school's rules, or completely disregarding the speed limit while racing down a highway, their ways of expressing themselves and fitting in is not ideal to many others and cannot be understood by most women. This does not mean that they will it mature, however, because they do, usually just a bit later than girls. They were made like that, but once they grow up, they are the best! I do love the boys in my life and I know that the ones who seem to be crazy right now will most likely shape up to be great role models. This slower paced maturity is not true for all men, but can explain the thoughts and actions of them today. There was a man that helped me fix my car at the gas station the other day who obviously was not brought up in the best family and had some issues, but when he helped me and said "God bless you," I suddenly changed my view of all boys. Women cannot fulfill all of their obligations, and they are wonderful people.
One fact I have learned from high school is that most boys try to fit in with their peers in strange and often reckless ways. If one were to walk down the halls of ECC on any given day, the actions of males can range from strange noise making to prolonged hugs. These actions make no sense to me whatsoever, but seem to include the males in part of a social group. Social activity is critical to proper development, but these actions do not seem to help the males mature. Perhaps it is my outside point of view, but their actions seem childish and ostentatious. The attention they receive for their efforts only reinforces this infantile behavior. I know that not all boys act in this way, and it gives me hope that these boys are simple going through a phase. As you pointed out, when most boys mature, they become wonderful people.
I can only speak from personal expierence here. But I have one sister and one brother. Seems like an "average" family I guess. But my sister is a self-proclaimed clutz. This means she breaks things...a lot. I really don't know how she survives at college, because there is no one there to fix all the things she breaks. Anyway, when she's at home, my brother and I basically follow her around with a toolbox. Do we break things? Yeah. Does she break more things than my brother and I put together? Most definitely. Also, I just love being woken up at 2:00 AM because there is a scary bug on her wall. Being the good brother I am, I'll catch it and then throw it out her window. So she'll be happy for a few seconds, but then she'll mad that I didn't kill it. So anyway, in the same way that men cannot live without women, women cannot live without men. Or at least, my sister cannot live without my brother and I. And to build off Ashley's comment for a second, I do not understand the hugging and noise making. The prolonged hugging is a great way to spread disease. And the noises might scare away potential mates. You'd think evolution would eliminate such dangerous practices in males over a period of time. But sadly, no. Evolution has failed in this department.
Although my brothers and dad drive me absolutely insane, I would have to agree that they are pretty nice to have around sometimes. I used to hate being the only girl in my family because I hated having to do the little girly things on my own. But I'll never forget the times my older brothers would play Barbies with me so I wouldn't have to play alone. Plus, this way, we didn't have to fight over who would get to play with the girl Barbies. In addition, I love having my brothers around to talk to without the gossip or drama that often surrounds a female conversation. One of my favorite things is having therapeutic rage sessions in the car, where we get really angry about the injustices of being a teenager, and we point out all the stupid flaws in the world. But when we reach our destination, we let it all go, and never speak of it again, because boys aren't known to dwell on things. Another advantage of the fact that boys get over things really quickly is that they are not known to hold grudges. When my brothers get mad at me for something frivolous, they are usually over it by the time I come down to the kitchen for dinner, whereas with girls, we would probably still be fighting about the fact that I ate the last cookie when we were ten. For all of these reasons plus so many more, I have been shaped into the person I am today. I don't really get hung up on the petty things, and I'd much rather spend a night in watching March Madness than going over to my girlfriend's house to gossip about the shade of lipstick what's-her-face was wearing in home room. All in all, I would have to admit that I am very blessed to have all of these boys in my life, for without them, I would be a very different person.
The boys in my life drive me absolutely nuts, but I love them regardless. My brother is awkward and we fight constantly but I couldn't imagine how different my life would be without him. This is the same for Tony as well. I find many of the same qualities in him as my brother. They both have giant hearts and would do anything for me. My parents and I laugh because as awkward as my brother is, there is a crowd of girls following him everywhere because he is so kind. When I wrecked my car, Tony and Anthony were both there and made sure I was okay and made sure everyone knew I wasn't doing anything wrong. When I was the only girl in my family for a while, my dad took advantage of it. I spent a lot of time doing "guy" things with him when I was younger. He coached football then too, so I was always surrounded by older boys. I'm glad these things happened because it gave me a great appreciation for men and their quirks. Even today, I still feel more comfortable around men rather than women.
Solipsism is a philosophical theory that states nothing but the existence of the self in a form of consciousness can be proven. However, this ideology is mistaken, and can be completely defenestrated after one understands the principles it rests on. It can be further disproven when one considers the circumstantial nature of its founding principles, and other details. Solipsism rests largely in the fact that the physical senses do not necessarily prove the existence of natural objects. Tying shoes and feeling the hard plastic of the aglet does not mean that the shoes exist. Neither does it mean that the fingers tying the shoes exist, or that arm the fingers are attached to exists either. How can this be? Seeing or touching something does not mean that it is real. Even hugging a loved one does not prove that they exist. Consider dreams or even hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD. Dreams seem very real until the body awakens. While dreaming, it is possible to touch, see, hear, and feel many different physical objects. However, this does not mean that they are real. In fact, dreams are largely considered to be false imagery created by the unconscious mind. In addition, the visions of those on LSD are considered a false reality. This outlook determines that there is no connection between physical objects and mental states of awareness because physical objects exist outside of a consciousness. In order to counter this approach, one must prove that there is a connection between the mental and the physical. In essence, that there is a connection between the human body and the human mind. In order to prove this connection, one must turn to emotions and feelings. Consider a feeling of ravenous hunger, and how it is discerned. To picture it in a more physical manner, imagine how an artist would portray a hungry couch. The couch would be holding food, mouth open wide, and have eyes focused on the food before it. The couch would essentially have human characteristics that depict it doing something. In this way, one can prove that emotions, while being felt, are also experienced. One cannot be ravenously hungry without searching for food and wolfing it down. Therefore, in order to understand an emotion, one must see it in someone else. They must see the actions of the hungry in order to fully understand what hunger is. To put it another way, when one infers that someone is hungry, they do not reason "Bill it eating a lot; he must be hungry." Rather, they know that eating a lot is part of the feeling of hunger because of the behavioral traits that are expressed when one is hungry. Thus, physical actions can be ascribed to conscious concepts, proving that human beings who show emotional criteria possess a consciousness.
Solipsism can also be disproven if one considers the nature of life. Solipsism does not provide any reasons as to why bad things happen to whomever it is that is the only person in existence. This one person still ages and is forced through all the miserable experiences that come with being alive. In addition, there is no explanation for the broadness and exactness of the physical world if it does not truly exist. In order for solipsism and these facts to remain true, the sole human in existence would need a split personality. They would need a personality who lived through life or an audience, and a personality who created the world and everything in it. The creator would increase in complexity as the world they created increased in complexity, and eventually become the audience. Think of this concept as a video game. In a video game, the world is created by a program run on a computer. One player enters the game and moves through the world. However, they are not the only player in the game. Other virtual people created by the program are also part of the game. The program is a part of the players. These players are part of the game. Therefore, the program is part of the game as well. Following this logic, solipsism is completely disproven. However, it has turned into a different philosophical theory in which every human being is God. Solipsism can be disproved in many ways. It can be torn down based upon principles, or changed into another philosophy by eliminating its flaws. No matter how it ends up, solipsism as a philosophy creates people who are completely self absorbed. When they accept the anomaly that they are the only being in the world, they become egotistical, and the remainder of the human race feels sorry for them. Their ignorance can be alleviated, and outgrowing solipsism is often seen as a mark of maturity. Thankfully, most of the human race does not zealously believe in this outlandish philosophy.
Sorry if this caused headaches for anyone. I tried to make it as easy to understand as possible. For a more complete refutation, look here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/ https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node43.html
It is true that everyone possesses their own unique gifts and talents, and not everyone is capable of doing the same things adequately. For many years, the term "artist" has had a connotation that deemed it a rather exclusive. In other words, it has been a common opinion that only select individuals are capable of producing praiseworthy artwork. However, when considering the exact definition of the term "art," it becomes clear that truly anyone is capable of being an artist so long as they believe that they are. "Art" is literally defined as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination." It does not state anywhere in the definition that art has to realistic, ostentatious, or in vivid detail, only that it must be expressive of the artist's point of view of the world. This means that there are really only two things required of an aspiring artist - creativity and confidence. Many years ago, it was believed that artists possessed a certain "natural-born talent," and that true artists were those who could replicate a human face or colorful landscape. But as time developed, so did the various types of art forms. Art became much more abstract - much more expressive and meaningful. Now, the best kinds of art are often anomalies, that is, they often deviate from the standard norm of portraits and exact replicas. But perhaps this is the way it should be. For it is true that when an individual sits down to replicate a human face on a sketch pad, incredible skill is displayed, and not everyone possesses this rare skill. But what is the artist expressing? What is the story the artist is seeking to tell? Art is supposed to be expressive and original, not monotonous or exact. Three circles on a piece of paper can be considered art just as much as a mellifluously flowing piece of abstract art because both express the artist's disposition in a unique way. While it is true that anyone is capable of producing art, it is also true that one must truly believe that they are capable in order to be a great artist. So often it is said, "I wish I was an artist," but very few individuals take the time to invest any time in art due to the popular belief that "artists" are solely those who can produce vivid replicas. Mitchell Maxwell urges those with a lack of self confidence: "Affirm your value. Tell the world 'I am an artist' not 'I want to be an artist.'" To be an artist, one must have the audacity to reproduce their deepest thoughts and sentiments upon a canvas, and hope that they can spark an interest in even the most apathetic of critics. That being said, it is impossible to please everyone with a single piece of artwork, due to the fact that not everyone chooses to express themselves in a similar way. But that is the beauty of art. It is not supposed to please every pair of eyes it encounters, but rather the goal of art is to invoke an emotion in the heart of the viewer. As long as an individual can discreetly communicate his or her deepest feelings behind the colorful facade that is their artwork, they are considered to be an artist.
