.quotidian.torture.

Not dead, just lazy.

2011-09-14T10:14:00.000-05:00

Got that everyone? I'm still alive. Just busy with, you know, everything.

And tired. God damn am I tired.

Graffiti

2011-03-24T14:04:00.007-05:00

The charming example of the defacement of private property on the right was found, by moi, in a gas station restroom about five miles outside of Gatesville.

The graffiti was the first thing I saw when I wandered into the toilet. It was kind of hard to miss, what with it being one of only three others. ("Call Jenny for a good time xxx-xxxx" and "Fuck Obama", respectively.) All smears of black ink on the white plastered walls.

I couldn't do much but shake my head and snap a picture, then empty my bladder and get the fuck out of that town as quickly as possible. If that's what they think of poor, God fearing black folks, what would they do to a godless commie faggot like me?

But as I was driving out of town, I noticed something else. About two miles down the road from the gas station was a giant billboard with a "McCain/Palin" sign inexpertly pasted across the front. Again, I couldn't do much more than shake my head in disbelief as I tore past. (Doing well over fifty-five, trust me.)

But as I saw the billboard fading in my rear-view mirror, I realized how faded it looked. Three years of exposure to the elements hadn't been kind. It reminded me of some kind of barnacle, or maybe a particularly persistent strain of lichen, clinging to a weathered rock in an environment rapidly turning hostile to it. Sure, it's a worthless, pitiable piece of slime, but you've got to at least admire its sheer tenacity, if nothing else.

These evil fuckers are fighting a losing battle. People are moving on, and it scares the piss out of them, so they struggle even harder, burrowing as far as they can into cracks and crevices of society, retreating into blind hatred and insanity. That's all the far right is these days, a desperate graffiti scrawl on the face of our political system. A last ditch attempt to clutch on to the "good old days".

They've already lost.

And they know it.

(For those of you who don't get the Church's Chicken reference: In the 1990's, there was an urban legend about Church's Chicken making the rounds. The company was allegedly run by the KKK and put saltpeter in their chicken in an attempt to sterilize the black population. Of course, this probably isn't true, but that doesn't appear to matter to the shining example of humanity that scribbled it in sharpie on a bathroom wall.)

GRE

2011-02-13T12:15:00.000-06:00

Bleh.

Well, I'm past last week's wonderful little funk. I don't know what contributed to it, but I know that finishing the GRE (that's Graduate Record Exam, if you didn't know) certainly helped alleviate it.

Scores so far are:

Verbal:
    670/800

Quantitative:
    760/800

Writing:
    Waiting for evaluation.

It's good to have it out of the way, at least, and my scores are apparently pretty good.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a short story to finish, and a response to write to a certain blogger...

...

2011-02-09T13:24:00.000-06:00

This isn't accurate, but it's true, which is more important.

I hit upon the perfect metaphor this morning.

For a while, I've been struggling to define the sense of disconnection that I have. Then, as I was fumbling to zip up my coat through a pair of thick leather gloves, it struck me. This is what I'm like. Stuck constantly trying to get a handle on the world, but unable to. Not stupid, but dull, like a knife blade either worn down or never sharpened in the first place. Like Jack said; “A copy of a copy of a copy.” A lens, out of focus, I can see the world around me, but the edges are blurred. I can look, but I can't understand. Not fully.

And that scares me.

God. Sometimes I worry that I'm going mad. That something inside me head is broken, warped out of shape by the cold of my constant analytical eye. Or maybe that's just the isolation talking. Maybe it's true that other people are the lenses that we see ourselves through, and I, with my astigmatism, am without a pair of glasses to rely on.

But what is this? Poetry? Reflection? Introspection? I'm over thinking things, as usual.

(This little bit of happy prose came to mind as I was walking home from class today. It's a bit melodramatic, I know, but I felt the need to write it down and share it nonetheless. I'm slowly piecing myself together, not because I was broken by something mysterious in my past, but because that's what life is, the process of putting yourself together into a coherent whole. It's easy for some people, others never manage to fully achieve it, and in the end, it doesn't really matter, but I know I'll never be happy or fulfilled if I don't figure myself out. This is a part of that process.)

(God. I sound like a fifteen-year-old wearing too much eyeliner. Somebody shoot me.)

Carl Sagan Would Like a Word...

2011-02-02T17:40:00.001-06:00

...and the Spaceship of the Imagination is armed. With SCIENCE!

RE: The Evidential Problem of Evil

2011-02-02T17:29:00.000-06:00

Cristofer Urlaub, he of the awesome glasses, runs a blog.

After he commented on a post of mine, I left a comment on a post of his, in a sense of reciprocation. My comment questioned the justifications he had presented for the "Problem of Evil". Apparently, thought, my arguments consisted of something known as the "Evidential Problem of Evil". I'd never heard of this distinction before, but it makes sense. The LPoE attempts to use formal logical deduction to show that a wholly good, all powerful, all knowing god cannot exist, given that there is evil. The EPoE, in comparison, only shows that it is unlikely that a perfect god exists, given the state of the world around us.

The response Urlaub gave to the problem of evil was the standard one of "free will". There's a number of objections that could be raised to the existence of free will in a universe with an omniscient, omnipotent creator. The God of Christianity is traditionally depicted as not only being completely aware of everything, not just what is happening now, but what will happen in the future, which kind of throws a monkey wrench in the idea of free will. The God of the bible, though, is also said to have a "plan". This plan is vague and ill defined, but it's there. One of the easiest ways to understand this problem is simply to think of Judas. Yes, he's reviled for betraying Jesus, but according to Christian doctrine, Jesus' suffering on the cross is part of god's plan. He even knew, before hand, that he would be betrayed. Judas was nothing but a pawn in god's game. What does that say about his free will, and the free will of all humans?

But I'm getting off track. Urlaub promised a response to the Evidential Problem of Evil, and he delivered.

His response is divided up into several sections. Part of his claim is that there are different reasons for different examples of human suffering, so it's unfair for atheists to criticize one response for not explaining something it was never intended to, but I don't think any of these responses hold water. I intend to show the holes in every one of them.

Consequences of Sin:

Urlaub says that he doesn't believe in original sin, something that suprised me. I've always taken that as a central doctrine of Christian faith. But apparently he's a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints, an subset of Christianity that I'm not entirely familiar with. I was raised Protestant (Methodist, actually.), so that's the denomination I have the most understanding of. Maybe it's true that the Mormons don't subscribe to original sin. If they don't, I have to say I'm glad. It's always struck me as a disgusting doctrine, the idea that we're punished for the sins of our ancestors, something we had no part in.

But (and there's always a but) he says that he believes humans are innately, to some degree, sinful, and therefor subject to suffering, sickness, and death. I'll be honest. I don't get it. Are we created ill and commanded to be well? If so, why? Why not just make us without the tendency to sin in the first place?

Besides, his response doesn't resolve the problem. He uses the example of stepping of the side of a building to show that suffering is the natural result of sin, but this falls flat (pun fully intended). Falling off of a building is a logical progression. You step over the side, the roof no longer supports you, gravity takes over, your potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. You encounter a resisting force, the sidewalk, and all of that kinetic energy is released in rapid succession, reducing you to a fine paste. There's no such explanation for how sin generates natural disasters, or genetic diseases.

Now I could write this off as a simple misunderstanding. He meant something else, and I've interpreted him wrong. It happens often enough. But in the very next section, he seriously argues that the earth itself is influenced by sin. That human behavior causes earthquakes.

At this point, I almost stopped reading. Instead, I settled for hitting my keyboard with my face a few times. I can't really express how incredible wrong that notion is. See, we know how earthquakes work. They're not caused by sin. But that's not the only problem, or even the biggest. Think back to 2004. Remember the massive Indonesian tsunami? The one that killed 230,000 people across a dozen countries? Caused by an undersea earthquake. Were all of those 230,000 people sinners? Even the children? Even the Christian missionaries? Or were they just "collateral damage"?

*sigh* Next section.

Works of God, Manifest:

He lists John 9 as an example for the existence of diseases. In this passage, there's a man who has been blind since birth. Jesus' disciples, justifiably, ask what he, or his parents, did to bring him such suffering. Jesus claims that the reason he was born blind is because his purpose is for the works of God to be made manifest. That is, the whole reason he was born blind, and suffered through a life of begging in the streets, is so that Jesus could heal him.

What.

So. God causes (or allows, really the same thing when you're the lord of the universe) huge amounts of human suffering, just so he (or his son, I've never been quite clear on how that trinity thing works) can show off? Urlaub then goes on to suggest that this is all okay, because we agreed to this sort of treatment before we were born.

What.

Okay, leaving aside that I've never heard any Christian doctrine suggesting that we existed before we were born on the planet, that our souls are somehow crammed into fetuses, or something, (Is this LDS doctrine?) I've still got to wonder: on what grounds can it be said that we agreed to this? What was the alternative? Could we disagree? Can you even disagree with a deity? "Sorry Jeff, but I'm sending you to earth to be born with Harlequin type Ichthyosis. You'll suffer horrible as a baby for a few weeks, then die of a massive systemic infection. But it's okay, because this will show my infinite grace and mercy. Somehow."

What do you say to that? "Forgive me, O Lord. Not to question your infinite wisdom, but that's fucking insane." Or do you just nod along, because hey, who's gonna argue with the guy that can cast you into the pit for all eternity?

Also, keep this section in mind for later, when he talks about "Soul Making".

Compensation in the Afterlife:

Urlaub suggests that, not only will we be compensated for any suffering in the afterlife, but that if you die before you are "morally self-aware", you get an automatic ticket to heaven. First off, I think you might want to run that idea by, say, a survivor of the aforementioned 2004 tsunami. But second of all, doesn't this completely undermine the whole point of having earth in the first place? I mean, if you're going to take in innocent children (innocent, despite the fact that all people are apparently created inherently sinful), then why even bother letting people grow up? Why even send people to earth in the first place? Just put everyone in heaven right as they're created. Bam, problem solved.

Keep this section in mind as well.

Soul-making/Irenaean Theodicy:

This is the idea that the whole purpose of our time on earth, for suffering and joy and the whole lot, is to allow us to grown spiritually. Whatever that means. But, look back on the last two sections. In the "Works of God" bit, Urlaub suggests that we were capable of making decisions and agreeing to god's "plan" even before we were sent to earth. To have any measure of informed consent in this process, we would have to be intelligent, adult beings. So why bother sending us to earth? And in the "Compensation in the Afterlife" section, Urlaub states that people who die before moral self-awareness is achieved are automatically accepted into heaven. So why do they not need the spiritual growth? And what was the suffering meant to teach them?

The whole idea behind Urlaub's response was that there are numerous reasons for human suffering, but his explanations for the reasons don't fit together. Instead of forming a cohesive whole, they all cause problems with each other.

Now, this is not to say that I've just, somehow, conclusively proved god (or God, or any kind of deity) doesn't exist. But you've got to admit that the attempted explanations for human suffering all fall flat, leaving God looking like a bit of a sociopath at worst, and incredibly inconsistent and capricious at best.

So why are we supposed to be worshiping this being again?

Jim's Religious Survey

2011-02-02T01:03:00.000-06:00

Here:

Link.

Take it! Do it! DO IT NAO!

It's not just for non-religious people either.

Winterdammerung

2011-02-01T23:35:00.002-06:00

My car thermometer says that it's ten degrees outside, but it's a known liar. I'd put the actual temperature at half that. Add in wind chill, and it feels like it's even less. Flurries of dry, powdery snow drift across the parking lot, only to pile up against hundreds of pairs of booted feet. My coat isn't quite enough to make being outside bearable.

I really can't emphasize this enough. It's not just standard winter cold. It's ball clenching, teeth aching, lung burning cold. Freezing. Algid. Frore. Rimy. Glacial. Bum-fuck-cold. Whatever you want to call it, it's not fun. I'm not built for cold weather. I've got less insulation on me than an aluminum aircraft hanger in the Bahamas! I'm a railroad tie with wire-framed glasses!

I'm telling you this to set the scene. See, the reason I'm outside, instead of at home, ensconced inside the cocoon I've piled together from every piece of insulating material in my room with a chemical heating pad stuck down my shirt, is that some stupid fuck pulled the fire alarm.

Why?

Sweet merciful raptor Jesus, why!?

Of course, since I'm writing this, you could, justifiably, come to the conclusion that I'm back at home. This is true. It still doesn't change the fact that I and four hundred other students spent a quarter of an hour rapidly solidifying in the parking lot.

Beware, alarm-puller. Beware, for you have summoned the wrath of four hundred angry, poorly fed college students. If your identity is uncovered, we will descend upon you swiftly and silently. Our ramen-fueled vengeance will not be stayed by petty human concepts like "mercy" or "dry cleaning bills". We will sacrifice our quarters at the temple of "Laundromat" to wash the crimson tide from our outerwear. WE WILL NOT BE STOPPED!

-QT, hungry for justice. And tacos.

ted haggard is completely heterosexual...

2011-01-29T03:38:00.002-06:00

We all know the sad, stupid story of Ted Haggard, mega-church preacher forced into exile from the religious right after his meth habit and affair with a male prostitute came to light.When I first heard about what he'd done, I couldn't help but laugh at the irony. Here's a man who has built a career on a facade of moral rectitude, raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars by preaching a hateful and judgmental theology to the masses.

As poor an emotion as schadenfreude is, there's some times when it's the only reasonable response.

But now, Ted's back. In an article in GQ, he spills his guts to Kevin Roose, famed journalistic infiltrator of that center for evangelical education, Liberty University.

I began Roose's article with a profound sense of skepticism, but by the time I had finished... well... that hadn't actually changed. I still don't believe a word that comes out of Haggard's mouth. In spite of this, I can't help but feel a sort of sad pity for him, and, maybe, a faint hope that he might build himself up into a force for (at least a little) good now that he's had his whole life torn down around him.

A few points of interest:

The first thing I noticed was that Haggard came across as remarkably human.When you see public figures in the headlines and on the news, it's easy to forget that they're people, individuals with fears, desires, and families all their own. I don't know how much of the interaction portrayed is a fabrication and how much is genuine, but it's obvious that the scandal has deeply damaged Ted's home life. If he were anyone else but a megachurch pastor, I'd feel sorry for him.

The thing that really stood out to me was Haggard's surprisingly frank discussion of his own sexuality. While the narrative he spun shouldn't be taken at face value, I think his admission of his own bisexuality is something that says a lot. Either he's finally decided that the "completely heterosexual" meme is impossible to sustain, and is putting something else out there, or legitimately telling the truth. Is Haggard bi? Only he knows that for sure.

Of course, I've heard a lot of chatter from LGBT folk about this. The main joke seems to be that he's on a "bi now, gay later" plan. Could this be the case? Sure. The man has a family, and he's struggling to stitch together his tattered image. Saying "I'm gay!" would bring all that crashing down. Bi's a reasonable alternative.

But it could also be the truth, and this is a point I've thought on for quite a while. The prevalence of same-sex scandals in right wing Christian circles is pretty hard to ignore (Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Bob Allen, George Rekers, and Ted himself). There's obviously a correlation here. But some of these guys are family men, people with wives and children. Sure, it's easy to dismiss them as cover, but what if they aren't? What if they're bisexuals? It would explain a lot about the right wing narrative, about how being gay is a choice, and how homosexual attraction is something that must be struggled against, like all sinful temptations.

Of course, nobody really likes this idea. The preachers hate it because it forces them to define sexuality based on attraction, instead of behavior, something that undermines their argument about homosexuality being sinful. The gay folks hate it because, let's face it, it's satisfying to watch assholes try to pray the gay away. And the people in the middle (myself included) hate it because it just adds to the misconception that bisexuals can't keep it in our pants.

But I digress...

A large part of the article is dedicated to Haggard's new church, St. James. I'll admit that I'm not overly thrilled with the idea of Haggard starting up a new church. I'm pretty sick of hearing about him, and of course the last thing the world needs is another place of worship. St. James, though, seems like it might be a step in the right direction. Haggard says that his new church isn't about judging people. Gay, straight, clean cut, or in rehab, the church exists as a support group for the community. While I'd prefer that people came together to help each other without the bullshit blather of religion in the background, I'll take St. James over New Life any day of the week.

I don't know if Haggard can be trusted. I don't know if he's honestly trying to do some good, or if he's just desperately trying to stay relevant as a means to cling to the spotlight, but he's shown a remarkable ability to draw crowds in the past. If he can do that with a new sort of message, then I think it's all for the better. I'd like for everyone to put religion behind them, but failing that, I think the world would be a better place with less fundamentalism, and if it takes turning hard liners into moderates to do that, then so be it.

you're in a cave - pt 2

2011-01-28T00:48:00.003-06:00

The second part of an ancient RP, cataloguing my alarmingly rapid descent into madness.

(Edited for content.)

[@10:16:36 PM] Superfly: You stand, naked, before a figure.

[@10:16:49 PM] Superfly: You already know that it's God.

[@10:17:00 PM] Superfly: You also already know that it's the exact opposite of God.

[@10:17:13 PM] Superfly: You're both confused, and perfectly clear.

[@10:17:35 PM] Superfly: This is just some dumbass entity with a shitload of power.

[@10:17:41 PM] Superfly: Specifically, over your life.

[@10:17:48 PM] QT: Oh, well that's never good.

[@10:18:03 PM] QT: So what does it want from me?

[@10:18:04 PM] QT: And why scorpions?

[@10:18:09 PM] Superfly: The figure begins to speak, directly into your head.

[@10:18:18 PM] Superfly: "Yo, wazzah." It says.

[@10:18:27 PM] QT: Oh fuck.

[@10:18:32 PM] Superfly: (It's obviously trying to communicate at your level.

[@10:19:16 PM] Superfly: "Mmmkay, Imma send you back to Earth." 

[@10:19:21 PM] Superfly: "And you do as I command. Got me?  Good."

[@10:19:25 PM] QT: Uh... okay then?

[@10:19:43 PM] QT: What if I don't?

[@10:19:45 PM] Superfly: You don't get a chance to respond.

[@10:19:51 PM] Superfly: You awake in an alley.

[@10:19:58 PM] Superfly: You're naked, still, but covered in trash.

[@10:20:16 PM] QT: Oh awesome.

[@10:20:21 PM] QT: This is turning out to be a great day.

[@10:20:23 PM] Superfly: It's loud, and bustling, as if it's a work day morning.

[@10:20:39 PM] Superfly: You feel like you've had a very bad hangover.

[@10:20:45 PM] Superfly: And it will likely get worse.

[@10:20:49 PM] QT: Use trash bags to improvise a HOBO CLOAK.

[@10:21:04 PM] Superfly: Done.

[@10:21:09 PM] QT: Wear it.

[@10:21:14 PM] QT: To conceal my nakedness.

[@10:21:17 PM] Superfly: The nearby hobo is greatly entertained by this feat.

[@10:21:24 PM] QT: Good for him.

[@10:21:29 PM] QT: Wait, does he have any clothes?

[@10:21:33 PM] Superfly: He's wearing clothes.

[@10:21:39 PM] Superfly: They look like they were rejected from Goodwill.

[@10:21:46 PM] Superfly: He asks you, "Hey, buddy, got a dollar?"

[@10:21:54 PM] QT: Slay him and take them.

[@10:22:02 PM] Superfly: How do you "slay" him?

[@10:22:15 PM] QT: Wait, let's check the tactical situation first.