Mary, I agree with your argument in all honesty. When we hear the word "art", I know that I personally think about drawing and painting rather than all of the different options that are truly out there. We can be artists with our words and actions as much as we can be artist with a paint brush and a pencil. It is wonderful all of the gifts that we are presented with and the gift that we can develop as we grow older.
Mary, I completely agree with you. Everyone can truely be their own artist if they really want to be. Everyone is different, it is said that artwork reflects the way the artist is. If you and I painted the same picture, we would both have many differences in the picture. Which is good becuase in art, unlike society, different is good.
It seems as if society is overly zealous about finding a scapegoat for the problems they do not understand. In the process, they completely defenestrate all logic. Barbie, the fashion doll, launched on March 9, 1959 by Ruth Handler with the help of Mattel Toys. Before the introduction of Barbie, most dolls took the image of infants. Barbie allowed children to have an adult-bodied doll. The inspiration came from a German doll named Bild Lilli, but after Barbie, the rights to Bild Lilli were taken by Mattel and Bild Lilli was discontinued. Barbie has become a cultural icon and one of the most iconic toys of all time. Andy Warhol even painted Barbie in 1985. Barbie was not created to be a bawdy sex image whose proportions were to be taken literally, but rather a doll that allows little girls to create a dream world where anything is possible. Barbie is now over fifty years old, but Barbie is still one of the most influential toys. Some people, however misguided I feel they are, believe Barbie is to blame for another cultural phenomenon, eating disorders. Barbie was created in 1959, which was during the time Marilyn Monroe was the main sex icon of America. Barbie was created skinny when America was looking at curves as the ideal body type. Barbie is constantly maligned for her unrealistic proportions, which is irrelevant considering she is a piece of plastic and not a living human being, but Mattel has lead a huge effort to clean Barbie's reputation. Their explanation for the body shape is that the measurements simply make it easier to dress and undress the doll, which is Barbie's purpose as a fashion doll. The exaggerated curves make it easier for designers to scale clothes into such a small size from fabric used to make human clothing. Barbie was not created to be judged by grown women. Barbie was intended to be played with by young girls who have a completely different psychological outlook than adults. Adults look at Barbie as a figure glorifying the image of being thin, while little girls look at Barbie as a doctor who can drive her motor home to the moon. Eating disorders are not a mere desire to be thin, but rather a real psychological problem within the individual suffering. It is unsure what causes anorexia, all psychiatrists have been able to conclude is it can be hereditary and it is caused by chemical differences in the brain. An anorexic's brain reacts different when faced with food. The self control part of the brain triggers instead of the part of the brain which controls primitive instincts. Not only that, but many anorexics do not feel hunger the same. They are apathetic when faced with hunger, where as a healthy person feels hunger as pain. Therefore a healthy human may feel ravenous, but an anorexic person may feel fine.
Barbie was created far before the craze began of being thin. Obviously the problem is not a doll who was created decades before, but the culture we are living in. Perhaps instead of looking to a piece of plastic, we should watch what we say and how we use the word "fat" when talking about ourselves or others for the diction we use is far stronger than any piece of plastic. Barbie has been given many different body shapes for different editions, some more demure than others. If a piece of plastic is actually causing these problems, then the ideology should not be blaming the doll, but rather looking into what can be done to boost self image enough that it cannot be so critically harmed by an inanimate object. I played with Barbie my whole childhood, and never once did I idolize Barbie for her body. I idolized her for her ability to be anything and have any career. Barbie gave me confidence that I could be that kind of person. I can also thank Barbie for allowing me find a passion for clothing through always making her wear the most ostentatious clothing I could find. If I did not have the experience as a child of dressing Barbie in clothing, it may have taken me a much longer time to figure out what career would make me happier than a fashion one. If anyone is that concerned about the eating disorders in society, they need to seek a cure instead of a scapegoat, especially an inanimate object that cannot even defend itself.
This is perfect. I find it ridiculous that people have taken to criticizing a child's toy for giving girls unrealistic expectations for their body. The question then arises - why are grown women looking to a plastic toy for little girls as a model for their ideal body image? How many children's toys are actually proportional anyways? Last time I checked, living bears didn't have smiley faces or hearts on their butts. But no one criticizes the creators of teddy bears for creating an unrealistic toy. Like you said, the dolls were created so that clothes could slide easily up and down their bodies, not to glamorize an anorexic figure. And truthfully, how many little girls actually look at their Barbies and think "wow I wish I had her body"? None, because five year old girls aren't worried about things like that. I think that there quite a few problems in this world that should be addressed before this one.
This is so true! Barbie was created to be a toy, not a role model. I loved dolls when I was little, and had lots of Barbies. They never had any effect on my self-esteem. And so what if they make Barbie look like that so she is easier to dress? That's the point of a doll! Its not so people can strive to look like her. I don't think little kids look at Barbie and think, "I want her body." Instead they just dress her and play with her in her dream house. The proportions of the doll have no effect on them, and they shouldn't.
When the our countries main language changes to Spanish and English, it will not be a serendipity because many saw this change coming by the over population of the Spanish immigrants wanting to be a citizen of the United States. When these immigrant settle here, many Americans are not very apathetic towards them not understanding the English language. It is know that the English language is one of the most challenging languages to learn which leaves many immigrants hopeless to understanding everyday life. Americans need to understand the fact that having another language being dominate in the United States will do nothing but strengthen the country and the people living in it. Adding another major language to our country would not mean that the English language would be defenestrated. The idea of also learning Spanish would allow the country to be more diverse with other countries and also break the barrier between Spanish and English speakers. One can not learn a language over night. The tone and pace of the Spanish language itself is a complicated system but, once it is mastered the sound is mellifluous. One would not need to be fluent in the language, they could use many connotations in order to get their whole point acrossed. This could help Spanish speakers be less demure about being a citizen of this country. Many infer that this language change would become a one way street of English speakers having to learn Spanish, but the Spanish speakers would also need to make a attempt to learn English. People may find this an anomaly of an idea. They believe that this would become more confusing rather than helpful. Which is understanding because learning a new language is very difficult, just image the immigrants being overwhelmed with being in a new country with many natives of the English language not having a clue about Spanish. This language change needs to be a two way street in order to account for both languages. Spanish being added with English to be the main languages of the United States seems to be close in our future. Should children in Elementary School start learning Spanish sooner than later to then have the diverse language? The idea of Spanish being fluent in the United States can strengthen the country by many means. Maybe this change will lead to many more add ons of different languages. People need to be open about learning a second langue. One can not be hurt by learning.
Maddie, I think that adding another language to our culture is a huge step forward for our society. America is a melting pot of different ethnicities, but at the same time, we struggle to accept other cultures, or even change for that matter. I had a personal experience with this situation when my cousins from North Carolina told me they refused to attend the Catholic Church in town because they didn't want to be around all of the "immigrants" (the church was made up of Hispanic people). They are racist and close minded and I hate them. I'm happy to see that you share my opinion on change in this county.
I agree, Maddie, there needs to be an acceptance and openess with learning another language. Imagine if not only America, but every country learned a second language. Think of how much smaller the world would become if more people could communicate easier. Think of all the great stories each and every person has to share, and then everyone would be filled with many more stories to cherish and remember. We were all created in God's likeness, but we seem to forget that and look at every culture as different in a bad way. Imagine if the world joined for unity. New doors would be unlocked for technology for sure if the greatest minds could work together. One language may enhance national pride, but multiple allows for a pride in our whole world, which is needed, because citizens need to work together instead of against each other.
I think that learning and accepting new languages is great! It allows us to broaden our horizons and meet other people we may have not met if we couldn't have spoke their language. I think learning a foreign language should be required. I am so happy I took 3 years of Spanish because I was able to learn so much about another culture. I wouldn't have had that opportunity if I wouldn't have decided to take a language. Besides, even though we all speak different languages, we are still God's children. Why not be able to get to know everyone else better?
Ok, I have seen the controversy about this topic all over the place. People are really hesitant when it comes to being apathetic towards another race. I personally know people who do not want any of the Spanish speaking people in America. When my family took a trip to California over the previous summer, almost everything had both spanish and English on it. I saw tons of people who were upset about it.
So, this may be a new topic that not many people thought to argue before, but I am going to argue the existence of mermaids. This is an odd subject and I am sure that my weird disposition is the reason I believe in their existence so strongly. This all began nearly two years ago when I witnessed a documentary on the discovery channel called Mermaids: The Body Found. It is shown from the Point of View of these marine biologist who hear these sounds on a sonar machine while trying to stop the government from killing whales and by a serendipitous chance, they discovered a body that appeared to be that of a mermaid. Though it was later found as fake, the documentary brings up many steady points that with the use of the actors diction, came across as very predictable. When I brought up my thoughts to my father, a former biology teacher, he nearly defenestrated me. He listed all of the biological points as to why they could not exist, but I want to think about the ways that there possibly could be something out there that we do not yet understand. The first ideology account of mermaids came centuries ago, the first counts of mermaids were brought to light when sailors claimed to have seen majestic creatures in the ocean that would sing to them in mellifluous and had beautiful hair. They most likely were drunk, but that does not mean that their accounts were not reliable. Though mermaids are often portrayed as ostentatious creatures, scientist say that if mermaids were to exist, they would have large eyes that would give them the ability to see in the dark and hairless bodies that have been adapted from staying in the ocean for a long time. They are overall ugly creatures. One of the other objections that rises with the questions of mermaids actually came from. This question actually haunts me due to the fact that, like the good catholic I am, I have some issues with evolution. However, the theory the most supports my view on mermaids is called the Aquatic Ape Theory and it states that back in the time when evolution was taking place slowly but surly and we were "turning into humans", some apes chose to take to the water instead of staying on land. I know that everyone who has made it to the end of this argument thinks that I have gone boarder line crazy, but in the end I compare my points to that of the giant squid. Until the year 2004, a little over ten years ago, no one had ever seen visual evidence of this animal's existence. Many doubted that it was more than a myth, much like mermaids. However, once Japanese fishermen were able to get a photograph of it in its natural habitat, there was no longer doubt. Nearly 95% of the ocean is unexplored, so I believe that there is no reason to believe that mermaids are a myth just yet. Someone out there will have enough audacity to fund a research project to shine light on their existence. If you doubt the existence, that is fine, but you are a bawdy human and you are wrong.
Jenna, your points remind me of bigfoot! I'm a crazy bigfoot believer! I can understand why you Beleive in mermaids becuase of the same why people view Bigfoot. I think it has some to do with people believing in things that they can only see. This seems to be a point where they want the photo proof, but than that leads to spirits and many beleive in them, but they cannot be seen. I think people cannot accept that fact that a mythical creature can actually be real, maybe they are afraid.
What the heck, Jenna. This is very weird, but if you believe that mermaids are real then good for you. I highly doubt there are sea ladies without feet swimming around in the ocean. If they had the capability to think logically, reason, and have a soul, I feel as if they would be a bigger part of sea life and more people would actually know about their existence. This does not actually make any sense to me because I picture mermaids as they are seen in pictures and movies. Maybe there is something out there that resembles a mermaid but does not accurately prove what some have made them out to be. I have very little faith in their existence and will be the boring person who does not believe in them until they are proved to be real. They do seem very nice in the fantasy world, however!
Jenna I am with you 100 percent. I saw that exact same documentary and since the government has banned it, I think that there is no other conclusion to believe other than mermaids are real. If you think about it, why would the government ban the showing of it if it wasn't real. It's not like they banned the little mermaid because it had a mermaid in it.
Jenna, I think that it is great that you believe in this. I personally have no opinion in the subject but my dad could have sworn he found Bigfoot tracking one time he was cross country skiing. He and a couple of friends went back to find these tracks to see if they was actually Bigfoot. My dad is not a Bigfoot fanatic but some of his friends are into it and I just remember how excited they were when they were heading out to find the tracks. I think it is pretty cool the different beliefs people have such as Bigfoot and mermaids.
Jenna, I've seen this as well and I am not sure how I feel about it. I believe that there are many anomalies that we cannot explain and the ocean is a big place. So there could possibly be mermaids in the ocean. However, I definitely don't think they are pretty and look like Ariel. The mermaids from the documentary would be a lot more accurate description of how a mermaid could exist in the ocean. The controversy surrounding the documentary also leads me to believe that mermaids could be real.
So many times, people turn to the medicines in order to feel better. But has anyone ever wondered what is really in our medicine? In biblical times, they had no medicine. Instead they used a variety of plants, herbs, and oils (as well as prayer) to help heal the sick. As times advanced, scientists have evolved and so has medicine. But, how much has it really helped us? In many cases, people die from the side effects of the medicines that are supposed to help them. Most of the time, we infer that the benefits out weigh the possible negatives, and that they will treat our anomalies. It is in our ideology that science is supposed to help us. Most of the time it does, but other times it doesn't. I believe in natural healing, and that maybe the ideas of the past weren't that bad, and are still effective. Just because they didn't have the audacity and knowledge back then to find anything better doesn't mean that what they were doing was bad. In the past, if a person had a stomachache they would take peppermint. Today, we take Tums or some kind of antacid. This week I had a cold, and after taking lots of decongestants, nothing worked. My mom decided to give me peppermint since nothing else was working. She put peppermint oil in tea and I drank it. To my serendipity, I actually felt better after taking it. I thought about how all the chemicals in my medicine didn't do me any good, but this peppermint did. It made me wonder if we have any other things that are natural and can help us. This event made me have a shift in my tone about medicines. So many times I have believed that what ever science has created must be right, but I don't think that is necessarily true. We have forgot what our ancestors have discovered, and that maybe they were right. After this, I have a new found zeal for natural healing. All the chemicals used are not good for us. Maybe we should go look for healing next to mellifluous stream instead of a pharmacy. I don't think natural healing can help one who has been defenestrated or prevent misogyny, but I think it should be utilized more!
This makes sense, Olivia. Science and medicine do help a lot because years ago so many people died from something as little as a flu, but other times I do believe that medicine is a mind game that we play with ourselves. If you give a child a bandaid for a microscopic scrape, for example, all of the sudden they feel better. In his way, some medicines make us feel as if we are better just because we know that it is supposed to. I know that a lot of medicines are made from nature and they do have the power to cure a sickness, and it is weird that your peppermint worked so well. For something like a cold, medicine does not help, but it cures itself with time instead.
Olivia, I agree that olden ways of medicine can be much more natural and helpful. I also believe that some chemical medicines should be used as well in certain cases. The herb methods are starting to arise once again with the legalization of medical marijuana. Though these herbs are also use form other reasons that are illegal, there are medical reason such as marijuana is used as a pain reliever.
Why is it that people have the audacity to scare themselves? Constantly I hear of people going to horror movies. What is the point? I have never really been into scaring myself to death, so I do not exactly understand why people do it. For some of you out there who love scaring themselves, I would really appreciate it if you could inform me why anyone would want to see movies that make them so scared that they are not able to sleep well at night. Perhaps it is just in the person's disposition. Not only do people see horror movies just once, but they have the zeal to see them over and over again. Even the church is against viewing movies such as "The Conjuring." Even though most horror movies are just imaginative themes portrayed in a very scary way, some of these movies are actually based on true stories. So if these stories are in fact true, then I find it extremely stupid for someone to watch something that is terrifying and not being able to tell themselves that it's not real. Just recently, there has been a very popular video game that many of you may be familiar with; "Five Nights At Freddy's." I can personally say that this game is probably the most terrifying game that I have ever played. The very first time I played it, I was in McDonalds around eleven O'clock at night, so already it was scary because of the time. The group that I was with had just finished eating because we were all ravenous after our day in Erie. My friend handed me his phone and told me to play this game. He had told me nothing about it and I had no prior knowledge of the game. All of a sudden, there was some really creepy music, I had made an inference that something bad was going to happen. Then, some really scary, extremely detailed, dark looking creature popped out and I pretty much screamed at the top of my lungs. I literally threw his phone in the air and almost broke it. I thought that it was going to be defenestrated. As one can see, I am not a fan of horror movies or terrifying video games. By everyone's laughter, I could tell that none of them had been apathetic towards my fear. Personally, I think that any type of horror is just bawdy and inappropriate. Whether it is a horror movie, an extremely creepy video game, or terrifying stories that people tell around campfires in the middle of the night, I can say that I really hate them. I even hate jump scare things like someone coming up behind you in the middle of the night and vigorously grabbing you. I really do not understand the point of horror movies. Horror movies, games, and stories are just ostentatious and designed to put fear in someone's life.