[@10:22:25 PM] QT: How fit does this hobo appear to be?

[@10:22:33 PM] QT: And how fit do I appear to be.

[@10:22:51 PM] Superfly: He appears to have all his limbs.

[@10:23:05 PM] Superfly: You estimate his age to be about 60. 

[@10:23:10 PM] Superfly: He could look older than he is, though.

[@10:23:13 PM] Superfly: You are you.

[@10:23:16 PM] Superfly: However fit you are.

[@10:23:25 PM] QT: Hm...

[@10:23:39 PM] QT: Does he appear to be armed?

[@10:23:50 PM] Superfly: Yes, he still has arms.

[@10:23:56 PM] Superfly: Other than that, no weapons.

[@10:24:29 PM] QT: Check the alley for tools.

[@10:24:40 PM] QT: Or heavy objects.

[@10:24:47 PM] Superfly: You discover one tool, but then realize it's you.

[@10:24:52 PM] QT: Ha.

[@10:25:09 PM] Superfly: There is an overflowing dumpster, some bricks, a hobo.

[@10:25:23 PM] QT: Use garbage bags to make a length of rope.

[@10:25:28 PM] QT: By twisting them together.

[@10:25:36 PM] Superfly: Uhm.  Okay.

[@10:25:44 PM] QT: Tie this improvised rope around and through a brick.

[@10:25:52 PM] QT: BRICK FLAIL ACQUIRED.

[@10:26:02 PM] Superfly: God is laughing.

[@10:26:06 PM] Superfly: But okay.

[@10:26:12 PM] Superfly: You're naked again.

[@10:26:19 PM] QT: Use BRICK FLAIL on HOBO.

[@10:26:26 PM] Superfly: You miss.

[@10:26:32 PM] QT: How?

[@10:26:36 PM] QT: He's just sitting there.

[@10:26:43 PM] Superfly: Yes, but you're an idiot.

[@10:26:51 PM] Superfly: With a hangover, and a brick attached to garbage bags.

[@10:26:54 PM] QT: Then why am I the chosen avatar of a deity?

[@10:27:02 PM] Superfly: You can't expect to hit him on the first try.

[@10:27:18 PM] Superfly: Your brick hits the wall near the hobo's head.

[@10:27:26 PM] Superfly: He flinches. About twelve seconds after it hits.

[@10:27:51 PM] QT: Why am I waiting twelve seconds in between swings?

[@10:27:53 PM] QT: SWING AGAIN

[@10:27:56 PM] Superfly: Okay, you finally hit him in the head.

[@10:28:03 PM] QT: And?

[@10:28:30 PM] Superfly: The hobo is unconscious.

[@10:28:35 PM] QT: Hit him again.

[@10:28:42 PM] Superfly: He's more unconscious.

[@10:29:01 PM] Superfly: People are noticeably ignoring you now.

[@10:29:11 PM] QT: Hit him until teeth pop out. Like a grim pinata.

[@10:29:16 PM] Superfly: Done.

[@10:29:20 PM] Superfly: He had two teeth.

[@10:29:27 PM] Superfly: He now has zero.

[@10:29:43 PM] Superfly: He's grim.

[@10:29:52 PM] QT: And dead, I hope.

[@10:30:28 PM] Superfly: He's quite bloody.

[@10:30:36 PM] Superfly: You hear him groaning, and blood bubbles from his mouth.

[@10:30:44 PM] QT: Drag him further into the shadows of the alley.

[@10:30:49 PM] QT: And smother him with a garbage bag.

[@10:31:04 PM] Superfly: You do so.

[@10:31:15 PM] QT: Hold it there for a couple of minutes, at least.

[@10:31:28 PM] Superfly: The moaning and bubbling stops.

[@10:32:11 PM] QT: Now remove his clothes and search them for valuables.

[@10:32:20 PM] QT: Or, you know, hobo trinkets.

[@10:32:24 PM] Superfly: His shirt and jacket are bloody.

[@10:32:34 PM] Superfly: He has a paper clip in his pants.

[@10:32:45 PM] Superfly: Also a dime, lodged in the corner of his pocket.

[@10:32:48 PM] QT: Wear HOBO GARB.

[@10:32:57 PM] Superfly: You don the hobo garb.

[@10:33:02 PM] QT: Bury the corpse under the garbage.

[@10:33:08 PM] Superfly: You are now indistinguishable from a hobo.

[@10:33:10 PM] Superfly: Just like before.

QT reviews: dead space 2

2011-01-27T19:16:00.004-06:00

Warning, ahead there be spoilers.

Introduction time!

You are CEC systems engineer Isaac Clarke. The year is 2508, and the future sucks. Earth's resources have been completely drained, necessitating the mining process known as "planet cracking", where a massive space vessel uses gravity tethers to tear entire chunks out of planets and refine them into usable ore.

One of these ships, the USG Ishimura, is dead in the water, stuck orbiting the planet of Aegis VII. You, as part of a CEC emergency repair mission, have been sent to diagnose and repair the problem. You volunteered for this assignment, primarily because your estranged girlfriend, Nicole Brennan, is a senior medical officer aboard the Ishimura.

When you arrive, you find that things aren't quite as you had expected. A malfunctioning gravity tether knocks your shuttle into the Ishimura's landing bay, rendering it inoperable and trapping you aboard. Then the shit really hits the fan.

You discover that the Ishimura is infested with hostile creatures known as Necromorphs, monstrosities hewn from the dead flesh of former crew members, reanimated by a malignant strain of alien microorganism. As you fight to survive, battling the Necromorphs and struggling to keep the Ishimura in orbit, you slowly begin to piece together what happened, all the while looking for Nicole.

It turns out that the colony on Aegis VII discovered what's known as a "Marker", a device, apparently of alien origin, that has significance to a powerful religious sect known as the Church of Unitology. This Marker causes mass hallucinations, paranoia, dementia, and somehow is connected with the Necromorph outbreak.

You, along with assistance from the remaining members of your repair crew, and a couple of survivors from the Ishimura, Nicole among them, manage to get the Marker down to the surface. There, you are betrayed by Kendra Daniels, another CEC engineer, who has been in the employ of EarthGov the entire time. She reveals that you are, in fact, insane, driven mad by the Marker. Nicole is dead, and has been the entire time. Her presence is a hallucination projected by the Marker to coerce you into following its orders. Kendra takes the Marker, but is killed by the Hive Mind, a massive Necromorph that apparently controls the infestation.

You manage to destroy the Hive Mind, and flee the planet as the Ishimura's gravity tethers give out, dropping teratons of rock back on the planet from orbit, annihilating it.

Dead Space 2 picks up three years later.

You're still Isaac Clarke, but this time, you're being held in a medical facility on the Sprawl, an enormous space station constructed from the ruins of Saturn's moon Titan, the first ever planet crack. You are being treated for dementia and PTSD acquired on Aegis VII.

Of course, something else goes wrong. Somehow, Necromorphs have made it to the Sprawl. The outbreak is already under way when you are freed from the medical facility, and the first part of the game is spent trying to survive, uncover what happened, find the cure for your dementia, and escape Titan Station.

Now that that's out of the way, on to the review.

-Graphics:

Bear in mind that I'm going by the PC version. The Xbox and PS3 might be different. My beast of a rig can easily run the game at maximum settings and 1920x1080 resolution, so that might influence my rating as well.

Dead Space 2 looks good. In some places, it looks great. The cyberpunk themed sprawl is well conceived and well executed, and the devastation wrought by the Necromorphs is convincingly horrific. Speaking of the Necromorphs, they're even more nauseating this time around, guts hanging out and frayed limbs waving wildly in every direction, they ooze alien menace just as often as they do bodily fluids.

The camera is set in the same over-the-shoulder style as in the first Dead Space, and it works just as well this time around. Motion blur, color filters, and dementia induced distortions complete the spectacle, and the RIG based inventory and HUD make for an incredibly immersive experience. The animation is improved as well, giving Isaac and the other characters convincing personalities that the wooden models in the first game often lacked.

The only time I was ever dissatisfied with the graphics were during several of the "scenic overlook" portions of the game. At times (Most notable in Chapter Seven, you'll know it when you see it), the Sprawl is convincingly detailed and well executed, but at others, it falls short, low resolution textures and some low-poly model fudging contrasting garishly with the detailed interiors.

-Audio:

Perhaps one of the best parts of the first Dead Space was the excellent sound design. Not only were the sounds the dev team came up with fitting (and at times terrifying), they were put to good use in a game-play sense as well. Each type of Necromorph had a specific noise it would make, and the designers put these to good use, often using the sounds when no enemies were around, just to keep you on your toes.

The sequel continues this tradition, using audio and subtle musical cues to ramp up the tension. The sequences taking place in the vacuum of space are also incredibly well done, removing any sound that isn't made by Isaac or his RIG, or that could be convincingly carried via vibrations through the floor or walls. There's one part (also in chapter seven, which is probably my favorite in the whole game) where you're alone but for the musical score. Even though there were no enemies around, I was still on edge, hurrying to complete the task at hand out of fear of what could be lurking just out of sight.

All of the weapons and tools you use have their own distinct feel as well. For instance, the punch of the Contact Beam is well matched to the charging and firing noises it makes.

-Gameplay:

One of my chief complaints about the first game was its lack of variation in game-play mechanics. This was a problem that RE4, a game in the same vein, had as well. Eventually, you just get tired of shooting the limbs off of space zombies, no matter how much you switch up your arsenal.

Dead Space 2 has taken steps to address this, and while they aren't as comprehensive as they could be, they're still much appreciated. While you'll still spend the majority of your time blasting the limbs off of Necromorphs, there's enough pauses in the action that you won't get bored. Puzzle sequences break of the monotony quite well, and the revamped Zero-G sections are some of the most fun I've had in a game recently.

As an example, the first half hour of the game is spent running around a medical facility, in the dark, unarmed but for a flashlight. You don't have a rig. You don't have a gun. Hell, for the first five minutes, you can't even use your arms. It's a welcome change of pace and makes for a great introduction.

-Atmosphere:

Oh man. Just... oh man.

I was scared playing this game. The first Dead Space didn't scare me. Sure, it surprised me a few times. Sure, I was grossed out by the Necromorphs, but I was never really, viscerally scared. Dead Space 2 managed to do that, and that's really all you need to know about the game.

From the blood spattered medical facility that you start at, to the baroque interior of the Unitologist church, to the dingy, oppressive corridors of the maintenance areas, to the empty expanse of solar collection station, the game's areas are unique and interesting in a way that the Ishimura never was. Of all the improvements made since the first game, this is definitely the best.

-Storyline:

This is another area that the first game lacked. Sure, there was a bit of a sub-plot about finding your lost girlfriend, but Isaac was basically a faceless mook, and the story was a generic space thriller/survival horror game.

Dead Space 2 is, at its core, still fairly generic, but there's an undercurrent of personality to it now. Isaac feels like a real character, and you can't help but empathize with him. The other survivors you come across each have a genuine personality, and Isaac's interactions with them all feel real.

The storyline itself is still a bit lacking. Like the first game, it's still a bunch of fetch quests strung together, but it's all put together a bit more smoothly this time around, which makes it more tolerable.

Summary:

Dead Space 2 feels, to me, a bit like Half-Life 2 in comparison to the first game. Sure, HL1 was a great game, but the second game was such an advance in storytelling and world-building that there's really no comparison. Dead Space 2 isn't quite as good as Half-Life 2 (which is my metric for awesome games everywhere), but it's a hell of a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, it's marred by a couple of major problems. See, I've got the PC version, and since EA are console whoring assbutts, that means that I don't get any DLC. This includes all of the interesting extras that you get for a New Game+. Those are completely unavailable in the PC version. Hilariously, there's a petition up to bring these features to the PC, but I doubt EA actually gives a shit. They don't get most of their money from PC titles any more.

The other problem is one of length vs. cost. Dead Space 2 is longer than the first game by a good deal, but it's still relatively short. I beat the campaign in around eight hours, and there's not that much replay value. Even the multilayer is a bit lacking. All in all, I wouldn't say it's worth $60. If I were you, I'd wait a few months. $45-40 is a reasonable price for what you'll be getting.

-Overall, 8.5/10.

Good, and a massive improvement over the first, but lacking in a few areas and with some distribution issues that suck, but aren't any fault of the developers.

sleep: non-existent

2011-01-27T01:53:00.002-06:00

Sweet merciful undead space demons, Dead Space 2 is the scariest damn thing I've played in months. I want to post a full review, but first I need to try and get some sleep. Something that's unlikely, as every time I shut my eyes, I can't help but picture a foot long NEEDLE stabbing into my FACE out of the dark. Something that's extremely relevant to the aforementioned game.

Also: Zealot difficulty? Actually surprisingly hard. And I seem to be stricken with a fairly common glitch that removes the Elite variants of suits from the game. D:

hurr...harhgluspumb~/dies

2011-01-25T03:10:00.001-06:00

Someone remind me why I keep giving EA money.

Dead Space 2 is finally released. My download is completed and I'm ready to play.

And the CD key I've recived is invalid thanks to some sort of massive fuckup on EA's part. Again.

The Valve guys are on it, so hopefully it'll be resolved before too long, but EA really does suck.

"you may be a fundamentalist athiest if..." part one

2011-01-22T18:23:00.002-06:00

First off: link.

I stumbled across this "funny" list earlier today. At first, I wasn't going to bother commenting on it, but after my little (involuntary) excursion to the mall today, I need to blow off some steam.

Since there's four hundred and twenty items on the list, I won't be doing them all at once, but here's the first block, one through twenty seven:

You may be a fundy atheist if...

Okay, right off the bat. What does "fundy atheist" mean? "Atheist" isn't a complicated position. The only thing it takes to call yourself an atheist is that you don't believe in any gods. "Fundy" (short for "fundamentalist") makes sense when applied to Christanity (or other religions) because there's an important philosophical distinction between moderate, liberal, conservative, and fundamentalist sects. How does it apply to atheism? The author doesn't supply an answer.

1. You became an atheist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God    that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.

I'd be honestly surprised if you could point to a single atheist who's entire concept of god was developed in Sunday School. Most of the atheists I know have spent a lot of time studying religion. They've researched, read, and pondered a good deal about god, the supernatural, and the nature of the universe. Most of the believers I know haven't done any of that. They simply passively accept the religion they were raised with, without question. But you don't have to take my word for it.

2. You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN.

Who do you hear pontificating about what god wants more often, atheists? Or religious people? Given that a large amount of religious folk make their living telling people their particular interpretation of what it is god wants...

3. You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof against the    existence of God, because an omniscient God would know how to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, an omnipotent God would have the ability to stop the ice-cream from being extra drippy, and by golly, an omnibenevolent God wouldn't want your ice-cream to be extra drippy.

Someone doesn't seem to grasp the central thrust of the problem of evil. Drippy ice-cream? Try Harlequin-type Ichthyosis. If god does exist, then it's either directly or indirectly responsible for that, not to mention Ebola, Polio, and a thousand other horrible diseases. Frankly, I'm rather glad there's no reason to think there is a god, because the idea of an all powerful being that creates babies horribly deformed, only for them to die days later of horrible, painful, systemic infections, scares the living shit out of me. If there really is something that (to borrow Dawkins' turn of phrase) capriciously malevolent out there, we're all totally fucked.

4. Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He doesn't exist, you    still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.

Cute. And pointless. I don't think I'm "God's Gift" to anything, because I don't think there's a god. Duh.

5. You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow disproves God, as if God needed a tiny universe in order to exist.

The fact that the universe is incredibly, uncomprehendingly massive doesn't disprove all types of gods. It does sort of cast doubt on the idea that the universe was created specifically for us, though.

6. You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.

How is that false logic? It's a fair point. The idea of "omnipotence" is inherently flawed. It's got built in contradictions. If god can't do the logically impossible, the god is bound by the laws of logic, which makes you wonder where logic came from in the first place.

7. Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to Christian websites asking them these very questions.

I don't spend a lot of my spare time evangelizing. Frankly, I've got better things to do (like write snarky blog posts). I'm glad some people are out there getting others to question their faith, though. Religion has caused massive harm throughout history, and it continues to cause harm today. Consider, for instance, that a good friend of mine can't hold her girlfriend's hand in public, because she would lose her career thanks to a religiously motivated (and recently, in the process of being repealed) law.

8. You declare on a public forum that you are "furious at God for not existing."

Riiiiight. Point me in this person's direction and I'll smack them in the head myself. (See response 3)

9. You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God" and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.

Given the intellectual capacity the person composing this list has show so far, I'm not surprised that the can't grasp the distinction between positive and negative atheism. Here's a hint: Burden of Proof

10. You consistently deny the existence of God because you personally have never seen him but you reject out of hand personal testimony from theists who claim to have experienced God as a reality in their lives.

Personal testimony is not reliable evidence.
Personal testimony is not reliable evidence.
Personal testimony is not reliable evidence.

Got it?

11. You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a    philosophical critique.

That's INVISIBLE Pink Unicorns to you, bub. Important distinction, that. Just as important as the distinction of a triune god.

12. You insist that "the burden of proof is on he that alleges/accuses", and "it's impossible to prove a negative", then state "That's what Christians do. They lie. Their most common lie is that they were once atheists." When reminded about the burden of proof bit, you reply with, "Well, prove Christians don't lie!"

Sorry, but this is just too funny. The list author is complaining that atheists unfairly generalize theists, by unfairly generalizing atheists.

13. You adamantly believe that the "God of the gaps" idea is an essential tenet of orthodox Christian faith espoused by all the great Christian thinkers throughout history.

Nope, sorry. The "God of the Gaps" isn't a religious tenant. It's an observed phenomenon. As science uncovers more and more of the nature of the universe, religion retreats. It's an argument from ignorance.

14. When you were a child, someone came down with a deadly disease and prayed and prayed for God to take it away. God did not remove the disease and your friend died. You ask other Christians why they had to die when they were such a nice person and never harmed anyone. Dissatisfied with their answers, you suddenly decide that there is no God and that all Christians are nothing but lying, conniving con artists and hypocrites....all that is except for your friend who died.

Nice generalization, jerkass, but no, I don't have a dead little sister.

15. You call a view held by less than ten percent of the American public "common sense".

Right. Because we all know that because a lot of people believe something, it must be true.

16. You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is no God because no loving God would allow anyone to suffer as much as I...hold on. My cell phone's ringing."

*sigh*

17. You attack your fellow atheists, who hold the "belief that  there is no god", calling them "liars," and state that, "I do not deny the existence  of any god. I just don't believe in any." Then you tell someone that  their God is "made up." When someone calls you on this, you state, "I never made such a claim."

Head, meet desk.

18. Going with the definition of "without a belief in God", you insist that all people are born atheists, and that dogs, cats, rocks, and trees are as well. You make statements like, "My dog is an atheist. Ask him about his lack of belief."

Oh holy shit. Seriously? You seriously think that's an actual argument? Do you even know what sarcasm is?

19. You believe that if something cannot be touched, seen, heard,  or measured in some way, then it must not exist, yet you fail to see the  irony of your calling Christians "narrow-minded".

If you can't observe something, then, by definition, you can't show that it exists. If you can't show that it exists, then why the hell do you believe it does?

20. You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God  do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on  blind faith.

I don't think I've ever said that. In fact, I generally say that there's no reason to believe there is a god, a statement that's pretty easy to back up.

21. While you don't believe in God, you feel justified on bashing  God or attacking those who believe in something that you KNOW doesn't  exist, fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent being  are the symptoms of mental illness

If believers simply kept their belief to themselves, I'd be content to occasionally mock them, much the same way I might occasionally mock the Amish.

But of course, they don't. They seem compelled, driven, to force everyone to live under their rules. Just listen to social conservatives pitch a shit-fit about whatever it is that's "destroying American families" this week.

22. You complain when Christians appeal to their emotions when  justifying their belief in God yet you feel justified on appealing to  your emotions for lack of belief in God.

I'd be damned curious to hear where you got this idea from. I've never heard any atheist make a claim remotely on the level of faith-based stupidity that believers regularly come up with. "When I look at rainbows/puppies/babies, I can just feel it in my heart that god is real, and watching over us, and wants us to treat gay people like second class citizens."

23. You blame God for the starvation, sickness, pain and suffering  in the world...when, indeed, it is MAN's greed, politics, selfishness  and apathy that not only causes, but also ignores the sick and the  starving masses. We aren't our brothers' keepers....but we should be.

You're right, in part. We should be doing more to help the poor, the needy, the sick, and the downtrodden. But if you can blame humans, who are limited, comparatively powerless creatures, for not doing enough to help each other, what can you say to the all powerful, all knowing deity, who could fix it all with literally zero effort?

24. When asked where the big ball of matter (that started the "Big Bang") came from, you insist that it popped out of nowhere.

No, I'd insist that we don't know, but that saying "goddidit" isn't an answer. I'd much rather we keep looking for answers than throw up our arms and spend the rest of our lives re-reading "The Goatherd's Guide to the Galaxy".

25. You say that the existence of God is a "blank idea", since no  one knows the universe's secrets, yet you continue to state your opinion  of God not existing as a "fact".

*double sigh* See answer 9.

26. You believe in many things about history (the culture of the  ancient Mayans, Egyptians, etc.), yet you refuse to accept personal  modern-day testimony from someone who has personally experienced God.

Sure, I believe history. When it conforms to what we have seen is possible about the world around us. I don't, for instance, believe that En-men-lu-ana ruled ancient Sumeria for forty three thousand years, I don't believe that Heracles ascended to Olympus upon his death, and I don't believe that Jesus was born of a virgin.

27. You ask Christians to come on to your forum to address issues  you raise.  When you don't like the answers or can't accept them, you  proceed to delete the conversation.

While I don't think anyone is inherently immune to that sort of behavior, in my experience, it's far more often the religious who are fond of censorship and revisionism.this sort of behavior, I think that people who are genuinely devoted to the pursuit of evidence and rationality are less likely to distort the truth than people who are desperately clinging to old myths and fables.

Well, there's the first section. Maybe I'll do more later, but they don't seem to improve.

dead space 2, too

2011-01-22T13:28:00.001-06:00

Ohmanohmanohman! Steam is finally offering Dead Space 2 on pre-order. Sweet! I probably wouldn't have gotten it otherwise. I've had my complaints about Steam before (Downloads taking forever, games releasing twelve to twenty-four hours late, etc), but it seems to have gotten significantly better lately. Plus, I don't want to have my games spread across ten different content delivery services. That's just annoying.

So, the release date is this Tuesday (The 25th). Which means I'll probably have finished the game by Wednesday. (I'm addicted, I know.) I'll post a full review then, but from what I've seen trailer-wise, and the short-but-fun demo, it looks like DS2 is going to rock.

yiff in... uh... wherever, i guess

2011-01-18T06:54:00.001-06:00

Oh god this turned out longer than I thought it would...

The necessity of this post occurred to me about fifteen minutes after the last one. See, I did a Bad Thing. I violated one of the sacrosanct rules of the internet. I mentioned furries, and since you can't do that in a positive (or even neutral) light without a sizable portion of the internet automatically assuming you corn-hole skunks in your free time, I thought I should clarify.

"Furry" is poorly defined. I suppose, by certain metrics, you could consider me a furry, but it's never something I would self identify as. Sure, I follow a few furry webcomics, and I've been known to doodle the occasional fuzzy anthromorph or write something involving people who have an extra limb sprouting from just over their butt. If that's enough for you to classify me as a furfag, then go right ahead, but I think it takes a little more than that.

But while I wouldn't call myself a furry, I do have a certain empathy for the "furry community". (God, that phrase is so absurd that typing it made blood ooze from under my fingernails.) I think it comes from my general rapport with the "weird". I know what it's like to be isolated and mocked because you're not within a standard deviation of "normal". I dealt with that kind of shit all throughout my youth.

More often than not, I find myself at ease with "weirdos". Sci-fi nerds, the greater LGBT community (Especially the T's. Transgendered people seem to have the same sort of ethos that I do, that understanding of how much it sucks to be excluded.), the "New Atheists", and yes, furries.

I think what I'm trying to get at is that there's a severe dearth of tolerance these days. Humans, xenophobic asshats that we are, just love to form little cliques and pile the harassment and humiliation onto whatever this month's designated target is. You see it all the time, even from people who should know better. Just take a look at /b/, a group of asocial nerds with weird fetishes and an entitlement complex, and how they love to rag on the furries, a group of asocial nerds with weird fetishes and an entitlement complex. (Generalizations, I know. Also, fuck you, rules 1 and 2 only apply during raids.) For a less internet specific example, take a look at the LGBT community. Straight folk love to bash the gays, gays love to deride the bisexuals, and everyone loves to pile on the transsexuals.

I realize that this blog, isolated and infrequently visited as it is, probably won't be the target of much in the way of gay bashing or flaming or biphobia or atheist baiting, but the simple fact remains that this sort of shitty behavior is depressingly common both online and in real life. Common enough that I felt compelled to write this much about it, at least.

That's it. That's all I wanted to say.

-QT, fabulous fan of furfagotry, over and out.

everything is horrible forever

2011-01-18T05:38:00.002-06:00

Yes, it's five thirty in the morning. No, I didn't sleep at all. Yes, I feel like shit.

I'm taking a vacation from the internet. For my mental health, you understand. Not everything, mind you. I'll still blog and visit some sites I really like. Mostly, I'm just going to try and avoid the massive influx of stupid that seems to be endemic to the world wide web. I've seen so much stupid shit online that it's beginning to affect my perception of reality.

That's right. I've seen things that were so stupid, they drove me insane. Like Cthulhu, but wearing an American flag and hitting gay people with six foot solid oak cross.

So. No more FSTDT, no more Pharyngula, no more JMG and Balloon Juice. And for the love of god, no more reading YouTube comments. Also, any site operated by furries is right out. Sorry, you know I love you crazy bastards, but I can't take the drama.

What will I be doing? School. Writing. Dead Space 2 (ONE WEEK LEFT).

That's about it.

-QT, desperately looking for caffeine, out.

2011

2011-01-15T23:10:00.003-06:00

Hi.

Yeah. It's been like, what, a month? I know. I'm lazy. I don't update. Blah blah blah.

So. I'm back in school now. We'll come to that in a bit. First, CHRISTMAS.
I used to think that, the older you got, the worse Christmas would get. After all, grownups only get clothes and stupid stuff, right? Turns out that's not true. Fuck yes.

I am now the proud owner of the world's coolest leather jacket. Also: Dragon Age: Origins Ultimate Edition, (Which, sadly, isn't any more of a gay porn simulator than the regular version.) Supernatural season 5, more Muse CD's, and a metric shit-ton of books. All of which are awesome.

Also, I managed to put on fifteen pounds in a month. If you've had my Grandmother's cooking, you'll understand why this is excusable. Oh, and yeah, I got to hang with my grandparents, which is always awesome. Unless I get into politics with my Grandfather, which... yeah. I'm not even going to go there right now. Also got to see my uncle before he gets deployed to Afghanistan. I swear, he's the only person I've ever met who's downright gleeful about being sent into harm's way.

But yeah. That's where the good stuff ends. Oh, you knew the self-pity-party had to come eventually. Shut up, you know you love it. Slut.

Let's check off the list, shall we? I'm still an emotionally unstable, insecure wreck of a man-child. I'm still not happy with my major. I'm still single. I didn't manage to get more than a dozen pages written all break. And to top it all off, my goatee won't grow in properly!

But you know what? Fuck it! I'm still, inexplicably, in a good mood, and I intend to make it last as long as possible. Screw you depression! Suck on my terrifyingly rigid genitalia!

-QT, putting the "fun" in "functional alcoholic".

(I have no idea what I just wrote. Blame the pills.)

fix

2010-12-11T14:26:00.001-06:00

I promised I'd be posting things over Christmas break, didn't I? Technically, it's not quite break for me yet (I've got one last final in an hour or so), but I finished this up early this morning, and thought I'd upload it now.

Without further ado, let me introduce you to FIX, an urban fantasy tale that I've had spinning in my head in one form or another for the last year. I know, I know. It's not Phase. That project will be completed, eventually, but I think I need to work on something a little smaller in scope before I try my hand at creating whole universes.

Anyway, Fix should be updated pretty frequently. I've got the basis of the first three chapters written, but they need a lot of revision before I'd even think of making them public. (And frankly, the first chapter still needs some. I can spot a missed word right now, just by skimming it.)

Anyway. Read and enjoy. If you really liked it (or really hated it and want to yell at me) gimme a favorite or a review, and tell your friends!

you're in a cave - pt 1

2010-12-11T06:28:00.001-06:00

This is a campaign from a million years ago, but I found the transcript of it on my HDD and laughed my ass off:

[@10:14:21 PM] Superfly: You're in a cave.

[@10:14:29 PM] QT: /sadface.

[@10:14:33 PM] Superfly: You're naked.

[@10:14:35 PM] QT: /look around.

[@10:14:47 PM] Superfly: You see nothing.  It's pitch black.

[@10:14:53 PM] QT: /check inventory.

[@10:15:27 PM] Superfly: Dick, check.  Balls, check.

[@10:15:59 PM] Superfly: Scorpions crawling all over you, check.

[@10:16:03 PM] QT: AAAAH

[@10:16:08 PM] Superfly: They sting you.

[@10:16:11 PM] QT: Roll for damage?

[@10:16:14 PM] Superfly: To death.

[@10:16:16 PM] QT: Oh.

[@10:16:19 PM] Superfly: You die.

[@10:16:22 PM] QT: /sadface again.

[@10:16:23 PM] Superfly: Agonizingly.

[@10:16:34 PM] QT: This was a terrible campaign.

winter break

2010-12-10T21:48:00.001-06:00

Oh noes! Teh War on Christmas continues in this title!

Yeah, the wonderful winter break is coming up. I've got my last exam tomorrow, and then I'll be heading home. I'm not sure when, but it'll be soon.

Speaking of Christmas presents, any readers might want to keep a watch on this page.

That's right. I'm baaaaaaack.

-QT, out.

loved

2010-12-06T22:31:00.001-06:00

Yeah, I know. I lied about updating. Again. It's sort of a consistent theme in my life, this failure to deliver.

Wow. That sounded more depressing than I intended it to.

I blame my current downer mood on this. "This" being "Loved", a game by Alexander Ocias. It's... well... it's hard to describe. Technically, it's a fairly basic run-n-jump platformer, but it's more of an experience than just about any game I've ever played. So go run through it once or twice. Go ahead. It's short. I'll wait.

Seriously, don't keep reading unless you've played it.

Done?

No. You're not done. Not if you're like me. It's the kind of thing that sticks in your head, that makes you ask "what the fuck did I just play"? It's like a cut on the inside of your mouth that you can't stop poking with your tongue, no matter how much it stings when you do.

It stuck a chord with me, and I've got to process it. Bear in mind that the analysis that follows is a lot of rambling on my part, and it probably has a lot more to do with my own twisted psyche than the mind and process of the developer.

So. Where to start?

Are you a man, or a woman?

It doesn't matter. Whichever one you pick, the game forces you to choose the opposite. But not just the opposite, the diminutive of the opposite. If you pick "man", you're told that no, you're not a man, you're a girl. If you pick "woman", you're told that you're a boy.

Right of the bat, and already you're realizing that something's desperately wrong here. This isn't how the the game is supposed to go. The traditional formula says that the Professor Oak analogue is supposed to ask you what you'd like to play as, not tell you what you have to be.

Pay attention now, because that theme; choice, and the denial thereof, is a big part of this story.

Will I teach you how to play? Or not?

"Okay," you think "Tutorial section. This I can deal with." Since you haven't played the game before, you click on "play", hoping to get some hints about the controls, or maybe the enemies and game-play. But then you're told you "don't deserve it". What the fuck, game? I don't deserve to learn how to play you?

Oh, and if you click "not", you're treated to an encouraging proclamation of inevitable failure.

And then the game starts.

It's starkly minimalist, reminiscent of Limbo, or HalfQuake. Black on white. You're thrust into an unfamiliar world, with no idea of what to do or where to go beyond vague instincts, and a domineering voice giving you orders. Sound familiar? Yeah, it reminds me of my childhood as well.

It's easy enough to figure out what to do. Press any button but the arrow keys, and you're harshly informed that "You are wrong". Jesus. It really is just like being a kid again.

Anyway. You can't go left. There's a wall there. You head right.

Jump over that pit of barbs.

Barbs? I don't see any barbs. Just this red stuff. But okay, voice. If you say they're barbs and I should avoid them, sure thing...

Good girl.

Oh. Look at that. They were barbs after all. Thanks, voice.

Touch the statue. I will forgive you.

Save point? Yeah, save point. Of the creepiest possible kind. Forgive me? For what? For touching the statue? For making a mistake and needing to re-spawn? Why do I even want your forgiveness?

Because without it, I go right back to the start.

Travel the lower path.

That... uh. That looks a mite dangerous, and the top path looks clear. Are you sure?

Well, okay. You haven't steered me wrong so far.

Good girl.

And would you look at that. The more I obey the voice, the more the world changes. If I were in a philosophical mood... oh wait, I am! I can't help but compare it to an unhealthy relationship (Any kind. Intimate, or just a friendship. Or to continue the metaphor, a parent and their child). One partner, the dominant one, clearly has an unhealthy world-view, and they're imposing it on the subordinate partner.

And the more you obey, the more you listen to the poison they're dripping into your ear, the darker and scarier the world looks, and the deeper into their web you're drawn. That's called codependency, children.

Throw yourself into the barbs.

I... uh... Well okay. You only want what's best for me, right?

Good girl.

Do I own your body? Or your mind?

Look, Mr. Voice, sir. I appreciate the help. I honestly do. But you don't own any part of me.

Only that's not true. For as long as I'm playing this game, you've got me wrapped around your little finger. And in real life, you can't help but be "owned" by people, whether you're physically dependent on them for one reason or another (They're your parents and you're still in high school. You work for them and the economy is shitty. You can't make rent on your own. Etc.) or emotionally dependent on them. You can't help but be influenced by the thoughts, opinions, and desires of others.

...and there go my intimacy issues, making a mess all over the place.

But fine. You clearly own my mind, in this instance. You're manipulating me. That's obvious.

Beg for me.

Hoo boy. Now we're getting into the wonderful BDSM subtext this game has got going on. I'm not going to keep doing my little play by play. I'll let the story unfold for you by itself. It'll hurt your mind, and that wound will last.

not dead

2010-11-19T02:36:00.000-06:00

Writing. Tired. Will return this weekend.

sigh

2010-11-16T13:08:00.000-06:00

Okay, from now on, I'm leaving my phone at home when I go drinking. Honestly, who gets drunk and updates their blog from the bar? Look at your life, look at your choices!

Also, the best part is when I drunkenly texted my crush (unrequited, frigging incomparable orientations). God, this is going to be awkward. Here's hoping he never checks his text messages.

i want to get away

2010-11-12T23:27:00.001-06:00

[Note: The following was written after two beers, two shots of Absolut, two more beers, a vodka tonic, and two more beers. That should explain a lot.]

I am exceedingly drunk. That's the first order of business.

I'm also listening to a pretty damn good live band, typing on my phone, and wondering why I don't go out drinking more. I always get super worked up prior to actually heading out, but then I get smashed and have a great time. Plus, who uses words like "prior" while drunk, and spells them properly too? Me that's who.

Wasted QT, out.

november already?

2010-11-07T11:23:00.002-06:00

Oh hai thar.

Yeah. It's November already. When did that happen? Uh. Last week, apparently.

Election season came and went, and I kept the news turned off. I didn't even vote. I live in Texas, ffs, it's not like it would have any impact. I am looking forward to the next two years, though. Crazy is so entertaining when you've stopped giving a shit.

Halloween came and went, and I celebrated by eating waaaay too much candy. Group (I'll post more about that later) continues to be fascinating. Then I hit a snag.

There was this class, see, the same one I complained about in an earlier post.

I have this problem, understand. If I don't see the point of a class, if it bores the hell out of me, then I don't try. It may be stupid on my part, not putting forth the necessary effort, but it's just something I seem to be stuck with right now. Most of the time, it's not a big issue. In general, my classes, while tough, are important. The professors convey information that's necessary to becoming a capable architect.

This class was not one of those. In short, it sucked. So I did the bare minimum that I needed to, and it showed.

Which would have been okay, I guess. I expected to squeak by with a C, not great, but not that bad, considering that I'm pulling A's in the rest of my classes. Twas not to be, however, because my professor was a bit of a dick.

Now, I'm not saying that I didn't deserve to get called out. I'm also not making excuses for myself. I didn't do the work I needed to, no weaseling out of it. But I don't think I really deserved to be ridiculed for forty five minutes straight in front of the entire class, then basically told that I was wasting everyone's time, and that I should leave.

But what are you going to do?

So I left, resisting the urge to shoot him the bird as I walked out of the classroom. I went home and immediately dropped the class. I'll work something out next semester. Of course, that didn't help my mood. Public humiliation is never a fun thing, you know. I spent the next week beating myself up about it, and slowly spiraling down into a depression the likes of which I hadn't felt in half a year or more.

And then, just like that, it stopped.

I'm not sure what did it. I didn't change the dosage on the ole antidepressants. Sure, I spilled my guts in group, but I left not really feeling any better, and my mood didn't improve for another week. I'm not sure what did it. I've been ruminating on it, trying to figure out what it was that suddenly improved my mood, to see if I could maybe harness it, but I can't quite figure it out...

Anyway, I'm rambling here. I guess I just wanted to let people know what's been going on these last few weeks.

Let's see... work on Phase has temporarily stopped while I finish up a short story for my creative writing class. When it's done I'll post it over on Paraliterature, then get back to work on Phase. Writing has simultaneously become easier and harder for me. The practice has let me learn how to formulate my thoughts on paper (or pixels) much more easily that I could previously, but I'm slowly becoming more aware of the difficulties of weaving a story, of trying to present characters to other people in certain ways, and make your points known without beating your reader over the head with them.

I think I'm getting better, though. That's something positive to focus on.

election season

2010-10-28T05:04:00.001-05:00

*sigh*

It's that time again, America. Time for you to step up to the ballot box (or electronic voting machine) and cast your vote, for the good of your country!

Will you be voting for the party of psychotic theocrats and raging corporatists? Or the party of spineless wimps and raging corporatists? Or perhaps you'll give your vote to a third party that actually mirrors your views on the issues, thereby splitting the vote and helping the other side gain (or hold) control of the legislative branch?