I would like to start off by saying that I am not a misogynist and that I have a lot of respect for women. However, while everyone is running around screaming about feminism, men endure a lot more injustices than what is lead on. At this point in society, I do not believe that feminism is as important as it was in the past and is basically a moot point. The biggest point I hear against this is the pay difference. However, I would like to share a statement by The Wall Street Journal about this. Men were twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week and women were much more likely to only work around 35 hours a week. Thinking about this, women who work 40 hours a week experienced almost identical pay to men. In the past, women did not have many rights and the feminist movement achieved these rights, which was very important. However, at this point in time, feminism is being used as a facade and an excuse. Everyday, I go on social media and there is another posts trying to make some obscure point about feminism. I find myself shaking my head a lot because the points that are trying to be made are absolutely ridiculous. I recently found a site that is trying to make a point about how men are treated unjustly as well and I think it is important to share these. Each day, hundreds of children are taken away from there natural father, just because they are males. Children are being taken away from perfectly capable fathers and being put back into the hands of mothers who are emotionally unstable or unfit to be a parent. More than 92% of divorce cases end with the children being given to their mother and not their father. So while these children could be being raised by a father who could care for them, they are given to their mother to fend for themselves. One fact that goes along with this is that 58% of child murders come from the mother, while only 6% comes from the father. Everyday, more households are losing their fathers. Also, because men are not able to have the same emotional support as women, men have a suicide rate that is 4.6 times higher than women. The majority of people have no apathy for men or their feelings. It is no secret that women are able to receive better emotional care from the people closest to them than men are. Men also have a life expectancy seven years shorter than women. With this, men only receive 35% of government funding meant for health care and medical costs. Even thought they only receive this small number, they pay for 115% of the federal taxes, much of which goes to health care. These are just some of the many instances in which men are discriminated against. So while many feminists have the audacity put all the blame on men, they don't have it as easy as it may seem. The point I want to make with this blog is that every group of people suffer some sort of injustice. Complaining about it does nothing, and honesty I am tired of going on social media and seeing another ostentatious post about feminism with another person whining about something. When feminism first started, it accomplished a lot of necessary things by going out and doing something. Now feminism is considered going online and whining about something, which is simply defeating its purpose. More people are speaking out against feminism's newest movement than ever before because it is taking women in the opposite direction. People are experiencing injustices everyday (men, women, and groups of many other different individuals) but they need to stop complaining about them and live their lives.
Sweet mellifluous carols fill the air. Zealous shoppers hustle and bustle through aisles of the stores. Cookies and sweets are being prepared to satisfy the ravenous guests. All these preparations lead to one of the greatest facades, the mystical Santa Claus. Year after year, children "nestle in their beds with visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads"... And "what to their wandering eyes do appear?" The parents shoving Christmas presents under the tree!
I remember when I first discovered this secret, I was devastated. My sense of reality was defenestrated. How could the two people I trust the most be part of such a global lie??? Then I started questioning everything! What about the serendipitous visits from the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy? Then I inferred that the leprechauns weren't real either. Lying is wrong. We have been taught that since day one, so how is this circumstance any different? It makes you question what the truth really is. You begin to wonder what else your parents have lied to you about.
Should parents continue to follow this ideology of deception or should children beware of the true story? Does eventually finding out that their parents are actually Santa change the child's disposition towards Christmas? I still love these holidays, especially Christmas, but after I learned the truth, it is just not the same. My enthusiasm has been tamed to a more demure outlook. My mom's friend was so affected by this revelation when she was a child that she did not continue this myth or tradition with her children. When my mom told me about her friend, I felt a deep sorrow for her children. This made me realize that even though it is a lie, it does done out of the kindness of their hearts. The end justifies the means in this case. Creating this expectation and enthusiasm is what makes holidays so special and warm.
Reflecting on both sides of the argument, I realize the "show must go on!" (Moulin Rouge) I know in years to come, I will be continuing these traditions, having my husband put on a red suit and white beard.
Yeah...that's a tough one. I feel like it is lying. But still...Christams is two things. Jesus and giving. But believing in Santa just makes everything seem better. To me, I always thought that if no one cared about me, at least Santa was thinking about me and what I wanted for Christmas. So...I don't know...it's lying for a good cause I guess. If Christmas was just your parents giving you gifts, that'd be...like...sad. Of course, now that we are older, Santa becomes less necessary as we shift our focus from giving to Jesus. Of course giving is still important. But Jesus is the reason for the season
I agree, Sydney, the revelation that Santa Claus is nothing but a mere farce definitely changes the dynamics of Christmas. As a child I used to be much more excited as I imagined an abnormally large man placing presents under my tree and eating the cookies I baked. It gave me a sense of Christmas spirit. Even throughout the year, I took special care in behaving to assure I would be on the good girls list. One year as a toddler I decided I wanted to get my brother in trouble, so I was going to put the seat up and not flush, but then I remembered that Santa would hVe seen me if I was bad, so I did not pull my mischievous trick. I definitely was heartbroken, but I sould definitly continue the tradition for my children so they experience the Christmas joy I once felt.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry. I forgot to use the ten Vocab words in this one. So I rewrote my argument below
DeleteAlright everyone, this kind of blows my mind when I think about this. But some people have the audacity to believe NASA never sent astronauts to the moon...ever. Maybe it is just their ideology, I don't know. I hope at this point, you realize how ridiculous sounding it is (if any of you do not believe that NASA went to the moon, my tone is not meant to be insulting. I'm sorry if you get offended anyway.). I try to be apathetic, but stuff like this gets me fired up. I literally just want to sit down with all the disbelievers out there and lecture them for hours on end. And if they still don't believe me, I'll have no choice but to defibrillate them. But seriously, I do not understand why this topic has become almost as controversial as other scientific topics like evolution and the age of earth (yes evolution is real and the earth is 4.5 billion years old.). The NASA moon landings were some of the greatest moments in history, yet people deny their existence. I don't know if it's because these people want to be ostentatious rebels or what? Now I am very zealous about a topic like this, so I'll try not to be biased in my argument.
ReplyDeleteDo any of you know how we know how far away the moon is. I'll give you a hint, NASA does not use a tape measurer. What they do use is a beam of light, other wise known as a laser. Scientists point a laser at a reflector on the facade of the moon. This reflector reflects the light back at the laser pointer. Because we know the speed of light in a vacuum is 3*10^8 meters/second, we can use the time it takes for the light to hit the mirror and come back to figure out the distance between the earth and the moon, which is about 384,400 kilometers. But how did those reflectors get on the moon? It seems obvious that someone had to go to the moon and put them there. But maybe a robot (by robot, I mean a computer that can act like a human and do individual tasks. So this is like the Mars rover. The shuttle does not really fall under this definition of a robot. But it is a robot) put these reflectors on the moon. I find this rather hard to believe, because in the 1960's, robot technology was rather limited. In fact a modern cellphone has more computing power than the entire Apollo spacecraft. Even so, if this evidence does not convince you, I have more.
Moon rocks are some of the coolest objects ever to be created. I mean...if you don't think moon rocks are cool, you probably are just a moon rock hater. But many people believe they are fake, because a robot has never gone to the moon and returned. And since they also believe that NASA never sent a man to the moon, these rocks must have been completely fabricated in a lab. There are some problems with this notion. If you look at a moon rock, there are lots of holes in it. This is because the moon is constantly bombarded by tiny asteroids. The earth is too, but they burn up in the atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere to protect itself. If you look at a moon rock under a microscope, there are very very very very tiny holes. Some holes are only a few micrometers in diameter. These rocks could not have come from earth, as these holes I just mentioned are too small to suggest the rocks originated on earth. A meteor that could produce a hole that size would never survive the trip through the atmosphere. To make these microscopic holes in a lab would also cost a fortune. So, it'd probably just be cheaper to go to the moon. Also, there are traceable remnants of the cosmic rays that were beating on them for a few billion years. The levels that have been detected in the moon rocks could not possibly have been so high if they originated from earth. This is again, due to the atmosphere. With all this stuff, I hope we can infer that NASA has sent astronauts to the moon.
Well...if I didn't convince you, don't worry about it. You'll just fall into that category of indecent people that I call "The Bawdy Ones." This select group includes the people who don't believe the earth is round, believe relative velocities simply add together, and those who still think Pluto is a planet. Ugh..it's all just so...weird. It's a very select group of people, but I'm sure it's a fun time. I love being in the group of people known as...well...I don't really belong to a group of people. But that's ok. I love being a loner who ruins people's days by debunking scientific lies they have been taught. Well, I hope I didn't ruin your day by debunking this one.
DeleteI was not aware that there are people who believe the trips to the moon were a farce. Interesting!
DeleteThe disbelief of the moon landings sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. I often find it hard to believe that people expend so much if their time and energy on ludicrous theories such as this one. The reasoning that backs most conspiracy theories is flawed, and has no basis. In this example, there doesn't seem to be any good reason as to why NASA would fabricate stories and evidence to corroborate a fake moon landing. In addition, believing in the falsity of the moon landing requires that one ignore scientific facts. This would imply that proven facts can be ignored, validating breathing underwater without help and living without vital organs. As one knows, this is not the case. However, conspiracy theories are often presented in such a way as to convince the reader that they are true. They play on the reader's fears and ignorance, and hope to shape their opinion. They must be debunked in order for people to understand the truth.
DeleteAfter bashing and stereotyping the entire male population in my last essay, I feel as if I am obligated to make amends for and glorify the importance of men. Men are able to fulfill some tasks that women cannot, and although I am obviously not a mysoginist, no matter what standpoint women have about feminism, the male population is a beautiful and vital part of creation.
ReplyDeleteMen are important in life for many reasons besides the obvious reproduction of the human species. I know from personal experience that men are very handy. I always find my brothers or my dad fixing things around the house, even if I break them. Men are usually very strong, and although I am not saying that girls are not, boys are capable of moving pianos from house to house, building functioning houses, and fixing my car when it breaks before school. They take care of the big projects and little details around the house and neighborhood when the family or friends need something done. Also, men are usually built to be taller than girls. They can reach the top shelf when girls cannot, which is a big help.
Families need a fatherly figure for many reasons. Scientific studies show that children with a positive male guardian in their life excel physically, socially, intellectually, and emotionally above those without. Dads are usually extremely fun to play with while growing up. My dad always played games with us when my mom was fulfilling her own obligations. I do know that he taught my brothers and I a lot of skills that a mother alone would not be capable of teaching us. Two parents provide more time for more, much-needed attention.
It was not some sort of serendipity that Mother Mary was given a caretaker and a father for her baby. In fact, when she decided to be the Mother of God, Joseph was far from zealous. He did not know how she could have gotten pregnant, and the whole ordeal was an anomaly. When women got pregnant out of wedlock back then, they were blamed immediately and were stoned to death. Joseph had the audacity to leave Mary quietly and take the blame when she broke the news to him. Although he was upset and confused, the respect and tone of voice he used when talking to her greatly exceeded that of which could be expected in a normal situation for any other contemporary couple. This example of a good father begins when the baby was not even born yet. He showed his strength and character when he accepted Mary into his home, despite the criticism from the town. Men can be respectful and kind, and without Joseph, Mary would have had a hard life.
I agree that some teenage boys are far from being socially acceptable and demure, but there is nothing humane about defenestrating their importance in a relationship and in existence all together. Boys often feel as if they need to impress their peers by acting "cool" in front of them. Whether this means bullying the weird girl, going against the school's rules, or completely disregarding the speed limit while racing down a highway, their ways of expressing themselves and fitting in is not ideal to many others and cannot be understood by most women. This does not mean that they will it mature, however, because they do, usually just a bit later than girls. They were made like that, but once they grow up, they are the best!
I do love the boys in my life and I know that the ones who seem to be crazy right now will most likely shape up to be great role models. This slower paced maturity is not true for all men, but can explain the thoughts and actions of them today. There was a man that helped me fix my car at the gas station the other day who obviously was not brought up in the best family and had some issues, but when he helped me and said "God bless you," I suddenly changed my view of all boys. Women cannot fulfill all of their obligations, and they are wonderful people.
This is very nice. Boys are awesome!
DeleteOne fact I have learned from high school is that most boys try to fit in with their peers in strange and often reckless ways. If one were to walk down the halls of ECC on any given day, the actions of males can range from strange noise making to prolonged hugs. These actions make no sense to me whatsoever, but seem to include the males in part of a social group. Social activity is critical to proper development, but these actions do not seem to help the males mature. Perhaps it is my outside point of view, but their actions seem childish and ostentatious. The attention they receive for their efforts only reinforces this infantile behavior. I know that not all boys act in this way, and it gives me hope that these boys are simple going through a phase. As you pointed out, when most boys mature, they become wonderful people.
DeleteI can only speak from personal expierence here. But I have one sister and one brother. Seems like an "average" family I guess. But my sister is a self-proclaimed clutz. This means she breaks things...a lot. I really don't know how she survives at college, because there is no one there to fix all the things she breaks. Anyway, when she's at home, my brother and I basically follow her around with a toolbox. Do we break things? Yeah. Does she break more things than my brother and I put together? Most definitely. Also, I just love being woken up at 2:00 AM because there is a scary bug on her wall. Being the good brother I am, I'll catch it and then throw it out her window. So she'll be happy for a few seconds, but then she'll mad that I didn't kill it. So anyway, in the same way that men cannot live without women, women cannot live without men. Or at least, my sister cannot live without my brother and I. And to build off Ashley's comment for a second, I do not understand the hugging and noise making. The prolonged hugging is a great way to spread disease. And the noises might scare away potential mates. You'd think evolution would eliminate such dangerous practices in males over a period of time. But sadly, no. Evolution has failed in this department.
DeleteAlthough my brothers and dad drive me absolutely insane, I would have to agree that they are pretty nice to have around sometimes. I used to hate being the only girl in my family because I hated having to do the little girly things on my own. But I'll never forget the times my older brothers would play Barbies with me so I wouldn't have to play alone. Plus, this way, we didn't have to fight over who would get to play with the girl Barbies. In addition, I love having my brothers around to talk to without the gossip or drama that often surrounds a female conversation. One of my favorite things is having therapeutic rage sessions in the car, where we get really angry about the injustices of being a teenager, and we point out all the stupid flaws in the world. But when we reach our destination, we let it all go, and never speak of it again, because boys aren't known to dwell on things. Another advantage of the fact that boys get over things really quickly is that they are not known to hold grudges. When my brothers get mad at me for something frivolous, they are usually over it by the time I come down to the kitchen for dinner, whereas with girls, we would probably still be fighting about the fact that I ate the last cookie when we were ten. For all of these reasons plus so many more, I have been shaped into the person I am today. I don't really get hung up on the petty things, and I'd much rather spend a night in watching March Madness than going over to my girlfriend's house to gossip about the shade of lipstick what's-her-face was wearing in home room. All in all, I would have to admit that I am very blessed to have all of these boys in my life, for without them, I would be a very different person.
DeleteThe boys in my life drive me absolutely nuts, but I love them regardless. My brother is awkward and we fight constantly but I couldn't imagine how different my life would be without him. This is the same for Tony as well. I find many of the same qualities in him as my brother. They both have giant hearts and would do anything for me. My parents and I laugh because as awkward as my brother is, there is a crowd of girls following him everywhere because he is so kind. When I wrecked my car, Tony and Anthony were both there and made sure I was okay and made sure everyone knew I wasn't doing anything wrong. When I was the only girl in my family for a while, my dad took advantage of it. I spent a lot of time doing "guy" things with him when I was younger. He coached football then too, so I was always surrounded by older boys. I'm glad these things happened because it gave me a great appreciation for men and their quirks. Even today, I still feel more comfortable around men rather than women.
DeleteSolipsism is a philosophical theory that states nothing but the existence of the self in a form of consciousness can be proven. However, this ideology is mistaken, and can be completely defenestrated after one understands the principles it rests on. It can be further disproven when one considers the circumstantial nature of its founding principles, and other details.
ReplyDeleteSolipsism rests largely in the fact that the physical senses do not necessarily prove the existence of natural objects. Tying shoes and feeling the hard plastic of the aglet does not mean that the shoes exist. Neither does it mean that the fingers tying the shoes exist, or that arm the fingers are attached to exists either. How can this be? Seeing or touching something does not mean that it is real. Even hugging a loved one does not prove that they exist. Consider dreams or even hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD. Dreams seem very real until the body awakens. While dreaming, it is possible to touch, see, hear, and feel many different physical objects. However, this does not mean that they are real. In fact, dreams are largely considered to be false imagery created by the unconscious mind. In addition, the visions of those on LSD are considered a false reality. This outlook determines that there is no connection between physical objects and mental states of awareness because physical objects exist outside of a consciousness.
In order to counter this approach, one must prove that there is a connection between the mental and the physical. In essence, that there is a connection between the human body and the human mind. In order to prove this connection, one must turn to emotions and feelings. Consider a feeling of ravenous hunger, and how it is discerned. To picture it in a more physical manner, imagine how an artist would portray a hungry couch. The couch would be holding food, mouth open wide, and have eyes focused on the food before it. The couch would essentially have human characteristics that depict it doing something. In this way, one can prove that emotions, while being felt, are also experienced. One cannot be ravenously hungry without searching for food and wolfing it down. Therefore, in order to understand an emotion, one must see it in someone else. They must see the actions of the hungry in order to fully understand what hunger is. To put it another way, when one infers that someone is hungry, they do not reason "Bill it eating a lot; he must be hungry." Rather, they know that eating a lot is part of the feeling of hunger because of the behavioral traits that are expressed when one is hungry. Thus, physical actions can be ascribed to conscious concepts, proving that human beings who show emotional criteria possess a consciousness.