Ugh. Our political system is broken, and I'm so sick of the goddamn thing that I don't even care about fixing it anymore.

-Apathetic QT, out.

guess who's at it again?

2010-10-28T04:54:00.001-05:00

Surely you remember Mike Adams, the intelligent and lucid individual from a previous post?

Well wouldn't you know it? He's at it again!

If you've been watching mainstream news at all (Or hell, even if you haven't. I don't.) you've probably heard about the recent rash of "gay suicides". Tyler Clementi, Seth Walsh, and Raymond Chase all recently took their own lives. What do they have in common? They were all gay, and they were all extensively harassed for it. Another young man, (Hell, forget "young man". He was only 13.) Asher Brown, killed himself not because he was gay, but because the asshole contingent of his school somehow decided he was, and hounded him mercilessly for it.

All this, in the course of a few weeks, seems to have been enough to attract some serious media attention. Major news networks are running specials about the gay teen suicide epidemic. It's journalistic voyeurism at its worse, yes, but it's also helping to expose just how dangerous the omnipresent cultural homophobia in America is, something we sorely need.

"Okay." You ask. "What does this have to do with Mike Adams?"

Well, this.

In the above article, Adams tells the sad stories of eight people who were driven to suicide, not by bullying from homophobic assholes, but due to being "harassed by homosexual activists". His words, not mine.

The only problem? None of those people actually killed themselves. In fact, most of the people either won court cases, sued for impressive settlements, or are otherwise in the process of making ass tons of money off of their "persecution".

So. Not only is Mike Adams a liar (Ninth commandment, motherfucker, do you know it?), but he's completely oblivious to the cultural environment that he's contributing to. Assholes like him, with their constant degradation of gays and lesbians, (Somehow us bisexuals never get a mention, something I'll probably write about later, actually.) legitimize homophobia. Assholes like him are indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of gay teenagers.

This has to stop. People are dying. Children are killing themselves, and this ignorant, bigoted, scum sucking asshole has the gall, the fucking nerve, to spin that into fuel for the raging persecution complexes of fundamentalist Christians. If that doesn't convince you that he's an irredeemable monster of a human being, then nothing ever will.

-QT

writing update

2010-10-23T20:12:00.001-05:00

Don't worry! Phase is still around! I didn't give up or anything, it's just been moved somewhere else.

I rather like the format of this blog for, you know, blogging, but it's pretty terrible for longer works. So. Phase and all future serious writing projects I do will be moved to my more wordy blog, Paraliterature. You can find a link to it and any other side blogs I start up under the "Links" heading at the top.

Phase itself is being reworked a bit too. I'll be putting out longer chapters, say 6,000-8,000 words at a time. The first three older chapters have been combined into one chapter, and old chapter four will be combined with five and then extended to cover what I had planned for six. They should be posted pretty soon.

Also, NaNoWriMo is coming up. This was pretty good timing on my part. I've tried writing stuff for it previously, but they always fell through. This time, I feel pretty confident that I'll get it done, though. I'm 1/5 of the way to the 50,000 words they recommend, but Phase will probably be a lot longer than that.

-QT

music, volume one

2010-10-11T01:22:00.000-05:00

I don't know about you, nonexistent reader, but I like having some music in the background while I write. The only problem is that I have trouble if the song in question is particularly lyric heavy. Something about how my mind can't deal with writing and listening at the same time, I dunno.

Anyway, here's three bands I rather like:

Russian Circles
Named after the ice hockey maneuver, they're from Chicago, not Moscow. They seem to do pretty much only alternative instrumental rock/metal. Which is fine by me. They've also got a bunch of stuff up on YouTube:

Renard Queenston

Profoundly bizarre artist who publishes music under a dozen different names. I couldn't really categorize any of it except to say that he relies on synthesizers and sampling and does it extremely well. Also, anyone who has a song named "Pyramid Head is the World's Greatest Lover" is automatically awesome in my book:

How to Destroy Angels

Trent Reznor and Mariqueen Maandig are awesome, and if you don't agree, you can fuck off. Here's the incredibly creepy video for "The Space in Between", from their free six track, self titled EP. Enjoy:

mike adams: nothing gay about it - a thoughtful critique

2010-10-03T15:59:00.004-05:00

Mike Adams is an ignorant, bigoted fuckwit.

There, now that that's out of my system...

Mr. Adams, writer for Townhall.com, has excreted some slop he's called "Nothing Gay About It" in which he displays a phenomenal level of dumbassedry. Normally, I'd let it slide because, hey, it's fucking townhall.com. If the internet were the crust of the earth, townhall.com would be a rich vein of shit coursing through it, poisoning everything it touched. But I'm in dire need of a chew toy to work out some of my frustration on, so why the fuck not?

First, go read Adams' post, if you can manage it without your eyes melting out of their sockets and running down your face.

Done? Good. Let's get this show on the road.

There are a couple of terms I need to stop using in my columns. One of those terms is “liberal” - most of the self-described liberals I write about in my columns are not tolerant enough to be called liberals. The other term is “gay” - most of the self-described gays I write about in my columns are not happy enough to be called gays. This is especially true of those who also call themselves “gay activists.”

One point the stupider conservatives seem to be fond of belaboring is that liberals are being "intolerant" by criticizing them, which is a betrayal of the liberal value of tolerance. Take note, Adams; being "tolerant" doesn't mean you don't ever criticize someone's opinion. What it does mean is fostering understanding and equality between people, and working against the forces of bigotry and oppression that oppose that goal.

In short, being tolerant doesn't require you to tolerate intolerance. Asshole.

Oh, and ha ha. You're so fucking funny. The gays aren't gay? He he, ho ho, ha ha. You're a goddamn riot. Maybe if us queers didn't live in a world where the cultural stigma (thanks largely in part to fuckers like yourself) was so great that three out of four queer teenagers have attempted suicide, we might be a bit more jolly. Maybe if gay couples weren't being stripped of the rights and privileges afforded to their heterosexual counterparts, we might smile a tad more. I mean, Jesus fucking Christ. Are you that stupid, Mike?

The active aggression of gay activists is on full display each time they lobby for so-called gay marriage. These are the same people who argue that marriage is a form of patriarchal oppression, which benefits men more than women – despite the fact that this “patriarchal” institution shields women from violent crimes including rape. Feminists who claim to be anti-rape and anti-marriage simply suffer from severe intellectual hernia – in addition to the emotional weakness that causes them to rely upon feminism in the first place.

Careful, Mike. Your ignorance is showing. I've never heard anyone, radical feminist or not, argue that all marriage is a tool of patriarchal oppression. Maybe if you'd bother to pay attention to your critics instead of making snide remarks, you'd actually grasp that what they're criticizing is your own narrow interpretation of what marriage consists of.

And where's your evidence that marriage shields women from rape? It's not like wedding rings come with a +3 shield of anti-penetration or something. And are you forgetting the historical masses of women trapped in abusive marriages that had no means of escape because traditionalists like you stigmatized divorce to the point that it was pretty much unthinkable?

Oh, and feminism is a result of emotional weakness? Got anything to back that up with? Or are you just talking out your ass like usual?

The common thread between opposition to heterosexual marriage and support of gay marriage is not a love of gays. It is a hatred of marriage rooted in a rebellion against God and all that He has ordained. But those who simply acquiesce on the issue of gay marriage are different. They are not engaged in active rebellion against God. They just lack the faith to believe that God will be there for them when they are subjected to personal attacks by decidedly un-gay activists seeking to destroy faithful Christians who stand in their way.

Sweet merciful fuck. How has someone this stupid managed to avoid drowning in the shower?

Look, Mike. Marriage is not a product your god or your religion. Marriage has existed in societies thousands of years older than the book you hold in such high regard. Pair bonding isn't even unique to humans, so unless you're going to claim that biblegod gave marriage to the dolphins, you need to shut the hell up. People who support gay marriage (myself included) don't do it out of some sense of rebellion, they do it because they think that gay people are human fucking beings, and deserve the rights and privileges thereof. I know I'm not doing it to be rebellious towards god because I don't think there's a fucking god to being with.

But there can be no indifference or acquiescence on this issue because same sex marriage hurts everyone. Some examples of the widespread harm that would follow in the wake of government-backed same-sex marriage follow:

Oh, I'm on the edge of my seat. Please, tell us how two men or two women getting married will hurt anyone!

1. Income taxes will be increased to make up for the marriage tax benefits given to homosexual couples. We provide financial benefits to married couples because they produce and raise children. Why would we want to provide similar benefits to homosexual couples?

Except that we provide tax benefits to married couples that don't plan on having kids, and married couples that can't have kids, because one or both of the people involved are sterile. Hell, we let ninety-year-olds get married. They're sure as fuck not going to be having kids, but they get the tax break anyway.

The easiest way to solve this is to get rid of the tax breaks for married couples. If you're actually interested in providing benefits to people who raise children, then give tax breaks on a per child basis. Oh, and that includes adopted kids, which includes homosexual couples.

2. Social security taxes will be increased in order to pay survivor benefits to “widows” and “widowers.”

Boo. Fucking. Hoo.

Next.

3. Medical insurance premiums will rise in order to offset healthcare costs associated with the bad lifestyle choices typically made by homosexuals. AIDS, colon cancer, and hepatitis are only a few examples of the costly consequences of these bad choices.

I'd really like to get inside Mike's head. I want to know how dysfunctional a mind has to be in order to think that more gay people getting married, that is, entering into stable monogamous relationships, will increase the rate of STD transmission.

The simple fact is that gay people are going to fuck. Always have, and always will. If, as Mike says, all this buggery results in increased levels of all sorts of Bad Things (something I'm skeptical of and that he's neglected to provide any evidence for), then letting gay people get married isn't going to change this. If anything it will reduce the levels of STD transmission.

These "reasons" are pathetic. It's transparently obvious that Mike is desperately reaching around to find a secular reason to justify his religiously based hatred.

Of course, the detriments are not all financial. We all lose our liberties whenever the gay rights agenda advances. There is no more hostile group in this nation than homosexuals, especially when it comes to civil liberties. Right now, as you are reading this column, un-gay activists are writing to my employer demanding my firing - all in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity of thought.”

Ooh! OOH! I've got a more hostile group I could name! Fundie Christian assholes! After all, gay people aren't systematically stripping Christians of their rights, now are they?

Let's be realistic here. You work for a right wing rag. You're in no danger of being fired because some gay people are writing to your bosses. Frankly, I don't think that trying to silence any opposition is the right way to go about having this argument, but you know what? At this point I don't give a shit. You're so fucking evil, so despicably, utterly disgusting, that I hope you do get fired. Frankly, I'd like to see you and everyone else who shares your dark age viewpoint relegated to the same social status that we give flagrant racists.

Such tactics can be deterred only by rebellion against political correctness. Edmund Burke once said that the only thing necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing. And evil it surely is. Imagine a world in which everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage the way that God intended for us to live. This would produce dramatic reductions in crime, poverty, abortion, and child abuse. Now imagine the alternative. If everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage it would result in the end of the human race itself.

I've got to say, I'm impressed. Just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber, you somehow manage it. You're like fucking Mandelbrot set of stupidity. I mean, holy shit. Have you never heard of the phrase "false dichotomy" before? Neither of those worlds you're envisioning will ever come to pass. They're just masturbatory fantasies in your head with no correspondence to reality.

In which direction should a Christian nation turn? And by what justification can Christians remain silent?

Even a slight movement in the direction of government-backed same-sex marriage will be disastrous. It will open the door on a number of troubling issues: Should bisexuals be permitted to marry two people? No one is raising the issue now. But they will.

Oh for fucks sake. Here comes the old polygamy argument. Never far out of reach for you fundie assholes, is it? Here's the deal, Mike. If it's between two consenting individuals, it should be legal. If two, or three, or a dozen legal adults want to get married, let them.

And on a personal note, as a bisexual myself, I'd like to give a hearty fuck you for perpetuating the stereotype that bisexuals are inherently promiscuous. I don't need a husband and a wife any more than you need wives of every hair color.

As a nation, we have fallen a long way in recent years by pretending that abnormal things are normal. But now we are on the verge of pretending that the same abnormal things are actually desirable. And that is unconscionable.

Examples? Or is this just more scaremongering bullshit?

The APA is not likely to cease its double standard of opposing gay re-orientation therapy while supporting gay-affirmation therapy. But society-at-large need not employ the same double-standard. After all, the average citizen has far more common sense than the average psychiatrist.

Yay bullshit populism! No, Mike. The average citizen does not have more common sense than the average psychiatrist, and even if they did, it wouldn't matter. Psychiatrists go through years of specialized training and schooling to understand the human mind and the human condition. This makes them infinitely better equipped to deal with psychological issues than the average citizen. Or the average pundit.

And no, there's no double standard at work here. Re-orientation "therapy" doesn't work, and often ends up doing massive psychological damage to the people it's inflicted upon. Gay affirmative psychotherapy, on the other hand, attempts to help people come to grips with their own orientation, something that wouldn't be necessary if pricks like you weren't constantly telling us queers how evil and worthless and abnormal we are.

Contrary to what many believe, traditional marriage is not all about affirming love. In fact, many, if not most, of the world’s marriages are arranged.

And you think that's a good thing? You're even more fucked up that I thought. Marriage is and should be what humans make it, and I'd rather it be based of love than stupid traditionalist bullshit like this.

Nor is the push for same-sex marriage all about affirming love. The life span of the average gay man is about twenty years shorter than the lifespan of the average heterosexual man. With consequences as grave as an early grave no man who truly loved another would engage in homosexual acts with him.

Bullshit.

Your writing is so free of facts that it would be hilarious if so many people didn't believe you.

This debate is about more than two people in love. It is about two factions of society, which are sharply divided. One chooses to live in accordance with God’s word and the other chooses to live in rebellion against it.

Mr. Adams, the first commandment and the first amendment are in conflict, and we all know which is legally binding. Your god and your religion do not and should not dictate the course this country takes.

But if you're so concerned about living in a godly fashion, why aren't you out stoning adulterers and disobedient children? After all, God commands it.

Because the stakes are so high the debate must be joined by everyone. It cannot be dictated by those who call themselves gay but use anger to silence those who object to the same-sex union. Now more than ever, we must speak now or forever hold our peace.

*sigh*

I thought venting for a bit would make me feel better, but it doesn't seem to have helped much.

Oh well. If nothing else, I can take solace from the fact that, in a hundred years, when Mr. Adams and I are both worm food, and gay marriage has become commonplace and a non-issue, and society has subsequently failed to collapse, people will see opinions like yours in the history books and hang their heads in shame, that we as a species ever had members who thought as you do.

Oh, and in conclusion? Fuck you, you fucking fucker.

architecture school: a commentary

2010-09-16T00:03:00.003-05:00

I've been at this university for a little over three years now, and I've noticed a bit of a trend. There are two types of architecture classes. There's practicality oriented classes, like Construction I-III, or Site Planning, and there's theory oriented classes, like the stupid thing I'm devoting three hours every Wednesday afternoon too.

Don't get me wrong. Theory classes can be great. Heck, most of the studios I've attended have been extremely theory heavy, and they're generally also the classes that I learn the most from and have the most fun in, even if they almost kill me every semester with the work load. But there are a couple of theory classes that seem completely useless to me.

One of the things I don't like about [redacted] University's architecture program is the huge gap between theory and practice based classes. You go into Site Planning, and you learn stuff. Sure, it's dry and boring and you want to stab yourself to death with a sharpie halfway through, but the information being presented is useful. It's the kind of things you'll need to know if you're going to make buildings that work, which should be the goal of every architect. (For the given value of "work", of course. I'm not discounting aesthetics, here.)

Theory stuff, on the other hand, like this "Media Elective" I'm taking, (Which isn't actually an elective and only deals with one sort of media) tends to be worse than useless. I'm literally learning nothing useful about creating interesting, or even functional buildings. It's ninety minutes of lecture about pretentious, moronic, post-modernist "artists", and ninety minutes of pointless critique about our pointless work. Honestly, half the time it seems like intellectual masturbation. A self-referential circle jerk of biblical proportions.

And there's no connection between the two. We don't get any information on how we're supposed to mesh theory and practicality. It's like we're making two buildings. One's a concrete monolith that's fully functional but lacks any sort of soul, and the other is a gorgeous steel and glass edifice who's roof leaks.

Bleh. I think I needed to vent a bit. At least it's only once a week. I don't think I could stand going any more frequently.

three months: one

2010-09-10T00:30:00.001-05:00

I keep promising content, and I never deliver! How... me, of me.

Anyway. I figured I'd at least try to post a little bit of what I've been doing for the last three months. This will be the massively condensed version of the first part of my summer:

So, the major event of the summer was without a doubt my trip abroad. I spent six weeks in Paris, and I'm no worse for wear (with the exception of my liver, the French make great wine). In fact, I'm a good deal better off, in an intellectual and emotional sense, than I was before I left. I wrote at length about my declining psychological state near the end of last semester (much of which has now been stricken from the interwebs, because it was too fucking depressing to read), so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice to say, I was in a very bad place, emotionally, which had an impact on my schoolwork, my relationships, and everything else.

Of course, something like that is a vicious cycle. The more depressed I became, the more time I spent locked in my room, rotting, with self destructive thoughts ricocheting off walls like the Brownian motion of the damned. I came damn close to dying, but luckily I had the presence of mind to reach out for some help before I took a long walk off a short balcony.

Long story short, I got some assistance, both personal and pharmaceutical in nature. The pills helped, but the venting helped even more, and by the time the end of the school year rolled around I was out of the slough and back in the land of the living. I wasn't fixed, but I was better than I had been in a long while.

So, I went home. I did my best to stay out of the way of my parents and vegitate for two solid weeks. Then I went to Paris.

The city was amazing. No surprise there. Europe in general, and Paris in particular, is so different from west Texas that I damn near went into total sensory overload the first few days I was there. Effective (if crowded) public transportation? Roads and cars of a sane size? A cohesive, semi-well planned urban fabric? Cops that don't make you feel guilty just for walking by them? Shit, you want to know why Parisians don't drop dead of heart failure at anywhere close to the same rate us USanians do? It's because they've got fantastic, individually owned, healthy to eat at, affordable (by Paris standards) shops on every damn street corner. And the pastries! Oh sweet Jesus the pastries! It's enough to drive a man to diabetes!

Enough about that, though. I've got a whole notebook full of comments about Paris that I'll transcribe eventually. What I really want to focus on is the work that we did.

Initially, we had two weeks of urban analysis and lectures by the Dean. Really fascinating stuff about how cities are born and grow, and the history of Paris in particular. It's an amazing city. Then we had a week of project studies, where we went around the city and studied existing buildings of all styles (from extant medieval structures, to the Louvre, to the Pompidou, and everything in between). Then we had a relaxing weekend in London (The Chunnel? Underwhelming. The beer? Overwhelming. The weather? Just right.) Then we had a week of "preparation", mostly studying and analyzing the site we were given. Then, the real meat of the program, we had two weeks to completely redesign the Passage du Caire and the surrounding areas. TWO WEEKS.

And that's where I'm stopping for now. I've got to sleep now, and I just remembered that my car has been parked in a zone of questionable legality.

So yeah. QT, out.

stylin

2010-09-09T17:18:00.001-05:00

New theme is engaged, set awesome factor to maximum.

Not only is it incredibly sexy, but it actually works properly too! I've learned my lesson about messing around with HTML on my own. (Bad idea, that.)

So... yeah... content. Still need some of that. Let me see if I can get my scanner up and running. I've been on an art craze recently.

Beware Cowards!

2010-09-06T19:35:00.002-05:00

I live!

And I'm busy, but I feel the need to post, so here you go. I'm still around, still breathing, still kicking. Still fighting the good fight (I've got metaphorical bunker busters, now).

Anyway, I'm revamping the blog, fixing things that were broke, improving things that weren't, and thinking of ideas to share. That's all for now, folks.

-QT, out.

The City of Lights

2010-06-01T18:47:00.001-05:00

That's right. Not only am I back in action, but I'm in Paris, of all places. I'll be studying abroad for a month and a half. I just got in yesterday, and I'm jetlagged half to death right now, so I shan't write much, but I've got pictures, video (note to self, set up a YouTube account), and a whole whirl of ideas in my head that I'm just itching to get on paper.

As soon as I grab some sleep, that is.

Bienvenidos!

QT Reviews: The Crazies

2010-03-22T17:54:00.002-05:00

So, spring break came and went, and other than the chainsaw escapades, the most fun I had was on Thursday. I don't get to see my old high school friends all that often. We chat online, but it's not the same. Anyway, after spending an afternoon shooting each other (with airsoft guns, don't worry), jumping on each other's heads for mushrooms (New Super Mario Bros is a veritable mushroom clusterfuck) we all piled into one car (I always get stuck in the middle, not that I mind, exactly) and went to see "The Crazies".

It was... Eh. Nothing special. A competent horror thriller with decent acting and far too many cat scares. The best part was probably the first fifteen minutes, which were actually pretty good as far as dramatic tension goes. There were also a few scenes that stood out (that pitchfork on the poster certainly gets put to terrible, terrifying use), but overall it plays like a standard zombie invasion / military quarantine movie, and I've seen that scenario a dozen times in as many movies.

Wikipedia article (with plot summary).
Tropes.

All things considered, it's not a bad rental or netflix choice if you've got nothing else to pick from, but nothing special.

Er... oops?

2010-03-17T04:02:00.001-05:00

I know, I know, I promised reviews of Bioshock 2 and Mass Effect 2, but I just didn't have the time to write them. First it was regular school crap, then midterms, then spring break started and I thought I'd have the time to write them then, but we're almost to the halfway point and I haven't done it yet so I imagine it'll never get done, now. I'd complain more about how busy I am, but I spent the whole day yesterday hitting things with a sledgehammer and then chopping them up with a chainsaw, and that's not something I can find any fault with.

So, QT, out, for now.

Bioshock 2

2010-02-22T12:17:00.002-06:00

...has been completed, along with Mass Effect 2. This was a good month for sequels.

Reviews forthcoming!

I'm not dead yet, you know.

2010-02-19T02:01:00.001-06:00

I've got some shit going on in my life right now, mostly stupid irrational emotional garbage, topped with my usual social insecurity. Maybe I should start drinking? I've heard that's good for people that angst as much as I do.

Anyway, the real reason for this post is a quote I found:

The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases.
-Carl Jung

Now if only more people could realize that and stop trying to get everyone to be like them.

Well, that was un-fun.

2010-02-10T02:12:00.001-06:00

Remind me never to post when I'm emotionally vulnerable again.

Anyway, I'm feeling better now. My head's back on marginally straight, and my armor of plus +4 cynicism is re-equipped. I don't really know why I felt the need to post a long winded whine containing my innermost insecurities, but hey, what else am I going to do with a blog.

And I think it might have helped, a little bit.

-QT

Early mornings with QT.

2010-02-09T05:15:00.004-06:00

You want to know what I do at four AM after a night spent studying when I can't go to sleep?

No you don't (be honest) but I'm going to tell you anyway.

I worry about stuff.

Usually, it's pointless, inconsequential things, but lately I've been dealing with all sorts of complications and issues brought about by my sexuality. Yeah, I didn't want to open that can of worms here until I was well and truly ready to, but right now I'm dealing with some shit and I need to get my thoughts down on e-paper.

I accepted several months ago that I was bisexual. The details of that story will have to be left to a later date, when I'm not as tired and I've composed exactly what I want to say, how I want to say it. Regardless, up until now it's been a surprisingly small issue for me on a personal level. I'm not religious, and haven't been for a while, so while I'll likely be working through that emotional baggage and sexual repression for the rest of my life, at least I know on an intellectual level that there's nothing wrong with being bi. Of course, living where I do, I haven't told very many people about this. Most of my old friends from high school that I still maintain a connection with know, and they've been universally either supporting or casually indifferent, which has helped tremendously.

My parents, of course, are still hip deep in ~~the nile~~ denial, and I can't seem to work up the energy to get really angry at them. They're pretty conservative folks, and apparently unaware that the 1950's moved on long, long ago. I love em' to death, but they can be incredibly irrational about certain things, of which their son having the hots for other dudes is apparently right at the top of the list.

Of course, that's not a terribly huge issue. It kind of sucks that what I am is a constant disappointment to my folks, but hey, I don't live with them any more, so at least it isn't thrown in my face on a daily basis. No, the big problem is where I live. West Texas is pretty much a conservative shit hole. Even the college campus that I live on is pretty far to the right. It's not an immediate problem, of course. I pass for straight just fine, thank you very much. It's just that day in and day out, when I hear "faggot" and "queer" thrown around as casual insults, it makes me really fucking scared.

I knew this would be an issue, of course. I'm not naive. But it really hit home for me tonight.

I was at a study group with a bunch of other architecture students. We were pretty casually reviewing shear and moment diagrams over taco bell and energy drinks, when I hear it: "Hey, knock it off fagboy!"

For a moment, my mind freezes. A thousand possibilities surge through my synapses along with a cocktail of anxiety, fear, and confusion."They can't possibly know!" I think. "I haven't told anyone! I haven't even hinted at anything except with a few people, and none of them are here!"

Well, of course they didn't know. Hell, he wasn't even talking to me. They were just tossing the label around as a casual insult. Hell, I'd heard it all before, but in an environment where I've got something to hide, and the consequences of a reveal are a loss of friends and social isolation at best and immediate physical harm at worst, it's a different situation.

But what can I do?

I try to ignore it, but it just keeps on coming. The same damn bullshit, tossed around again and again. "Faggot!" "Queer!" "Cocksucker!" I can barely take it. I want to shout: "Hey you assholes! Look at me! Here's your fucking faggot! Yeah, that's right! Your own friend likes men! How does that make you feel? Why don't you fucking think before opening your mouth, next time?"

But I don't say anything.

I do my best to concentrate on the formula for calculating the thickness of a column's steel base plate, but it's no use. I'm tired and isolated and scared, and I want to leave.

I make an excuse, grab my bag, wave goodbye, and get the fuck out of there.

In my car, on the way home, I listen to Michael, by Franz Ferdinand. I don't have to worry about what anyone would think if they heard me singing along, because I'm safe. I'm alone. I slowly get my nerve back.

And I'm ashamed.

Ashamed that I didn't stand up and say something. Ashamed that I'm too scared to risk friendships over what I feel is right. Ashamed that I could have maybe changed some minds, but that I kept my mouth shut out of fear. It's against everything I was taught about courage and right and wrong as a young man, and every cell of my body recoils in disgust at my own behavior.

But I'm too insecure, too weak, to do anything about it.

It doesn't help that my perception of my own sexuality is still changing on a day to day basis. Even when I'm sure that I'm attracted to both genders, I don't know whether to identify as bisexual, or pansexual, or omnisexual, or even anything at all. It doesn't help that some days I wake up and feel disgust at my own attraction to the same sex, or that some days I wake up and I can't even imagine being in a relationship with anyone but another man, and that some days I go to class and my disgust with humanity is so great that I can't bear to feel any sort of attraction to anyone at all.

Sometimes, I think that the easiest route to follow would be to just play it straight. Completely ignore any same sex attraction that I might feel and pursue a "normal" relationship with a "normal" girl and have a "normal" family with a stable job and a house with a white picket fence and two point four children, but it seems even that's impossible.

Because, you see, there's this guy.

He's in my year in the architecture program, he's in my studio, and despite what I might want rationally, I think I feel something for him. It's small, right now, but it's there. We talk about stuff. Pointless things, or school, or design and architecture. He's smart, funny, talented, and damned cute, and I think, I'm not sure, but I suspect, that he might feel something for me too.

It's probably insane to hope that something might come of this, but then he sits next to me in studio and shows me a design he's working on, or compliments an idea I've had, or makes a flirty little gesture with his eyes and hands, and I dare to hope...

Hell, maybe I'm just so lonely and desperate that I've begun to imagine things. I don't even know if he's into guys. Yeah, there's lots of things about him that scream "gay" in pink capital letters (and his facebook lists him as single, with no specified gender preference), but I don't know for sure, and as much as I'd like to know for sure, I can't just up and ask him. What if he's not? What if he's offended that I asked? Hell, I like the guy as a friend too, and he's got a bunch of other friends within the architecture school. If I make a wrong move, that's it. Rumors alone would be the death of me.

I just... fuck. The world's not fair, and it's fucking killing me right now.

What I really need is some fucking sleep, but that's not going to happen today.

I've just got to hope that everything will be better tomorrow.

-QT

Completely Irrelevant.

2010-02-04T18:01:00.003-06:00

You should never mix up your shower gel and conditioner. Seriously.

What a Twit.

2010-02-04T18:00:00.001-06:00

The Quotidian Twitter is live.

I kind of hate myself now. Not just for getting a twitter, but for calling it that.

Hitchens Update

2010-02-02T10:40:00.001-06:00

Well shit.

Apparently Hitchens himself won't actually be coming to Tech. It's just a presentation of the debate he had with Pastor Douglas Wilson, followed by a discussion session. Still interesting, but not nearly as cool as if the Hitch himself had been coming to our school.

Ah, well. I'll probably still go anyway, but my enthusiasm is somewhat dampened.

-QT

Upcoming Event!

2010-02-01T03:31:00.003-06:00

Christopher Hitchens will be speaking at my university on the 10th.

I'm currently making noises that are usually reserved for twelve year old girls who have just received a pony for their birthday.

Anyway, I'll be in attendance, and I'll be sure to take notes for a summary later.

In Which I Rage Extensively

2010-01-30T16:02:00.001-06:00

Fuck you Missouri. Fuck you straight in the ass.

Engelhard, hit by a car that lost control in the snow, was gay. He left behind a partner of nearly 15 years who was not mentioned in his obituary or official information released by the Highway Patrol, although members of the agency knew about his sexual orientation.

If Engelhard had been married, his spouse would be entitled to lifetime survivor's benefits from the state pension system — more than $28,000 a year.

But neither the state Highway Patrol pension system nor Missouri law recognizes domestic partners.

See? Anti equality bullshit does actual, tangible harm to people in the name of "tradition". Even if there wasn't a chance that it would affect me personally at some point, I would still be against it simply for the senseless damage it can do to people's lives.

Also:

A fraternal organization that provides benefits to the families of troopers killed in the line of duty is also unsure if it will help Engelhard's partner.

What?

No, really, what?

Fuck you guys too.

Others say that domestic partners should not receive any more recognition than unmarried partners of heterosexual troopers, who would not be eligible for survivor pension benefits either.

Oh yeah, sure, that makes perfect sense, I guess.

Except that any heterosexual couple that has been together for fifteen years and still hasn't been married probably haven't done so by choice, a choice that Corporal Engelhard and his lover never got the chance to make, because of your state's backwards, bigoted, bullshit laws.

So fuck you guys too.

Glossip said his relationship with Engelhard was no secret at the Highway Patrol. Glossip was listed as Engelhard's emergency contact. They showed up together at a Fourth of July party attended by several other troopers. A room full of troopers mourned with Glossip at the hospital where Engelhard was pronounced dead.

"I'd take 100 Dennis Engelhards. He was an outstanding trooper," said Capt. Ronald Johnson, head of the Highway Patrol troop that covers St. Louis and surrounding counties. "His lifestyle had no bearing on his career."

Engelhard and Glossip lived together in a modest home in rural Robertsville in Franklin County that is in both of their names. Glossip's teenage son — from a previous marriage, before Glossip came out as gay — regarded Engelhard as a stepfather, Glossip said.

Neither were formally recognized, Glossip said, at Engelhard's funeral last month, attended by dozens of law enforcement officials in Engelhard's hometown of Brookfield, Mo.

I don't know if I'll be able to type coherently for much longer. The more of this I read, the more enraged I become, to the point where I am literally shaking with barely contained fury.

This was a good man. A man who volunteered to spend his live in the service of his state, a state that still can't bother to give him equal protection under the law. What fucking bullshit.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, the comments section is filled with examples of the kind of scum who ensure that this sort of thing has to happen.

Fuck you all doubly.

QT Just Ordered the Most Awesome Shirt Ever.

2010-01-30T06:30:00.001-06:00

Seriously, look at this goddamn thing. There's loads of customization you can ask for too.

I went with formal, long sleeves, ripped back, no logo on front. Should be pretty sweet when I finally get it.

YouTube Has Some Cool Stuff On It

2010-01-28T23:04:00.002-06:00

If you know where to look.

Stupid sexy Trent.

A Quick Thought on Life

2010-01-27T11:27:00.001-06:00

People live their lives in one of three ways. They either don't recognize the control they have over their own existence, and stumble blissfully through life just doing what comes naturally to them. Or they realize that their life is theirs, and theirs only, and they take the reigns, yank the throttle, and ride the bitch for all it's worth. Or they sink into an existential despair and kill themselves.

Note, first, that I'm not assigning a value judgment to any of these. People should, must live for themselves and themselves only. It is not my place to tell them how to go through life. If someone spends their entire life blissfully ignorant of what they could have, that is what it is, nothing more.

But there's no way I could do that.

For better or worse, I am stuck with the knowledge that my life is my own to control, and so I am stuck with only the last two options. Of the two, I know which I prefer. I will not submit to the cold hostility of the universe. I will not give up and end everything. I will live my life as I wish, and savor every moment of it, the good and the bad. I will seize the day by the throat and kick the ass of anything stupid enough to get in my way.

Is this a good way to live? I don't know. But I'm sick and fucking tired of waking up miserable, and if living for myself and myself alone is what it takes to make me enjoy my existence, then so be it.

-new QT, over and out.

Call of Grenades: Modern Grenades 2

2010-01-24T16:22:00.003-06:00

If you were curious:

HTML Bullshit.

2010-01-24T10:17:00.001-06:00

Doing my best to figure out HTML on my own. It's not that tough.

Anyway, here's some things I've been fooling around with:

This is a default link.

This is a special link. In the future, this color might mean the link is super important, or NSFW.

I can also create hidden links that are indistinguishable from regular text unless you mouse over them. That'll be good for messing with your head.

Paul Scott is a Bigoted Fuckwit.

2010-01-23T16:53:00.007-06:00

First off, a link.

Now, a quote from that link:

I will make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance

Why? Why is this a priority for Mr. Scott?

Oh, that's right:

It’s a social values issue. If you are born a male, you should be known as a male. Same as with a female, she should be known as a female.

Why? Because your feeble mind can't deal with the idea of someone wanting to change their gender? Hell, I'm not well versed in the issues surrounding transgendered people. It's not something that I understand in the least, but that doesn't matter. Just because I have difficulty understanding the desire to change one's gender doesn't meant that I should have the right to forbid others from doing so. It's their body, and their life, and as long as it isn't hurting me or the people I care about, I shouldn't have a say in what they do with it.

But of course simple moral logic like that is beyond the abilities of Mr. Scott. But what else can you expect from someone who's had their morality spoon fed to them via bible verses from the day they were born?

Now why did this catch my eye? After all, it's taking place in Michigan, a state far, far away from me. As disgusting as Mr. Scott's statement is, this isn't something I would normally write about. What got my attention is that Paul Scott is twenty seven years old. While I could understand (if not agree with) an opinion of that nature from someone much older than him, I can't understand how someone ostensibly of my generation could be that backwards and bigoted. It's almost like hearing someone in their thirties spitting racist slurs. They should know better than that.

This doesn't give me much hope for the future.

Webcomics: Part One

2010-01-20T11:10:00.006-06:00

Comics You Don't Know About, But Should:

This will be the first entry in an ongoing list of web comics that I rather enjoy. Below are several comics that aren't very well known, but really deserve to be. Some are drama, some are horror, some are comedy. A few are dramorrody, or something like that.

Geist Panik
By Brian Wilson, of Hookie Dookie Panik unfame. Catalouges the misadventures of Ms. Riley Hood and her insane posse as they battle ghosts, goblins, demons, and the undead, and that's just at the office.

Updates irregularly.

Goodbye Chains
High explosives, communism, bank robberies, sarcastic dialogue, cowboy buttsex. What more could you want?

Updates at times, on days.

Kagerou
Kano Jurgen's life really sucks. First he gets pulled into an alternate dimension as the chosen champion of the not quite Queen. Then he dies. Then he comes back. Then he nearly dies again. Several times. Not to mention dealing with the voices in his head that won't go away, or the crippling psychosis, or his split personalities, or the psychic ghost of a vengeful serial rapist that's slowly driving him (more) insane.

Updates every weekend, usually.

White Noise
The end of the world has come and gone. More than a century after an alien race destroyed the surface of the planet and wiped out the entire biosphere, the descendants of the original survivors are doing their best to rebuild. Some, seeking to protect themselves should the aliens return, have reverse engineered limited amounts of their technology and are continuing their amoral genetic experiments. Wren is one of these experiments, but after his home is wiped out by a Herald attack, he has to fend for himself in a world that considers him an abomination.

Updates Mondays.

Skin Deep
Michelle Jocasta just wanted to have a good first semester at college, and for a while, it seemed like that was a distinct possibility. Her roommate Merial turned out to be pretty awesome, and her new friends Greg and Jim (short for Jimothy, of all things) both seem nice, if a bit odd. Oh, and they're all secretly mythological creatures, including Michelle, who didn't even know it before she stumbled across a mysterious medalion that revealed her true form. Now she's being hunted by dragons and stalked by demons, and she's not exactly good at this whole "hero" thing.

Updates Tuesdays.

Khaos Komix
Khaos Komix is pretty gay. No, seriously. There's a suspiciously large amount of homosexuality going on there. Other than that it's a pretty normal slice-of-life comic, with the exception that it's told eight different ways by eight different characters, and details and secrets are revealed every time the story changes hands.

Updates... fuck if I know.

The End of Things
It's Evan Li's last year of college, and the fact that he's going to be leaving behind all of his friends and heading out into the world in two semesters is really wearing on him. Of course, that isn't everything that's bothering him, which is pretty evident from his mood and behavior...

Doesn't update ever. (Okay, sometimes, but seriously, it's been like a month!)

Zebra Girl
Crystal, her brother Jack, and her best friend Sandra are all living fairly contently in the house they share until Crystal and Jack discover an ancient tome of magic in the attic. One misaimed burst of magic later, and Sandra's been transformed into a freaky ass demon thing, the titular Zebra Girl. No, she doesn't fight crime. Started out in a gag-per-day format until things got progressively... darker. Now Sandra's trapped in limbo, Jack's a wizard (Jack the Plaid, hilariously enough), and Crystal's gone all goth. Also, there's some demons hanging around. Oh, and a werewolf, but he's a good guy.