Solipsism can also be disproven if one considers the nature of life. Solipsism does not provide any reasons as to why bad things happen to whomever it is that is the only person in existence. This one person still ages and is forced through all the miserable experiences that come with being alive. In addition, there is no explanation for the broadness and exactness of the physical world if it does not truly exist. In order for solipsism and these facts to remain true, the sole human in existence would need a split personality. They would need a personality who lived through life or an audience, and a personality who created the world and everything in it. The creator would increase in complexity as the world they created increased in complexity, and eventually become the audience. Think of this concept as a video game. In a video game, the world is created by a program run on a computer. One player enters the game and moves through the world. However, they are not the only player in the game. Other virtual people created by the program are also part of the game. The program is a part of the players. These players are part of the game. Therefore, the program is part of the game as well. Following this logic, solipsism is completely disproven. However, it has turned into a different philosophical theory in which every human being is God.
DeleteSolipsism can be disproved in many ways. It can be torn down based upon principles, or changed into another philosophy by eliminating its flaws. No matter how it ends up, solipsism as a philosophy creates people who are completely self absorbed. When they accept the anomaly that they are the only being in the world, they become egotistical, and the remainder of the human race feels sorry for them. Their ignorance can be alleviated, and outgrowing solipsism is often seen as a mark of maturity. Thankfully, most of the human race does not zealously believe in this outlandish philosophy.
Sorry if this caused headaches for anyone. I tried to make it as easy to understand as possible. For a more complete refutation, look here:
Deletehttp://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node43.html
It is true that everyone possesses their own unique gifts and talents, and not everyone is capable of doing the same things adequately. For many years, the term "artist" has had a connotation that deemed it a rather exclusive. In other words, it has been a common opinion that only select individuals are capable of producing praiseworthy artwork. However, when considering the exact definition of the term "art," it becomes clear that truly anyone is capable of being an artist so long as they believe that they are.
ReplyDelete"Art" is literally defined as "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination." It does not state anywhere in the definition that art has to realistic, ostentatious, or in vivid detail, only that it must be expressive of the artist's point of view of the world. This means that there are really only two things required of an aspiring artist - creativity and confidence. Many years ago, it was believed that artists possessed a certain "natural-born talent," and that true artists were those who could replicate a human face or colorful landscape. But as time developed, so did the various types of art forms. Art became much more abstract - much more expressive and meaningful. Now, the best kinds of art are often anomalies, that is, they often deviate from the standard norm of portraits and exact replicas. But perhaps this is the way it should be. For it is true that when an individual sits down to replicate a human face on a sketch pad, incredible skill is displayed, and not everyone possesses this rare skill. But what is the artist expressing? What is the story the artist is seeking to tell? Art is supposed to be expressive and original, not monotonous or exact. Three circles on a piece of paper can be considered art just as much as a mellifluously flowing piece of abstract art because both express the artist's disposition in a unique way.
While it is true that anyone is capable of producing art, it is also true that one must truly believe that they are capable in order to be a great artist. So often it is said, "I wish I was an artist," but very few individuals take the time to invest any time in art due to the popular belief that "artists" are solely those who can produce vivid replicas. Mitchell Maxwell urges those with a lack of self confidence: "Affirm your value. Tell the world 'I am an artist' not 'I want to be an artist.'" To be an artist, one must have the audacity to reproduce their deepest thoughts and sentiments upon a canvas, and hope that they can spark an interest in even the most apathetic of critics. That being said, it is impossible to please everyone with a single piece of artwork, due to the fact that not everyone chooses to express themselves in a similar way. But that is the beauty of art. It is not supposed to please every pair of eyes it encounters, but rather the goal of art is to invoke an emotion in the heart of the viewer. As long as an individual can discreetly communicate his or her deepest feelings behind the colorful facade that is their artwork, they are considered to be an artist.
Mary, I agree with your argument in all honesty. When we hear the word "art", I know that I personally think about drawing and painting rather than all of the different options that are truly out there. We can be artists with our words and actions as much as we can be artist with a paint brush and a pencil. It is wonderful all of the gifts that we are presented with and the gift that we can develop as we grow older.
DeleteMary, I completely agree with you. Everyone can truely be their own artist if they really want to be. Everyone is different, it is said that artwork reflects the way the artist is. If you and I painted the same picture, we would both have many differences in the picture. Which is good becuase in art, unlike society, different is good.
DeleteIt seems as if society is overly zealous about finding a scapegoat for the problems they do not understand. In the process, they completely defenestrate all logic. Barbie, the fashion doll, launched on March 9, 1959 by Ruth Handler with the help of Mattel Toys. Before the introduction of Barbie, most dolls took the image of infants. Barbie allowed children to have an adult-bodied doll. The inspiration came from a German doll named Bild Lilli, but after Barbie, the rights to Bild Lilli were taken by Mattel and Bild Lilli was discontinued. Barbie has become a cultural icon and one of the most iconic toys of all time. Andy Warhol even painted Barbie in 1985. Barbie was not created to be a bawdy sex image whose proportions were to be taken literally, but rather a doll that allows little girls to create a dream world where anything is possible.
ReplyDeleteBarbie is now over fifty years old, but Barbie is still one of the most influential toys. Some people, however misguided I feel they are, believe Barbie is to blame for another cultural phenomenon, eating disorders. Barbie was created in 1959, which was during the time Marilyn Monroe was the main sex icon of America. Barbie was created skinny when America was looking at curves as the ideal body type. Barbie is constantly maligned for her unrealistic proportions, which is irrelevant considering she is a piece of plastic and not a living human being, but Mattel has lead a huge effort to clean Barbie's reputation. Their explanation for the body shape is that the measurements simply make it easier to dress and undress the doll, which is Barbie's purpose as a fashion doll. The exaggerated curves make it easier for designers to scale clothes into such a small size from fabric used to make human clothing.
Barbie was not created to be judged by grown women. Barbie was intended to be played with by young girls who have a completely different psychological outlook than adults. Adults look at Barbie as a figure glorifying the image of being thin, while little girls look at Barbie as a doctor who can drive her motor home to the moon.
Eating disorders are not a mere desire to be thin, but rather a real psychological problem within the individual suffering. It is unsure what causes anorexia, all psychiatrists have been able to conclude is it can be hereditary and it is caused by chemical differences in the brain. An anorexic's brain reacts different when faced with food. The self control part of the brain triggers instead of the part of the brain which controls primitive instincts. Not only that, but many anorexics do not feel hunger the same. They are apathetic when faced with hunger, where as a healthy person feels hunger as pain. Therefore a healthy human may feel ravenous, but an anorexic person may feel fine.
Barbie was created far before the craze began of being thin. Obviously the problem is not a doll who was created decades before, but the culture we are living in. Perhaps instead of looking to a piece of plastic, we should watch what we say and how we use the word "fat" when talking about ourselves or others for the diction we use is far stronger than any piece of plastic. Barbie has been given many different body shapes for different editions, some more demure than others. If a piece of plastic is actually causing these problems, then the ideology should not be blaming the doll, but rather looking into what can be done to boost self image enough that it cannot be so critically harmed by an inanimate object. I played with Barbie my whole childhood, and never once did I idolize Barbie for her body. I idolized her for her ability to be anything and have any career. Barbie gave me confidence that I could be that kind of person. I can also thank Barbie for allowing me find a passion for clothing through always making her wear the most ostentatious clothing I could find. If I did not have the experience as a child of dressing Barbie in clothing, it may have taken me a much longer time to figure out what career would make me happier than a fashion one. If anyone is that concerned about the eating disorders in society, they need to seek a cure instead of a scapegoat, especially an inanimate object that cannot even defend itself.
DeleteThis is perfect. I find it ridiculous that people have taken to criticizing a child's toy for giving girls unrealistic expectations for their body. The question then arises - why are grown women looking to a plastic toy for little girls as a model for their ideal body image? How many children's toys are actually proportional anyways? Last time I checked, living bears didn't have smiley faces or hearts on their butts. But no one criticizes the creators of teddy bears for creating an unrealistic toy. Like you said, the dolls were created so that clothes could slide easily up and down their bodies, not to glamorize an anorexic figure. And truthfully, how many little girls actually look at their Barbies and think "wow I wish I had her body"? None, because five year old girls aren't worried about things like that. I think that there quite a few problems in this world that should be addressed before this one.