Updates every ten days.

Misfile
Drugs are bad, mkay? Especially if smoking weed while on the job causes you to make a mistake. Especially if you're an angel, your job is part of the celestial bureaucracy, and that mistake completely fucks up the lives of two hapless bystanders.

Updates every weekday. (Makes everyone else look bad.)

Vinci and Arty
Everyone say DAWWWWW with me now, okay? This sickeningly sweet strip revolves around Artisan P. Sunspot and his boyfriend, Richard "Vinci" Nicolaides (it's Greek). This one's on here because I needed something adorable and happy to balance out all the misery and angst from the other strips.

Used to update every week. Now on extended hiatus.

Concession
What, as if there wasn't enough faggotry in this list already? Concesion is about a bunch of people (furry people, as if it wasn't bad enough) who work at a concession stand, as the name might imply. Also, a couple of them have psychic powers, one's possessed by the ghost of his murdered twin sister, and on a quest for revenge. One's got brain cancer, one's dealing with residual gayngst due to his hyper-religious upbringing, one's named Nicole but his real name is "Aaron", one's the manager (and a supervillain in his spare time), and one's... well... actually, Rick is pretty normal all things considered.

Updates Tuesdays and Fridays (currently on winter break)

Furthia High
The life and times of one Kale Williams, the last human on earth. And you thought your high school was bad?

Updates Mondays and Fridays.

Slop
Despite the hard life he's lead, it's pretty difficult to feel bad for Tony-Ray McCullough. Mostly because he's a serial killer. He's also a pig (literally, not figuratively), and we all know what pigs eat, right?

Updates irregularly.

Slightly Damned
How can you be "Slightly Damned", you ask? How can you escape from hell? How can an angel and a demon fall in love? Read and find out.

Updates Saturdays. Sometimes more often.

A test of features.

2010-01-19T15:50:00.007-06:00

Yay for needless phone apps!

While I was waiting for my drivers to install and my studio work to print, I snagged a copy of AndroBlogger for my Droid. Now I can write pointless drivel on my phone and have zero readers from anywhere with 3G coverage!

Well, assuming this works, that is

-Mobile QT, over and out.

QT Reviews: Silent Hill: Shattered Memories.

2010-01-17T22:11:00.011-06:00

(I'll do my best to keep this review spoiler free.)

I'm a big fan of Silent Hill.

Of course, it goes without saying that #2 was my favorite (I've yet to meet anyone who will admit to liking another SH game better.), but I pretty much enjoyed all of them, even Homecoming. (Note that I haven't played The Room or Origins.) The series has, unfortunately, take a turn for the worse recently. I'm not going to be a prick and blame the western developers for the whole thing, but I do think that the focus on combat in Homecoming made it a worse game. It was just too easy to shred any and all opposition, and that's not what survival horror should be about. On the other hand, a large part of reason the combat was so difficult in earlier SH games was the terrible control system, and I don't think that fake difficulty is good either.

So, given my slight disappointment with Homecoming, you can imagine that I had mixed feelings about Shattered Memories. I didn't really want to get my hopes up overmuch, but I was still looking forward to it.

Long story short. I liked it. B+. Buy it if you like Silent Hill, or survival horror.

Here's a more in depth analysis:

Gameplay:

Silent Hill: Shattered Memories (from here on out, SH:SM) is largely divived up into three different types of play. There are exploration sections, where you wander around the relatively normal version of Silent Hill, searching for your lost daughter, interacting with various characters, solving puzzles, getting creepy voice-mails, and turning up "mementos", items that once had a special significance to their owner, and occasionally tie into the game in an interesting fashion.

Then there's the Otherworld. In contrast with Silent Hill's typical blood drenched, rusted over hellscapes, the Otherworld in Shattered Memories is a cold, desolate wasteland. During these sections, you'll be running for your life from creatures called "Raw Shocks", hideous abominations that will do their best to keep you from moving ahead, which they do by latching on to you and draining your body heat until you go into shock and pass out. These sections were by far my favorite part of the game. They were, really and truly, viscerally terrifying like nothing else I've played recently. Of course, they could get frustrating after a while. Especially in the Highschool level, where you were somehow expected to take photographs while fleeing for your life. But they never got to the point where I was ready to give up. Other reviewers have taken your inability to fight off the monsters inhabiting the Otherworld as a fault in the game, but that strikes me as missing the point. This is a horror game, not an action movie, and Harry Mason is a writer, not a trained warrior.

The last, and most intriguing, sections are the psychiatric evaluations, conducted by a Dr. Kaufman, a name SH veterans might be familiar with (but he's not quite the same, this time around). During these questions, you will perform activities (fill out a form, take a Rorschach test, sort photographs, etc.) or answer questions. The game psychoanalyzes during these sessions, and during the game, by keeping a record of the things that you focus on.

The different areas contrast well with each other, the exploration bits give you time to recover from the last Otherworld segment, and the psychoanalysis sections do their best to worm their way into your head and freak you out.

4/5

Controls:

I bought the Wii version of the game, because I'm a massive faggot and own a Wii. The Wii's motion control has always felt a little gimmicky to me, and a lot of games implement it so poorly that struggling with the controller all the time makes the game downright unplayable (Red Steel, I'm looking at you). Fortunately, this isn't too much of a problem with the Wii version. The Wiimote controls the flashlight, and the nunchuck controls your moment. That's about it, in all honesty. The only really frustrating control issue occurs when you have to shake off the Raw Shocks during the Otherworld segments. You'll likely need three or four tries to get even one off, given how the Wiimote doesn't seem to register half the wild swings you'll be making. Doing this while half a dozen other skinless monstrosities are trying to hug you to death can be... disconcerting, to say the least.

3/5

Atmosphere:

For a Wii game, SH:SM looks downright spectacular. I imagine, if I wasn't playing it on a 40" TV, it would probably have looked even better. As it was, some more Anti-aliasing wouldn't have gone awry, but there's only so much you can do on the Wii's limited hardware. The flashlight and shadows were impressive, and the levels were well designed. The constant snow effects were also quite pretty, as long as you don't look at them too hard.

Special mention goes to the Otherworld sequences. Unlike in earlier SH games, where you'd black out and wake up in a hell that was greatly in need of some WD 40, here the transition happens in real time, with buildings freezing over, spikes of ice shooting out of the ground, and earthquakes tearing the world apart as you stumble around trying to avoid an icy death. Both the Otherworld and regular Silent Hill (day and night) are well rendered.

The sound design is spectacular as well. All the thuds, scrapes, whistling wind and moaning monsters are convincingly done, the voice acting is spectacular, and the score, by the legendary Akira Yamaoka, is perfect for the moody setting.

Overall, the ambiance is the best part of the game, convincingly drawing you in to the nightmarish world that Harry is stuck in.

5/5

Storyline:

I'm sure you all know the basic plot of Silent Hill one, which won't really help you much here, because aside from sharing some characters, Shattered Memories is nothing like it. In fact, while I think using Harry and Cheryl works fine, it might have been even better with completely different characters.

I played through it a couple of times (there's quite a bit of replay value), and the changes in the storyline and characters that your behavior inspires, while subtle, are powerful. I could wish for more varied endings, but I think the five that are there are generally sufficient. Be careful how you play, by the way. The right choices will end the game with a downright heartwarming cut scene, but the "wrong" ones will crush you. (I put wrong in quotes, because unlike in other SH games, there is no right and wrong in Shattered Memories. There are only choices, and their effects on people.)

Also, I can't give you much here without spoiling it, but there's a fantastic twist at the end. Let's just say that Harry isn't all he seems to be.

4/5

Overall:

A very solid entry into the Silent Hill franchise. Hopefully, further sequels will take some pointers.

4/5

Is it just me?

2010-01-17T20:58:00.007-06:00

I moved back into my dorm last week, and I figured that it was high time to stock my refrigerator and pantry (by which I mean my closet) with all sorts of incredibly unhealthy but undeniably delicious junk food.

So I went to Walmart. (It's the closest big box mart to my campus, so shut up.)

I really, really hate those sorts of places. Big stores, shopping malls, "town centers", and the like. Places with tons of people that I don't know. I just can't stand being around that many people. I get edgy and paranoid, and I feel like everyone is staring at me and appraising me like some sort of exotic animal you'd find in a zoo. I know that's stupid, because everyone is too busy with their own shopping to bother with giving me the evil eye, but my mind just won't stop throwing crap at me:

"Hey, that guy just glanced my way. Is he checking me out? No, of course not, idiot! Why would he do that? You're nothing special to look at, and besides, this is Texas! Take a look at the size of his belt buckle! He's probably wondering if he has enough chain to drag you behind his truck! No that's stupid too! Why do you always assume the worst about people? Oh god, now the girl next to him is looking at you funny too! Have you been staring in their direction this whole time? Stop it moron! You're probably freaking her out! Smile or something! Look somewhere else! Oh no, now she's laughing! You must look like an idiot! Maybe it's your hair! You should have combed it better before you left! Or do you have something between your teeth? No, of course not, you haven't even had anything to eat today! Oh fuck! Now you look fidgety! Shit, idiot! She hasn't even been looking at you! It was probably just something funny her friend said anyway! But what if it was about you?! Aaaaaah!"

So yeah. I'm pretty much a tightly wound ball of insecurities.

Anyway. On the the main point of this post. To deal with the constant stream of negativity I inevitably end up feeding myself when I walk into these places, I've started trying to analyze the people around me. Like a combination of picturing them in a chicken suit and some depraved type of people-watching.

And I noticed some things.

Is it just me, or are there are only so many people in the world?

Well, duh, there's like six and a half billion, but that's not what I meant. The more I started looking at people, the more it seemed like they all fit into some sort of stereotype. Like there's a giant set of molds somewhere that only produce two dozen types of people.

Maybe it's just because I don't know them at all? Maybe they're all fascinating individuals, but I just can't seem to get past how everyone seems to fit a stereotype. That's probably me being a moron too.

But all of this got me thinking. What stereotype do I fit? I'd like to think that I'm the one exception to the rule, but I imagine everyone else thinks that about themselves too.

Bleh.

Sometimes I wish I could just turn my brain off.

On updates.

2010-01-16T20:30:00.006-06:00

So, apparently I start a lot of sentences with "so". Not sure why I do that. I guess it's some sort of writing/verbal tic?

Anyway. You might notice some slight changes to the site, nonexistent reader. I've updated some things, gotten rid of some dumb stuff, and added a new section full of pointless information, "Vital Statistics". Reading it may contain some clues as to why I've decided to start blogging again.

I don't have much to report, currently. This isn't really a full post anyway, but I promised myself I'd keep writing my thoughts down here. Mainly to keep myself from going stark raving mad.

I'll post some more serious stuff later, but for now if you're a fan of Silent Hill, read this: Hell is Repetition. I also just finished Shattered Memories, which I'll probably review sometime soon.

Also, apparently Houston elected a gay mayor? Having grown up near there, I can't say I'm too surprised. Most Houstonians don't seem to really care about that sort of thing. As long as she can get the job done, they probably don't care that she's openly gay. This is an interesting sort of thing on the national scene, though. Apparently Houston is now the largest city in the US to have elected a gay mayor, which is a surprise, considering it's located in Texas.

Ho-le-shit.

2010-01-14T00:02:00.008-06:00

So it's been a while.

I'm not going to post a lot right now, because it's midnight, and I'm tired, but I've decided to blog semi-regularly again. There's been some serious shit going down in my life, and I need an outlet. Ranting about stuff on the internet might do it for me, I think.

I'll be back with another post this weekend, and it will probably have something to do with the aforementioned "serious shit". Maybe I'll even post some filler before then.

-QT out.

QT Reviews: "Knowing"

2009-03-30T09:35:00.004-05:00

Last weekend, I went to see the movie “Knowing” with my family. It was my brother’s birthday, and he demanded that we take him to see it, so of course, I was dragged along. Heck, beats the 9:45 service. I’m pretty leery of movies starring Nicholas Cage. He’s been in some great movies (“Weatherman”, “Lord of War”), but he’s been in a whole lot of shitty movies too (“Bangkok Dangerous”, “Ghost Rider”, and most egregiously, the remake of “The Wicker Man”). There is apparently no in between (well, “The Rock” might count, but only because it featured Sean Connery beating a man to death with a machine gun).

So, you can understand why I approached the theater with some trepidation that morning.

It turns out that my fears weren’t entirely unfounded, but at the same time, it wasn’t that bad. Actually, I’m still trying to figure out just how I feel about the movie. Warning: Here there be spoilers.

Nicholas Cage plays John Koestler, a hard drinking, bitter MIT astrophysics professor and widower who is trying to raise his son on his own. Picture an unholy cross between Carl Sagan and Christopher Hitchens, but with worse hair, and you’re close.

Pardon me while I go off on a tangent here, but has anyone else noticed that Hollywood has an irritating proclivity to portray atheists as cynical addicts with traumatic events in their past? (M. Night, I’m looking at you.) Apparently, no one has considered that a rational look at the evidence can lead someone to disbelief. No, only a dead little sister can do that.

Sorry, back on topic.

So John attends a time capsule opening ceremony at his son’s elementary school. Fifty years earlier, the students of the elementary school had all drawn pictures of what they thought the future would look like in the year 2009. Most of the drawings are of rocket ships and spacesuited adventurers with ray guns and the like, but one, drawn by the deeply creepy Lucinda, is simply a long string of numbers. Of course, John’s son Caleb had to get that one, and John, after a little too much Jack Daniels, stumbles across a bizarre sequence of numbers: 9110122996. If you haven’t figured it out already, its 9/11/01, and 2996, the exact amount of people killed in that particular tragedy. John spends the rest of the night chugging Morgan and decoding the rest of the paper. By morning, he’s discovered that hundreds of strings of numbers point to all the major disasters in the last fifty years.

Of course, he’s still a bit skeptical, but the last three strings are for dates in the future, and there’s nothing like experimental confirmation, especially the kind that explodes violently and racks up a huge special effects bill.

It was about this point that I started audibly uttering things like “Holy shit!” in the theater. I’ve never seen a plane crash rendered in quite such detail, and the CGI for the crash scene was some of the best I’ve ever been privy to. I’m still not sure how they managed to squeak by with a PG-13 rating, though. Apparently, people running around on fire and being struck by shrapnel from exploding jet engines is content considered suitable for people thirteen and up. Who knew?
The movie continues along this path for a while. There’s another disaster that will keep me out of the subway for the foreseeable future, and John runs around a lot, unable to really do anything. Eventually, he gets in touch with Lucinda (the crazy number girl)’s daughter, who is also (conveniently) a single mother with a daughter around Caleb’s age. Also, there’s some creepy ass albino guy who keeps stalking John and giving Caleb bambi-esque nightmares from hell. Oh, and the last disaster? It’s a massive solar flare that will completely sterilize the surface of the earth. Shit.

This part of the movie is extremely well paced and managed to hold my attention pretty darn well.

Then the really hardcore crazy starts pouring in from nowhere. The creepy albinos (who are apparently angels) kidnap Caleb and Abby (the daughter of Diana, Lucinda’s daughter). Biblical eschatology pours in from nowhere, and then aliens, motherfucking aliens masquerading as angels hiding as creepy albino people, come out of the sky and swoop away the two kids (and a couple dozen others all across the planet). John drives back to New York to be with his family, and then Beethoven’s 7th symphony plays as social order breaks down and a massive wall of radioactive death sweeps the planet from the solar flare, sterilizing the planet to a depth of one mile into the crust and turning everything to ash. We’re treated to a nice view of the lake in Central Park evaporating seconds before the wall o’ destruction sweeps across it, all while the only sound is the haunting refrains of Beethoven’s second movement play.

If it weren’t for all the tin-foil underpants craziness that had gone on in the last half hour of the movie, I would have enjoyed it far more, but it seems like the screenwriter painted himself into a corner and had to pull something totally nuts out of his ass at the last minute to wrap everything up.

Overall, it wasn’t a bad film, but it could have benefitted from some coherency, and the ending was weak. The actors all gave decent performances, the CGI was fantastic, and the soundtrack was excellent. One thing the film did bring up that I really wish they would have expanded on was the basic free will / determinism issue. If the universe is random and chaotic, then there is no order, and no purpose, but if the universe follows strict physical laws, and everything that will happen is set, then where is our free will?

Is it better to have no set purpose, and make your own, or to have a predetermined destiny, but be unable to change it? I know which I prefer, but since when did preference have any effect on the reality of the universe?

On Theodicies,

2009-03-02T05:36:00.004-06:00

If you've spent any time studying theology, either formally or in your spare time, you've no doubt come across the "Problem of Evil". I've heard the Problem of Evil tossed back and forth in debates, and it is usually distorted to a ridiculous degree by both sides, so I thought that I would do my best to clarify what the PoE is, what it can and cannot do, and why I think it is a powerful argument against many religious beliefs. I'll also take a look at some responses to the PoE (called theodicies) and why I do not think they are valid.

A lot of people use the Problem of Evil as if it were some kind of super weapon. An anti-theistic Ion Cannon, if you will. I've heard people say that since evil exists, God cannot. This is a gross oversimplification of the issue, and it makes me sort of depressed to hear such faulty reasoning coming from "my side of the fence".

The Problem of Evil can be summed up as follows:

(P1) God Exists.
(P2) God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good.
(P3) Evil exists.
(P4) A being that is all good would stop evil where possible.
(P4) A God (As defined in P2) could eliminate all evil immediately.
Therefor:
(C1) God will eliminate all evil immediately.
But:
(C2) God has not eliminated all evil.
So:
(C3) One or more of the premises is false. Either God is not all powerful, all knowing, or all good, or some combination thereof. Or, of course, God simply does not exist.

So, as you can see, the Problem of Evil does not discount all Gods. Only Gods that are all good, all powerful, and all knowing. Of course, that includes the Abrahamic God, so the Jews, Christians, and Muslims are in a bit of a bind here.

Of course, clever theologians simply can't let such a challenge slide, and so many apologists have come up with theodicies in an attempt to answer the problem of evil.

Before we get to them, though, I'd like to deal with an objection that is commonly raised whenever someone brings up the problem of evil: "What right do you have to complain about evil in the world if you aren't out doing everything possible to stop it?". I've heard this several times, and it's a total non-sequitur. The Problem of Evil addresses the paradox between the existence of evil, and the existence of an omni-max deity. Claiming that God is off the hook because I don't do enough to end evil has absolutely nothing to do with the problem at hand.

Now, on to the theodicies:

The typical response to the Problem of Evil is to blame all the bad things on free will. This response is unsatisfactory for several reasons. First of all, why are humans allowed to do the terrible things they do to one another? We're dealing with an omnipotent deity, after all, so why can't God simply put a physical barrier in place to prevent harming others? No one would claim that a human's inability to fly under their own power or shoot lasers out of their eyes is a limit on our free will, so why would you claim that an inability to directly harm others would do the same? Think about heaven, for instance. Isn't heaven supposed to be a place with no suffering? Unless there's no free will in heaven, then a lack of suffering and free will are compatible.

The other issue with the free will defense is that it fails to address the suffering that is present in nature. Unless you're somehow going to tell me that humans cause hurricanes, Harlequin type Icthyosis, ELE asteroid impacts, lightning strikes, Ebola, or shark attacks, that is.

Another response is that suffering is necessary for the growth of the soul, to which I reply: "Why"? Why make a world where this is the case? If God could have made the world however he wanted, why not just make the souls the way he wanted them, instead of having to grow them via suffering?

One more theodicy tries to reconcile the existence of evil by saying that good only makes sense in contrast with evil. Either evil exists to make good seem that much better, or "evil" is just the absence of good. The first example is downright disturbing. Before you use this, ask yourself if you are only happy if you have something bad to compare your happiness to. If that's the case, then why don't you go break both your legs? Everything else will seem great in comparison! In fact, my dad used to do this: "Come here! I'll give you something to cry about!" he said.

The second example also raises some questions. If good cannot exist without evil, then how could God be all good? If God was the only thing that existed in the beginning, then God must surely be part evil as well.

Another response is what is known as Skeptical Theism. Proponents of this claim that God is so far beyond our ken that we cannot fathom his reasons for allowing suffering. But of course, you aren't allowed to question if those reasons are sound. After all, God is good. Why? Because God is good! Shut up! I can't help but wonder if certain Germans in the 1930's got the same response:

"Why are you rounding up all our nice Jewish neighbors?"
"Because the Fuhrer commands it!"

One final theodicy is the suggestion that suffering is just a test. A test, one wonders, for what? Why does an omnipotent deity need to test its perfect creations? Wouldn't an omniscient deity know the outcome already?

Of course, there are other responses: "God doesn't know everything. God can't help everyone. God's a dick and likes to watch us suffer.", but none of these successfully deal with the problem of evil from the perspective of an Abrahamic faith.

Okay, I'm done for now. If you read this and feel that I've left something out, or that I'm wrong, post it in the comments, and I'll change it if I can.

Where The Fuck Is My Game, Steam?

2009-02-12T08:30:00.023-06:00

This is the last time I preorder anything third party off of Steam. Jerks.

Oh, I guess I should mention that I'm downloading Fear 2. It's damn near 11 gigs too.

EDIT: The download has begun! PRAISE THE INTERNET GODS!

Live Blogging below:

12:05 - Downloading begins!

13:15 - 2%. Wow. My internet sucks.

13:23 - The download seems to have stopped. That's odd.

13:25 - Oh fucking hell. Now it's "Updating". at 56kb/s. Jesus.

13:30 - Wow. Now we're at 44kb/s. I'm going to find some free WiFi. That'll be faster.

13:55 - Okay, I'm in the computer lab, stealing their internets.

14:00 - Now we're cooking with gas. 600kb/s, on average. That means six more hours. 0_o

14:05 - Other people are stealin' mah bandwith! Down to 400kb/s.

15:00 - 16% Yay. Of course, now I've got to go to class, and I can't leave my laptop here.

17:10 - 23%. Yawn.

18:00 - 27%.

18:20 - Oh god dammit. What is the explanation for this faggotry?

21:15 - 38%. Holy dickballs I'm bored.

21:40 - 43%. This had better be worth it.

22:25 - 52%. And now they're kicking me out of the computer lab. Curses!

09:37 - 87%. Hopefully, it will be done by noon.

12:00 - 91%. ARGLEBARGLEWARG!

13:15 - FUUUCK!

13:20 - 72%. That's right. It went backwards. Since Steam keeps resetting my download and won't keep an accurate percentage count, I've been trying to keep track myself, but I was off by quite a bit. Anyway, 8.08 of 11.27 Gigabytes.

13:25 - 73%. And I'm off for lunch.

15:55 - 76%? Wow. We're going really slowly now. At least I've got some Nazi zombies to tide me over.

01:55 - 90% We're approaching the 48 hour mark. If it finishes before dawn, I can play in the dark! Yay for pissing yourself in the middle of the night!

05:15 - 95% GLEE!

Left 4 Speed

2009-02-11T00:15:00.002-06:00

You must watch this.

That is all.

Designer Babies, And Human Happiness.

2009-02-08T18:07:00.006-06:00

I don't know about your moral code, but mine is based around the competition of suffering and happiness. Suffering bad, happiness good. Of course, that doesn't apply all the time. In some situations, it is necessary to induce temporary suffering to promote future happiness or lessen future suffering. I might not like studying pipe fitting sizes, but if I fail my Environmental Systems test, that will lead to suffering. So, I take things as the come, and decide what is moral on a case by case example. The whole "suffering vs. happiness" can be difficult to apply in certain situations, though...

As an example, think of genetically modifying children. It initially seems like a great idea. Remove genetic defects, add in a stronger immune system, or healthier organs, or any number of improvements. But where does it stop?

Suppose you want a baby that will have a successful career. Let's say, for example, you pick out a career in architecture. You would want a child to have enhanced spacial relationship skills, artistic ability, people skills, and the like (assuming those traits are, in fact, controlled genetically and not a factor of upbringing and environment). But what if that child decides they want to be something else, like a musician? It would, in my opinion, be wrong to force them to become something they don't want to become against their will, but what if you could engineer compliance into them? And what if you could make them like it?

I find slavery morally reprehensible because it strips a human being of their right to self determination, and by that, removes their right to the pursuit of happiness, but what if they enjoyed being a slave? What if they didn't desire self determination? What if, as an extreme example, you could "program" someone to derive great pleasure from doing your wishes? Would that be wrong? Well, if you did the programming against their will, you could make the case that it was, in fact, wrong to do so, but what if you did so before they even had a will? If nature is indeed stronger than nurture, then it might be possible to engineer humans that want to be slaves, and if being a slave is something they derive happiness from, then who am I to say it's wrong?

How is it possible to resolve this with a system of morals based around suffering and pleasure?

Nothing For A Hundred Miles...

2009-02-08T17:16:00.006-06:00

...but tumbleweed and windmills.

I drove around for a few hours today, just taking pictures of things that caught my eye. This is the first series.

Remember to click and make them bigger:

Studio Models!

2009-01-30T11:09:00.006-06:00

Well.

I finally got the stupid laser cutter to churn out something resembling what I asked for, so I've begun assembling my final studio model. So far, it's about 80% done. The only thing left to finish is the right side. I've got to stick some sort of raised forms there to balance the entire thing.

Pics below.

Click to embiggen:

This first one is an overview of the model. It's a 3D representation of two cities smashed together. On the right is Amsterdam, a city I spent some time in several years back. On the left is [UNDISCLOSED], the city where I attend school currently. The left side is a lot closer to done.

This is a closeup of the [UNDISCLOSED] side. A bunch of the more important buildings are raised up to give it some depth. The laser cutter, however, saw fit to char them extensively, so I've resorted to coloring the tops black to match the sides.

The whole thing is made of 1/4 inch MDF board, Plexiglas, and more wood glue than I care to think about. I should have it finished entirely by the end of next week, so I'll update with a final pic later, but for now...

Peace.

In Which I Part With Even More of My Precious Bodily Fluids.

2009-01-28T01:13:00.002-06:00

Our dorm held a blood drive the other day, and I thought that I would sign up. It seemed like a relatively easy way to help others, and since I'm lazy, well... This was my first time voluntarily draining my blood for something that didn't involve some sort of medical test, and to be honest I was a bit nervous about it. What if they didn't sterilize the needles properly? What if they forgot about me and all of my blood leaked out? What if they discovered I've been secretly mainlining heroin?

Okay, that last one wasn't a real concern, but I was sort of nervous going in. Turns out it's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be.

So, first off, you get checked out by a medical technician. They take a small blood sample, check your pulse, take your blood pressure (117/78, btw), and ask you a bunch of embarrassing questions: Have you ever used non-physician prescribed needles? Do you have unprotected sex with skanky hoes? Have you banged or been banged by a dude? (All no, if you were curious).

Then, you lay down in a chair and they have you squeeze a little stress ball (mine was shaped like a heart, ironically enough) to find your veins. Apparently I have huge veins. Next they stick a needle approximately the size of one of those things you use to inflate basketballs into your arm and you get to watch a whole lot of your blood fill up a little baggie.

I mean, a whole lot. It's a very weird feeling, seeing that much stuff come pouring out of your arm. You're kind of like "Hey, I need that stuff. I've changed my mind, give it back!"

I was okay after the first few minutes. I brought a book to read, but I only got to put in about fifteen minutes of sitting in the chair before I was done. Then they made me sit around for another fifteen minutes just to make sure I didn't pass out spontaneously, or something.

So, it turns out that my measly pint of blood could potentially save the lives of two people. That's a really good feeling right there, believe me.

So, as a way of spurring others to donate blood, I've prepared a short list of questions I had and some answers, to maybe help some people out if they're nervous about donating.

Will it hurt?
Yes. But not much. Kind of like getting a flu shot, but just a little bit more severe, and that goes away once the needle is in.

How did you feel afterward?
Pretty good, honestly. I've heard that some people feel woozy, but I was fine. Actually, saving lives makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

But what if I get some disease from the needle?
You won't. They use one time, prepackaged sterilized needles, so you have a zero percent chance of getting a blood borne illness.

Am I eligible to donate?
Find out here!

I don't know if I've got the time to donate.
You do, trust me. Unless you can't spare an hour every eight weeks, then you've got the time, and I seriously doubt you're that busy.

How do I find a place to donate?
Check here! The Red Cross is an excellent place to learn about blood donation.

So, now that you know, you should go out and donate! Do it to save a life, or because it makes you feel good, or because they give free snacks, I don't care. Just donate!

Okay, now that I'm off my self righteous kick, I've got a few things coming up. Fear 2: Project Origin is coming out, and I'm planning to review that for the blog. I've got a studio project in the works that I'll post here, if the fraking wood shop laser cutter would work for more than thirty minutes at a time. Also, SNOW!

Leg Update!

2009-01-23T14:00:00.005-06:00

Okay, I finally caved and went to the clinic. I've got a well stocked med kit and some good practical first aid knowledge, but I think it's a good rule of thumb to get a serious injury checked out by an actual doctor. Especially if it hasn't stopped bleeding.

So, despite about six big sized bandaids and a whole roll of gauze, my leg kept oozing blood. The gash was near an inch deep and if I poked it the right way, blood would sort of drip out. I think I nicked a vein, somehow. Anyway, the doc cleaned it out (peroxide burns) and patched me up pretty well. It's still leaking a bit, but it's not anywhere near as bad as it was last night.

Note to self: Remember to clean sheets.

Oh, and while I was in the clinic, I realized I had brought my camera, so in between the nurse cleaning me up and the doc coming in to take a look, I snapped a picture or two. I'm still working out exactly how my camera functions, so it's a little on the fuzzy side. I'll stick it below the fold to keep the format functional.

Click to embiggen:

You can't see much, because it's mostly clotted, but I assure you that if you were to pull the wound open, you could get a glimpse of some subcutaneous fat and a little muscle tissue.

So yeah. That's all for now. If any new developments crop up (like my leg turns green and drops off) I'll be sure to post them here.

Peace.

In Which I Return Dramatically

2009-01-23T00:58:00.005-06:00

I'd perform a dynamic entry, but I'm pretty much a solid mass of bruises, cuts, and pain. I've taken up Parkour recently, both as a way to get in shape and because it looks damn cool in practice. You see, my ass is roughly the consistency of kneaded cookie dough, and I've grown tired of it.

One of the upsides of Parkour training is that if you want to successfully pull off some of the harder moves, you have to be in great shape, so it forces you to actually work out a lot. In two weeks, I've gotten into better shape than I've ever been in.

But there are downsides.

For instance, when you miss a landing, and bleed all over your pants before you can get to some first aid. That's a downside I could mention.

Another would be that I'm taking extra strength Tylenol by the fist-full. Hey, does anyone know the recommended dose for that stuff?

But anyway, back to grievous injuries.

I was trying to get over a six foot wall, and that's way too high to just straight vault over, so I thought I'd tie in a wall kick to get some height first. Probably should have practiced that one before putting it into action, huh? Anyway, the wall kick works, but the vault fails spectacularly, and I end up slamming my shin into the concrete before flipping over the wall and landing square on my ass. Man I'm glad it was grass and not pavement on the other side of that wall.

So, I flail around and punch a wall for a few minutes, because it feels like someone took a crowbar to my left shin. Finally, I get it into my head to check the damage I've done to my leg. Turns out it wasn't sweat soaking my sock after all. Needless to say, I'm not wearing that sock again.

Anyway, I stagger into the building I was next to, and limp down the stairs to the bathroom to wash all the blood off, making the sink look like something from Psycho in the process. Then I stumble out with my pants leg up and ask the hot chick behind the front desk if they've got a first aid kit or something.

Of course not. That would make my life too easy, wouldn't it? Isn't there some sort of building code about that? I guess they didn't get the memo.

Anyway, hot chick (I really should have asked her name, but I had other things on my mind at the time) presents me with some antiseptic wipes and some more paper towels, and I improvise a bandage using scotch tape. I had to make up a bullshit explanation about "tripping while out running", because saying "I was practicing my wall kicks" will get you some interesting looks.

Long story short, I'm back in my room and all patched up. Good thing I stocked up my own first aid kit before I came back to school, right?

Well, that's all for now. I'll probably start posting more regularly, but school's pretty intense right now, so we'll see.

Peace.

P.S. Hey hot chick! If by some incredibly improbable coincidence you're reading this, you want to go out?

Yay For Empty Hotel Rooms

2009-01-05T13:49:00.004-06:00

So today I'm supposed to be driving back to my college.

Only that didn't work out too well.

Turns out that on my way to Lubbock, I have to drive through a icy shitstorm of genuinely epic proportions. It's frozen from Temple to Abilene, and since I'm in the south, no one knows how to drive on ice at all. My father decided that rather than risk it and keep going, he'd make me a reservation at a hotel in Temple, so here I am.

At least it's a pretty nice room. I've got a queen size bed and free wifi, and the fridge has a ton of those little whiskey bottles, although I'd probably better leave them alone.

Well, I'm going to sign off for now. I'll be heading out again tomorrow morning, so I might post before then, seeing as there's nothing else to do.

Peace,

QT

It's that time of the year.

2008-12-25T00:02:00.003-06:00

Happy Newtonmas, everyone.

Don't bother clicking on the "Read More". There's nothing there, but I can't get that to go away. Stupid Blogger.

The Epic Reddit Discussion

2008-12-17T11:41:00.003-06:00

So, the Reddit troll failed to respond. Why am I not surprised? On the other hand, an interesting fellow (at least, I'm assuming it's a fellow) by the name of "NaviBlueShoes" showed up with a few questions for me. I'll stick them, and the ensuing discussion, below the fold, as it got really long.

This was their initial post:

Hello QuotianTorture,

I'll attempt to give you a discussion but I would like to ask you a few questions:

1) Do all ideas fall strictly into the realms of "rational" and "irrational"?

2) Is it possible for the prepositions "God exists" and "God does not exists" to both be rational?

3) Is aesthetics rational or irrational?

4) Suppose that God does exists, does this entail that we should worship him?

I think that's be a good start for our discussions so I'll stop there for now.

I responded:

Thank you for the reply. I'll try to be a bit more civil this time around, too. I do take issue with trolls simply copy/pasting blocks of text, but you seem interested in honest discussion.

1) I suppose that depends on what you mean by "ideas". Generally, I'd say no. There are rational propositions, like "evidence should be analyzed before coming to a conclusion", there are irrational propositions, like "all the famous rock stars use cocaine, so you should too!" (an example of the appeal to popularity fallacy), and there are arational propositions, like "I find Beethoven's symphonies beautiful". You certainly can't prove that Beethoven's symphonies are beautiful, because beauty is subjective.

2) I would say that "God exists" could potentially be a rational statement, if proper evidence of a deity was found. "God does not exist", on the other hand, would most likely never be a fully rational statement, as you cannot, in general, prove the nonexistence of something, especially something as vague as "God".

3) I would say "arational". Again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

4) Not at all. If proper evidence of a deity was presented, then depending on what type of being it was, I might be compelled to respect it, and maybe even worship it, but if it does turn out to be an old testament type of God (which I think is extremely unlikely) then I would certainly not worship it and I would probably try to destroy it, if such a thing were possible.

Their response:

Cool!

We definitely share similar opinions about aesthetics and rationality. Now if you could humor me some more, I would ask you a few more tangent questions and hopefully, we can bring everything together and begin discussing the concept of "God" on these shared foundations.

1) What do you think is the relationship between "truth" and "rationality"? Are all truths rational? Are all rational "ideas" truths?

2) Is it possible for "arational" ideas to be considered "truths"?

3)Some people say that the only source of "truth" is in aesthetics, do you agree or do you think truth is objective and independent of human mind?

4)What is a "deity"? We could say that "God" is a deity but what about "time" and "gravity"? Are they "deities"? They all seem omnipotent, powerful...etc but what is the difference?

5) What is spirituality? Can an atheist be spiritual?

6) Spirituality seems to capture notions of "faith". What is a good definition of "faith"? Does it entail believing in irrational things? When I deliberate practical things and I entertain "arational" ideas (ie. "Painting my house the color blue is a good idea."), am I placing "faith" in my arational idea that blue is a good color or am I doing something else?

7) When a scientist postulates the formula "F = MA", is he being rational when he says "I am absolutely certain that F=MA" or is he entertaining a small element of "faith" in the certainty of his formula?

8) What is the relationship between "religion" and "spirituality"? Are they the same?

I know I sound like an intellectual douchebag so I'll try and make my point more quickly: I suspect a lot of people who call themselves "atheists" aren't actually "atheists" in the literal sense (that is, they reject the notion "God exists"). Instead, I suspect they are atheists in the sense that they reject "religion" and the deities marketed by each religion.

Depending on our definition of "spirituality", I would argue that everyone (whether they are aware of it or not) is spiritual. Spirituality captures notions of "faith" and I dare say that even the most rational of scientists has faith in something and in this case, their faith is in rationality and certainty of empiricism.

Now I'm definitely not saying that this "faith" in rationality and empiricism is misplaced. So far, this new way of thinking (scientific manner of thinking)is serving humanity pretty well and we shouldn't change it but I doubt anyone could ever possible say a particular scientific formula/theory is 100% certain. Instead, we can only say in "good faith" that the theory is "pretty certain and sound". The element of faith has been reduced but there is still faith there...right?

I would also argue that all religions are just a form of "institutionalized spirituality". It seems to me that "Religions" are social organizations that advocates one particular form of meta-aesthetic with a healthy splash of "faith". But if even a scientist has faith is something, there seems to be some truth in the notion that "Academic science is just another form of religion" (Maybe Religion v2.0?). Instead of priests, we have scientists.. Instead of churches, we have universities. Instead of faith in God, we have faith in theories and formulas.

I'm not advocating a social regress towards ancient religions but I am pointing out that science doesn't possess all the answers and isn't so different from "religion" and share many similarities.

If you are an atheist, are you rejecting the notion of "spirituality" or are you rejecting the notion of "institutionalized spirituality" aka religion?

I question whether the former is possible and I wonder whether the latter is just being a hypocrite (My religion of science is better than your religion of Christianity because at least my religion doesn't persecute other religions).

Disclaimer:

Maybe I've stepped on a slippery slope, created a false dilemma and spun an argument of absurdity. I take refuge in the fact that my favorite philosopher Albert Camus said "the world is quite absurd" and the reputed mathematician John Allen Paulos did say "Uncertainty is the only certainty there is." In the face of all absurdity and uncertainty, It seems that being agnostic is far more "rational" :P

If you've read this far then thank you...I have a bad habit of being long winded.