DeleteThis is so true! Barbie was created to be a toy, not a role model. I loved dolls when I was little, and had lots of Barbies. They never had any effect on my self-esteem. And so what if they make Barbie look like that so she is easier to dress? That's the point of a doll! Its not so people can strive to look like her. I don't think little kids look at Barbie and think, "I want her body." Instead they just dress her and play with her in her dream house. The proportions of the doll have no effect on them, and they shouldn't.
DeleteWhen the our countries main language changes to Spanish and English, it will not be a serendipity because many saw this change coming by the over population of the Spanish immigrants wanting to be a citizen of the United States. When these immigrant settle here, many Americans are not very apathetic towards them not understanding the English language. It is know that the English language is one of the most challenging languages to learn which leaves many immigrants hopeless to understanding everyday life. Americans need to understand the fact that having another language being dominate in the United States will do nothing but strengthen the country and the people living in it.
ReplyDeleteAdding another major language to our country would not mean that the English language would be defenestrated. The idea of also learning Spanish would allow the country to be more diverse with other countries and also break the barrier between Spanish and English speakers. One can not learn a language over night. The tone and pace of the Spanish language itself is a complicated system but, once it is mastered the sound is mellifluous. One would not need to be fluent in the language, they could use many connotations in order to get their whole point acrossed. This could help Spanish speakers be less demure about being a citizen of this country.
Many infer that this language change would become a one way street of English speakers having to learn Spanish, but the Spanish speakers would also need to make a attempt to learn English. People may find this an anomaly of an idea. They believe that this would become more confusing rather than helpful. Which is understanding because learning a new language is very difficult, just image the immigrants being overwhelmed with being in a new country with many natives of the English language not having a clue about Spanish. This language change needs to be a two way street in order to account for both languages.
Spanish being added with English to be the main languages of the United States seems to be close in our future. Should children in Elementary School start learning Spanish sooner than later to then have the diverse language? The idea of Spanish being fluent in the United States can strengthen the country by many means. Maybe this change will lead to many more add ons of different languages. People need to be open about learning a second langue. One can not be hurt by learning.
Maddie, I think that adding another language to our culture is a huge step forward for our society. America is a melting pot of different ethnicities, but at the same time, we struggle to accept other cultures, or even change for that matter. I had a personal experience with this situation when my cousins from North Carolina told me they refused to attend the Catholic Church in town because they didn't want to be around all of the "immigrants" (the church was made up of Hispanic people). They are racist and close minded and I hate them. I'm happy to see that you share my opinion on change in this county.
DeleteI agree, Maddie, there needs to be an acceptance and openess with learning another language. Imagine if not only America, but every country learned a second language. Think of how much smaller the world would become if more people could communicate easier. Think of all the great stories each and every person has to share, and then everyone would be filled with many more stories to cherish and remember. We were all created in God's likeness, but we seem to forget that and look at every culture as different in a bad way. Imagine if the world joined for unity. New doors would be unlocked for technology for sure if the greatest minds could work together. One language may enhance national pride, but multiple allows for a pride in our whole world, which is needed, because citizens need to work together instead of against each other.
DeleteI think that learning and accepting new languages is great! It allows us to broaden our horizons and meet other people we may have not met if we couldn't have spoke their language. I think learning a foreign language should be required. I am so happy I took 3 years of Spanish because I was able to learn so much about another culture. I wouldn't have had that opportunity if I wouldn't have decided to take a language. Besides, even though we all speak different languages, we are still God's children. Why not be able to get to know everyone else better?
DeleteOk, I have seen the controversy about this topic all over the place. People are really hesitant when it comes to being apathetic towards another race. I personally know people who do not want any of the Spanish speaking people in America. When my family took a trip to California over the previous summer, almost everything had both spanish and English on it. I saw tons of people who were upset about it.
DeleteSo, this may be a new topic that not many people thought to argue before, but I am going to argue the existence of mermaids. This is an odd subject and I am sure that my weird disposition is the reason I believe in their existence so strongly. This all began nearly two years ago when I witnessed a documentary on the discovery channel called Mermaids: The Body Found. It is shown from the Point of View of these marine biologist who hear these sounds on a sonar machine while trying to stop the government from killing whales and by a serendipitous chance, they discovered a body that appeared to be that of a mermaid. Though it was later found as fake, the documentary brings up many steady points that with the use of the actors diction, came across as very predictable. When I brought up my thoughts to my father, a former biology teacher, he nearly defenestrated me. He listed all of the biological points as to why they could not exist, but I want to think about the ways that there possibly could be something out there that we do not yet understand.
ReplyDeleteThe first ideology account of mermaids came centuries ago, the first counts of mermaids were brought to light when sailors claimed to have seen majestic creatures in the ocean that would sing to them in mellifluous and had beautiful hair. They most likely were drunk, but that does not mean that their accounts were not reliable. Though mermaids are often portrayed as ostentatious creatures, scientist say that if mermaids were to exist, they would have large eyes that would give them the ability to see in the dark and hairless bodies that have been adapted from staying in the ocean for a long time. They are overall ugly creatures.
One of the other objections that rises with the questions of mermaids actually came from. This question actually haunts me due to the fact that, like the good catholic I am, I have some issues with evolution. However, the theory the most supports my view on mermaids is called the Aquatic Ape Theory and it states that back in the time when evolution was taking place slowly but surly and we were "turning into humans", some apes chose to take to the water instead of staying on land.
I know that everyone who has made it to the end of this argument thinks that I have gone boarder line crazy, but in the end I compare my points to that of the giant squid. Until the year 2004, a little over ten years ago, no one had ever seen visual evidence of this animal's existence. Many doubted that it was more than a myth, much like mermaids. However, once Japanese fishermen were able to get a photograph of it in its natural habitat, there was no longer doubt. Nearly 95% of the ocean is unexplored, so I believe that there is no reason to believe that mermaids are a myth just yet. Someone out there will have enough audacity to fund a research project to shine light on their existence. If you doubt the existence, that is fine, but you are a bawdy human and you are wrong.
Jenna, your points remind me of bigfoot! I'm a crazy bigfoot believer! I can understand why you Beleive in mermaids becuase of the same why people view Bigfoot. I think it has some to do with people believing in things that they can only see. This seems to be a point where they want the photo proof, but than that leads to spirits and many beleive in them, but they cannot be seen. I think people cannot accept that fact that a mythical creature can actually be real, maybe they are afraid.
DeleteWhat the heck, Jenna. This is very weird, but if you believe that mermaids are real then good for you. I highly doubt there are sea ladies without feet swimming around in the ocean. If they had the capability to think logically, reason, and have a soul, I feel as if they would be a bigger part of sea life and more people would actually know about their existence. This does not actually make any sense to me because I picture mermaids as they are seen in pictures and movies. Maybe there is something out there that resembles a mermaid but does not accurately prove what some have made them out to be. I have very little faith in their existence and will be the boring person who does not believe in them until they are proved to be real. They do seem very nice in the fantasy world, however!
DeleteJenna I am with you 100 percent. I saw that exact same documentary and since the government has banned it, I think that there is no other conclusion to believe other than mermaids are real. If you think about it, why would the government ban the showing of it if it wasn't real. It's not like they banned the little mermaid because it had a mermaid in it.
DeleteJenna, I think that it is great that you believe in this. I personally have no opinion in the subject but my dad could have sworn he found Bigfoot tracking one time he was cross country skiing. He and a couple of friends went back to find these tracks to see if they was actually Bigfoot. My dad is not a Bigfoot fanatic but some of his friends are into it and I just remember how excited they were when they were heading out to find the tracks. I think it is pretty cool the different beliefs people have such as Bigfoot and mermaids.
DeleteJenna, I've seen this as well and I am not sure how I feel about it. I believe that there are many anomalies that we cannot explain and the ocean is a big place. So there could possibly be mermaids in the ocean. However, I definitely don't think they are pretty and look like Ariel. The mermaids from the documentary would be a lot more accurate description of how a mermaid could exist in the ocean. The controversy surrounding the documentary also leads me to believe that mermaids could be real.