And my response to their response:

I'm always up for a bit of discussion, but after this reply, don't be surprised if you don't hear from me till tomorrow. I was Christmas shopping for the last six hours and I'm rather tired now.

(Yes, heathens can celebrate Christmas, regardless of what Bill O'Reilly says).

1) Hmm. That is an interesting one. It really hinges on what you mean by "truths". If I were to say, "I enjoy playing the piano", that would certainly be true, because I do derive some pleasure from clumsily pounding out notes. However, if I were to say "The piano is a beautiful instrument", that is no longer a truth in the same sense as my previous statement. It is my opinion that the piano is a beautiful instrument, but since beauty is subjective, I am not positing a rational truth. I guess the best I can do is say that subjective truths like "beauty" are arational.

2) I suppose so, yes, but only so far as the truths in question are subjective statements. "The piano is a beautiful instrument" is all together a different claim than "there is a dragon in Carl Sagan's garage". The former is a subjective claim, the latter, an objective claim, as it revolves around something that can be independently verified.

3) Look out! It's a horde of dire postmodernists! No, I don't believe that everything is subjective. I'm pretty sure that what I identify as a brick to the face and what just about everyone else (aside from catatonic people) identify as a brick to the face is the same thing. Additionally, 1 + 1 will always equal 2. Logic and mathematics are not subjective.

4) My understanding is that a deity is sentient, while the forces of nature are not. You could certainly worship Plank's Constant, but I doubt it would register your adulation.

5) In my experience, "spirituality" is a vague term that people pull out in order to add some mysticism to what they're saying. Depending on how you define "spirituality", I'm willing to bet a large number of atheists are indeed spiritual people. Atheistic Buddhists are certainly spiritual, and I myself have been known to get misty eyed when staring at the vastness of space. If that's what you mean by spiritual, then yes, I could be said to be spiritual. I just don't attribute my feeling of awe to a supernatural cause.

6) Ah, the faith question. I would say that subjective things like "the color blue is pretty" don't require faith. You either like blue or you don't. Painting your house blue need not be an act of faith either. If you enjoy blue and the neighbors don't object, there's no reason for you to rely on faith when repainting your home. As for spirituality and faith, see #5.

7) Well, there's this thing that scientists gather called evidence. If every calculation and every observation that a scientist has made shows that force equals mass times acceleration is true, then they have very little reason to doubt that it is. Of course, Newton's second law wasn't perfect, and if I recall properly, Einstein improved it quite a bit, but for all we know, there might still be another discovery down the road which will further refine our understanding of the physical reactions in the universe. That's why scientists almost never say they are certain of anything. If someone says "science proves...", you should immediately regard what they say next with skepticism. Science never "proves" anything, it only offers relative certainty.

8) Heck if I know. I stay away from religion, and "spirituality" seems almost meaninglessly vague to me, so I can't say for sure. I'm pretty sure they aren't the same, though. See #5 again.

By the way, how did you get that nice line in your post?

I'm afraid you are quite wrong with your notion that science is just another religion. Certainly, everyone must have "faith" in something. I could be a brain in a jar simulating this entire universe for all I know, but there's no evidence to that effect, so out of pragmatism, I don't believe it. Scientists must also have a certain degree of "faith" when they conduct their experiments, but it is a radically different kind of faith than that which is demanded by religions. Scientists seek to gather evidence and use it to come to the most accurate conclusions they can given the circumstances. So far, we know this works because it has produced testable results. The computer you are typing on works properly, so it's a fair bet that scientists and engineers have a good understanding of the forces behind it.

Now, before you go on talking about "spirituality" I think a proper definition is in order. I don't think it will be possible to answer your questions about "spiritual" matters until you can tell me precisely what you mean by "spiritual".

Additionally, "atheist" is a very specific category. The only thing it says about a person is that they do not believe in a God or Gods. Atheism says nothing about a persons level of cynicism, altruism, intelligence, or spirituality, only that they reject certain propositions.

Additionally, I reject all religions as man made and I reject the idea of a God or of Gods due to insufficient evidence, but you shouldn't assume that all atheists do the same. We're a mixed bunch.

And don't feel too bad about being long winded. It's been interesting so far.

Their response to my response to their response to my initial post:

1) Philosophers have been arguing about the concept of "truth" for ages and unsurprisingly, there isn't really any collective agreement on one theory but instead several theories. I'm more interested in your notions of truth because they are the better foundations to start our discussions.

"God exists" <-- True or False? Knowledge or Opinion? Judging by your answers to 1) and 2), it seems this proposition would certainly not be rationally/objectively true (truths we cannot deny) but could it be arationally/subjectively true (truths we need not necessarily accept but are sufficient to possess)? or is it simply irrational/subjective (thus, open to criticism)? If I claimed that "God exists", what degree of justification am I allowed in believing so? The theist would claim you are fully/absolutely justified in believing in God while the atheist would say you are absolutely unjustified. Is there a middle ground and am I an atheist if I rest in this area? Your notion of an atheist Buddhist seems to rest in such an area but at the same time seems odd to me. You slippery swine (j/k)!!! You have side-stepped my question 3) and I have also mis-communicated it. I'll try again: If every single human being in the world disappeared from existence, would the universe still exist? What would the post-modernist say? What do you say? If you are a post-modernist then this conversation would end here. I believe the post-modern view for the existence of God is firmly in the atheistic camp. Personally, I am inclined to say the universe is independent of the human mind and we will only ever perceive a small portion of it. Does this position forces me to believe in a notion of "God", a "being beyond human perception"? Is this "being" necessarily the same "God" embraced by the stricter Abrahamic religions? Perhaps my notion of "God" is similar to notions of an "Ultimate/True Reality". Buddhists reach this "Truth" through meditation and self-contemplation but aren't scientists attempting to discover some "Ultimate Truth" through empirical observations and rigorous testing? I confess, I'm fighting a losing battle mainly because a lot of idiots are theists and thus they really misrepresent proper notions of "God" etc. The same might be true about "Atheism" and the mis-conceptions of atheism. I would like to believe in God because it seems to me that a lot of religious people are REALLY REALLY happy and I also wish to be happy (is that not the purpose of life?). But I am VERY cautious about what my criteria for "God" is and I am a fan of consistent and clear thinking, thus: 1) I don't think sentience comes into the concept of God. God/s couldn't really be sentient. Sentience is the ability to perceive subjectivity and "God" could do it but it would seems a bit contradictory if he ever was subjective...I mean, if he was subjective then it implies he was not being objective and thus not omniscience. In the same vein of thought, could God make a burrito so hot that even he could not eat it? I suspect sentience is an assumption Christian theists share about their God (God loves, God cares, etc etc) but since these are all sentient experiences, they cannot be objectively true. Instead, they are metaphors and personifications of ideas to convey a particular idea. If sentience is a valid objective criteria for "God", I am inclined to think that Stephen Hawkings is pretty freaking "godly"...The lack of omnipotence due to wheelchair-ness is a contradiction/paradox we'll just have to accept since we're being so generous with our thinking. 2) We all seem to think that "God" is a deity but what defines a deity? Wikipedia provides the following: "A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by human beings." Once you remove the "worship" part, there doesn't seem to be much difference between the concept of "God" and "Time" (not the scientific notion of time but the rough philosophical notion)...in fact, I can't help but think these two concepts are completely synonymous. Why do things change? Why does "shit happen"? I am deeply fascinated by the philosophical notion of "Time" and how it relates to the "Cosmological Argument". Causality is deeply related to "Time" and when people say "Why does the universe need a cause", they seems to be saying something in the lines of "Why does the universe need Time?". That doesn't sound right. If something cannot come from nothing, then "something" aka the entire universe must have always existed. That being said, the universe started changing/the beginning of causality must have had a beginning. In fact, our understanding of causality seems to entail a beginning. The Big Bang theory captures all these ideas nicely. The first singularity of existence was so tiny that it would practically be "nothing" but in actuality, it was just really really really small and unchanging....then BANG! Things started changing and "Time" started. We might be inclined to ask what caused Time but I can't help but think that question is like asking "What timed Time?". That makes no sense. It's here that I'm deeply confused. Most philosophers say the First Cause Argument is an argument FOR the existence of God....but no matter how hard I think, it seems to be more of an argument AGAINST the existence of a personal God and re-establishing the necessary self-defining role of "Time". Is this making any sense? Time/Change seems to be the "God" that everyone is alluding to but that still leads me to ask: Suppose I believe in God/Time, why should I worship him? I believe in Causality and I also know/think/believe I have "free will" that frees me from this deterministic world...but why should I worship God/Time? In summary, I believe in God as Time but I see no real reason to worship him/her/it. I'm putting my own kooky theory for critical analysis so be gentle here....where have I gone wrong? I'm not saying that science is another religion. What I am saying is that "science" is like "religion", the same way a music CD is like a vinyl record..A replacement, a "better" version which shares more similarities than differences....at the same time, some people still love vinyl records and they do serve SOME purpose but no longer the original purpose they started out with. Science and spiritual religions are both social organizations that advocate "truths". Some social organizations are more better than others because they fulfill a practical and purposeful role. Academic science is very good in perceiving physical truths and has replaced religion as the go-to organization for "stuff about nature/universe that is true". I think a lot of the Abrahamic religions (Islam and Christianity) are struggling to survive because their doctrines and philosophies are inherently incompatible with contemporary ideas about "truth". Additionally, I think these organizations are feeling very threatened because their centuries old "turf" of truth has slowly been taken over. Sadly, they fight back by opposing all forms of intellectualism. Even though spiritual religions are no longer able to provide us "truths" about our natural world, I would still argue that spiritual religions possess moral truths that seem to be very worthy-while. I am cautious about "tossing the baby out with the bath water" so to speak. I think religious texts contain valuable insights to moral truths and it would be foolish to throw away or completely ignore centuries of moral insight. What we need to do is apply some historic context and flesh out the moral truths that are relevant in our contemporary societies. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" That's a moral truth and seem pretty worthwhile keeping. I suspect there are other "pearls of wisdom" in the Bible/Torah/Korah/Sanscripts/etc etc. My own educated guess as to why Jews don't eat pork is due to some actual practical reason related to disease. An ancient Pork Flu epidemic or something. It's not a moral/ethical rule we need to necessarily embrace anymore in our contemporary societies. So what does it mean to be an atheist? I have a hard time accepting this strict category because atheism seems to mean different things to different people, in the same way theism means different things to different people. The fact that "you're all a mixed bunch" seems to mean the label of "atheist" is not as precise as we would hope it to be...and IMO, not a label worthwhile to stick upon oneself.

My response to their response to my response to... oh, forget it.

1a&2a) Without evidence, saying that “God Exists” is mere opinion, but it is an objective opinion, if that makes sense. It is an opinion about the state of the universe. If a God exists, then it is objective fact. God would not exist for some of us and not exist for others of us. The claim “God Exists” is not arational because it is not personal. Arational things only refer to that which is subjectively personal, like beauty or preference of food.

If you claim that a deity exists, then the burden of proof rests on you. You must provide sufficient evidence that a deity does exist in order for your claim to be considered true. Personally, there are a number of things that would satisfy me in terms of evidence. If your God was tangible or visible, and actually appeared and did things that violate the known laws of physics, and these things could be recorded and played back (to show it was not a shared hallucination) I would believe. If you provided a genuinely good holy book, a book better than anything a human could produce, which contained knowledge no human could possibly have known when it was written, or that made independently verifiable prophesies that came true in a way that is clear and also independently verifiable, I would believe. Some of these things would not convince other people, but I think they are fairly reasonable requests for belief in something as fantastic as a deity.

Buddhists are an interesting bunch. There are a number of branches of Buddhism, and not all of them require a belief in a deity, or even the supernatural, at least from what I understand. I don’t practice Buddhism myself, but certain parts of it seem to me to be more along the lines of philosophy than a religion. Additionally, you are an atheist if you do not accept the religious claims for God’s existence, for whatever reason. If the evidence is not enough to convince you, you are an atheist. If you were hurt in the past by a religion, and now, for emotional reasons, you reject their claims, you are an atheist. If you were raised in a society that has no God, and you’ve never even heard such claims, then you are still an atheist. As I said before, the atheism is a very broad brush. Stalin was an atheist, but so was Ernest Hemmingway. I think you’d be hard pressed to find much else they had in common, though. 3a) Sorry. I did not mean to sidestep your question. I think the universe exists outside of human perception. Postmodernists, generally, do not. Certainly, humans as we know them now will never be able to understand the entire universe, but if you think that God is beyond human perception and knowledge, then you’ve created a very pointless deity. How can you “have a relationship” with something that you cannot perceive or understand? Sure, it might exist, but you’ll never, ever know. This is why I find deism so odd. I have never seen any evidence that the claims deists make are true, but they don’t have any emotional reasons for believing like Christians do either.

The “truths” being discovered by Buddhists and the truths being uncovered by scientists are very different. Buddhists focus the mind inward to find peace and contentment through meditation. Scientists focus the mind inward to find out truths about the universe, as best they can, through observation, experimentation, and reasoned argument. Guess which one I think is more useful?

1) If believing in God makes you happy, and you aren’t hurting anyone else with it, then by all means, go ahead. As long as you aren’t stoning gays or refusing medical treatment to your kids or standing on the street corner and hitting me on the head with a bible, what you believe doesn’t bother me at all. We might have a conversation about it, but as long as what you believe isn’t bigoted or blatantly stupid, don’t expect to draw any ire from me. Just keep in mind what George Bernard Shaw said: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."

Do you really think that sentience is simply perceiving the subjective? I would disagree. A God that you can interact meaningfully with would almost certainly have to be sentient. The kind of deities that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and any number of other religions believe in are universally sentient beings, capable of thought and action of their own accord.

As you mentioned, the idea that a deity experiences human emotions is rather silly, but for a deity to be personal, it would have to interact with humans on our level. A deity without those emotions would seem coldly impersonal. If you’re really looking for comfort in religions, prepare to accept a whole bunch of propositions that don’t make any sense at all. Otherwise, get used to being depressed, or find a way to cope without religion. (I’d recommend the latter.) 2) Notice that a deity is defined as a “being”. Time is certainly not any sort of “being”. I don’t know much else about time, but I’m pretty sure of that. Shit happens because there are too many variables for humans to take into account. We can’t know everything that will happen, so we can’t prepare for everything. It’s just a simple fact of being human.

From what I understand of the Big Bang theory (and that is little, as I’m an architect by trade, not a physicist) it seems that time began at the big bang, and there was nothing that we can measure. The concept of time having a beginning is extremely weird, to say the least. How can time have a beginning if beginnings require time?

Or it could be that the universe as we know it is but one of many universes that were all spawned from a “metaverse”, but then where did that come from? It seems to me that you are stuck with some kind of first cause if you want to avoid an infinite regress. Given how sketchy (read: nonexistent) our knowledge of what caused the universe is, you could certainly propose that a deity did it, but what reason is there to think that is the case? You might want to take a look at Dawkins’ “Ultimate 747 Gambit”. Just Google it, you should find it. It’s an interesting read, and it deals somewhat with what you are talking about.

As far as I can tell, you want there to be a deity, but you cannot bring yourself to accept the flawed ideas of Gods that religions present, so you have looked around for the most Godlike thing you can find, and immediately, you came across time. If you want to think of time as the most powerful thing there is, well, go ahead. Currently, practically no one even has a clue what time is, much less where it came from. On the other hand, I don’t see why you would feel compelled to worship “time”, but I don’t see why anyone would be compelled to worship anything, so if you want to bow down to a physical force, be my guest. It just seems kind of pointless.

Sorry, I had to split my response in two. It was too large for Reddit to handle. This is the second half.

Science and religion are not comparable in the same way that a CD and a record are. Science is a system of discovering truth about the universe. It isn’t perfect, of course, but it works pretty well and we don’t have anything better. Science attempts to minimize faith as a cognitive bias of humans. A religion, on the other hand, is a belief system that holds certain truths immune to criticism and operates on the assumption that faith is a virtue. They both have propositions that you must accept on faith, of course, but one seeks to minimize reliance on faith and the other capitalizes on faith as a way to maintain itself. The difference between the truths provided by science and those by religion is that science has things backing it up, while religions have nothing to support them. In science, ideas must be tested, supported by evidence, and backed up by logic and rationality. That is how science separates good ideas from bad ideas. In religion, there is no such method of ascertaining which ideas are true and which are false. The ideas about the nature of the cosmos in religion are unfiltered by any kind of rationality.

The Golden Rule, as you mentioned, is a decent moral doctrine. It’s not perfect, though (What if you’re a masochist and enjoy pain? Should you go around whipping people?) It’s also clearly not divine, as human societies have come up with it ages before the bible. The first known occurrence of the Golden Rule was in ancient Egypt.

Also, the Jewish rule about not eating pork may have originated with the possible risk of trichinosis involved in eating pork, but other civilizations in the same area ate pork and seem to have survived.

Either way, the point still stands. Religious morality might have worked thousands of years ago, but the world now is a different place than it was two thousand years ago. Although there are certain moral precepts that have great value in religious books, we should exercise our rationality and our own moral sense in choosing which ones to keep and which to toss on the trash heap. "Love your neighbor as yourself" might be a good proposition, but "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Probably isn’t.

Atheism means very little beyond “not believing in a God/Gods”. I use it as a description of myself only because it applies. Atheism is not a belief system to order your life around, and it is not a set of rules you have to follow. Atheism says nothing about who you are or what you believe other than that you don’t believe in Gods. Theism is much the same. All theism refers to is a belief in a God (for monotheism) or Gods (for polytheism). If you were to say to me “I am a theist” it tells me very little about you. You might be a fundamentalist Christian, or a liberal Jew. The same applies to atheism. It’s not a useful label, but it is a label none the less.

That's all we've got so far, but I invited my new internet friend to visit, so who knows? Maybe I'll actually get a reader for once.

This has been your resident harbinger of epic conversations.

Peace,

-QT

Just A Quick Note.

2008-12-16T17:03:00.001-06:00

If you happen to notice things about the blog changing without a good reason, that's just me fooling around with the HTML. Don't worry about it.

Blogger can be a bit of a pain to work with, but so far I've managed to crank out a fairly decent layout that doesn't look half bad.

I might be changing things a little bit more as I start to experiment will certain things, but the layout will mostly stay the same, so get used to it.

-QT

Paul Copan's "The Presumptuousness of Atheism"

2008-12-16T01:32:00.008-06:00

As I was reading an amusing Reddit article by an internet friend of mine (he goes by Procrustes) I happened to glance at a massive block of text written in the comments section. It was a well written (if poorly thought out) argument against atheism. It did, in fact, seem suspiciously well written for a comment on an internet board.

So I thought I would check it out.

A thirty second Google search led me here.

I've reproduced the text below in case you don't want to click on the link. It's pretty long, though, so I'm going to include it below the fold.

The Presumptuousness of Atheism

Atheist Antony Flew has said that the "onus of proof must lie upon the theist." Unless compelling reasons for God’s existence can be given, there is the "presumption of atheism." Another atheist, Michael Scriven, considers the lack of evidence for God’s existence and the lack of evidence for Santa Claus on the same level. However, the presumption of atheism actually turns out to be presumptuousness.

The Christian must remember that the atheist also shares the burden of proof, which I will attempt to demonstrate below.

First, even if the theist could not muster