DeleteSo many times, people turn to the medicines in order to feel better. But has anyone ever wondered what is really in our medicine? In biblical times, they had no medicine. Instead they used a variety of plants, herbs, and oils (as well as prayer) to help heal the sick. As times advanced, scientists have evolved and so has medicine. But, how much has it really helped us? In many cases, people die from the side effects of the medicines that are supposed to help them. Most of the time, we infer that the benefits out weigh the possible negatives, and that they will treat our anomalies. It is in our ideology that science is supposed to help us. Most of the time it does, but other times it doesn't. I believe in natural healing, and that maybe the ideas of the past weren't that bad, and are still effective. Just because they didn't have the audacity and knowledge back then to find anything better doesn't mean that what they were doing was bad. In the past, if a person had a stomachache they would take peppermint. Today, we take Tums or some kind of antacid. This week I had a cold, and after taking lots of decongestants, nothing worked. My mom decided to give me peppermint since nothing else was working. She put peppermint oil in tea and I drank it. To my serendipity, I actually felt better after taking it. I thought about how all the chemicals in my medicine didn't do me any good, but this peppermint did. It made me wonder if we have any other things that are natural and can help us. This event made me have a shift in my tone about medicines. So many times I have believed that what ever science has created must be right, but I don't think that is necessarily true. We have forgot what our ancestors have discovered, and that maybe they were right. After this, I have a new found zeal for natural healing. All the chemicals used are not good for us. Maybe we should go look for healing next to mellifluous stream instead of a pharmacy. I don't think natural healing can help one who has been defenestrated or prevent misogyny, but I think it should be utilized more!
ReplyDeleteThis makes sense, Olivia. Science and medicine do help a lot because years ago so many people died from something as little as a flu, but other times I do believe that medicine is a mind game that we play with ourselves. If you give a child a bandaid for a microscopic scrape, for example, all of the sudden they feel better. In his way, some medicines make us feel as if we are better just because we know that it is supposed to. I know that a lot of medicines are made from nature and they do have the power to cure a sickness, and it is weird that your peppermint worked so well. For something like a cold, medicine does not help, but it cures itself with time instead.
DeleteOlivia, I agree that olden ways of medicine can be much more natural and helpful. I also believe that some chemical medicines should be used as well in certain cases. The herb methods are starting to arise once again with the legalization of medical marijuana. Though these herbs are also use form other reasons that are illegal, there are medical reason such as marijuana is used as a pain reliever.
DeleteWhy is it that people have the audacity to scare themselves? Constantly I hear of people going to horror movies. What is the point? I have never really been into scaring myself to death, so I do not exactly understand why people do it. For some of you out there who love scaring themselves, I would really appreciate it if you could inform me why anyone would want to see movies that make them so scared that they are not able to sleep well at night. Perhaps it is just in the person's disposition.
ReplyDeleteNot only do people see horror movies just once, but they have the zeal to see them over and over again. Even the church is against viewing movies such as "The Conjuring." Even though most horror movies are just imaginative themes portrayed in a very scary way, some of these movies are actually based on true stories. So if these stories are in fact true, then I find it extremely stupid for someone to watch something that is terrifying and not being able to tell themselves that it's not real.
Just recently, there has been a very popular video game that many of you may be familiar with; "Five Nights At Freddy's." I can personally say that this game is probably the most terrifying game that I have ever played. The very first time I played it, I was in McDonalds around eleven O'clock at night, so already it was scary because of the time. The group that I was with had just finished eating because we were all ravenous after our day in Erie. My friend handed me his phone and told me to play this game. He had told me nothing about it and I had no prior knowledge of the game. All of a sudden, there was some really creepy music, I had made an inference that something bad was going to happen. Then, some really scary, extremely detailed, dark looking creature popped out and I pretty much screamed at the top of my lungs. I literally threw his phone in the air and almost broke it. I thought that it was going to be defenestrated. As one can see, I am not a fan of horror movies or terrifying video games. By everyone's laughter, I could tell that none of them had been apathetic towards my fear.
Personally, I think that any type of horror is just bawdy and inappropriate. Whether it is a horror movie, an extremely creepy video game, or terrifying stories that people tell around campfires in the middle of the night, I can say that I really hate them. I even hate jump scare things like someone coming up behind you in the middle of the night and vigorously grabbing you. I really do not understand the point of horror movies. Horror movies, games, and stories are just ostentatious and designed to put fear in someone's life.
You are the epitome of garbage
DeleteI would like to start off by saying that I am not a misogynist and that I have a lot of respect for women. However, while everyone is running around screaming about feminism, men endure a lot more injustices than what is lead on. At this point in society, I do not believe that feminism is as important as it was in the past and is basically a moot point. The biggest point I hear against this is the pay difference. However, I would like to share a statement by The Wall Street Journal about this. Men were twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week and women were much more likely to only work around 35 hours a week. Thinking about this, women who work 40 hours a week experienced almost identical pay to men. In the past, women did not have many rights and the feminist movement achieved these rights, which was very important. However, at this point in time, feminism is being used as a facade and an excuse. Everyday, I go on social media and there is another posts trying to make some obscure point about feminism. I find myself shaking my head a lot because the points that are trying to be made are absolutely ridiculous. I recently found a site that is trying to make a point about how men are treated unjustly as well and I think it is important to share these.
ReplyDeleteEach day, hundreds of children are taken away from there natural father, just because they are males. Children are being taken away from perfectly capable fathers and being put back into the hands of mothers who are emotionally unstable or unfit to be a parent. More than 92% of divorce cases end with the children being given to their mother and not their father. So while these children could be being raised by a father who could care for them, they are given to their mother to fend for themselves. One fact that goes along with this is that 58% of child murders come from the mother, while only 6% comes from the father. Everyday, more households are losing their fathers. Also, because men are not able to have the same emotional support as women, men have a suicide rate that is 4.6 times higher than women. The majority of people have no apathy for men or their feelings. It is no secret that women are able to receive better emotional care from the people closest to them than men are. Men also have a life expectancy seven years shorter than women. With this, men only receive 35% of government funding meant for health care and medical costs. Even thought they only receive this small number, they pay for 115% of the federal taxes, much of which goes to health care. These are just some of the many instances in which men are discriminated against. So while many feminists have the audacity put all the blame on men, they don't have it as easy as it may seem.
The point I want to make with this blog is that every group of people suffer some sort of injustice. Complaining about it does nothing, and honesty I am tired of going on social media and seeing another ostentatious post about feminism with another person whining about something. When feminism first started, it accomplished a lot of necessary things by going out and doing something. Now feminism is considered going online and whining about something, which is simply defeating its purpose. More people are speaking out against feminism's newest movement than ever before because it is taking women in the opposite direction. People are experiencing injustices everyday (men, women, and groups of many other different individuals) but they need to stop complaining about them and live their lives.
These people ned to stop hiding behind social media to make their case because this is really not helping their cause at all.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSweet mellifluous carols fill the air. Zealous shoppers hustle and bustle through aisles of the stores. Cookies and sweets are being prepared to satisfy the ravenous guests. All these preparations lead to one of the greatest facades, the mystical Santa Claus. Year after year, children "nestle in their beds with visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads"... And "what to their wandering eyes do appear?" The parents shoving Christmas presents under the tree!
ReplyDeleteI remember when I first discovered this secret, I was devastated. My sense of reality was defenestrated. How could the two people I trust the most be part of such a global lie??? Then I started questioning everything! What about the serendipitous visits from the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy? Then I inferred that the leprechauns weren't real either. Lying is wrong. We have been taught that since day one, so how is this circumstance any different? It makes you question what the truth really is. You begin to wonder what else your parents have lied to you about.
Should parents continue to follow this ideology of deception or should children beware of the true story? Does eventually finding out that their parents are actually Santa change the child's disposition towards Christmas? I still love these holidays, especially Christmas, but after I learned the truth, it is just not the same. My enthusiasm has been tamed to a more demure outlook. My mom's friend was so affected by this revelation when she was a child that she did not continue this myth or tradition with her children. When my mom told me about her friend, I felt a deep sorrow for her children. This made me realize that even though it is a lie, it does done out of the kindness of their hearts. The end justifies the means in this case. Creating this expectation and enthusiasm is what makes holidays so special and warm.
Reflecting on both sides of the argument, I realize the "show must go on!" (Moulin Rouge) I know in years to come, I will be continuing these traditions, having my husband put on a red suit and white beard.
Yeah...that's a tough one. I feel like it is lying. But still...Christams is two things. Jesus and giving. But believing in Santa just makes everything seem better. To me, I always thought that if no one cared about me, at least Santa was thinking about me and what I wanted for Christmas. So...I don't know...it's lying for a good cause I guess. If Christmas was just your parents giving you gifts, that'd be...like...sad. Of course, now that we are older, Santa becomes less necessary as we shift our focus from giving to Jesus. Of course giving is still important. But Jesus is the reason for the season
DeleteI agree, Sydney, the revelation that Santa Claus is nothing but a mere farce definitely changes the dynamics of Christmas. As a child I used to be much more excited as I imagined an abnormally large man placing presents under my tree and eating the cookies I baked. It gave me a sense of Christmas spirit. Even throughout the year, I took special care in behaving to assure I would be on the good girls list. One year as a toddler I decided I wanted to get my brother in trouble, so I was going to put the seat up and not flush, but then I remembered that Santa would hVe seen me if I was bad, so I did not pull my mischievous trick. I definitely was heartbroken, but I sould definitly continue the tradition for my children so they experience the Christmas joy I once felt.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete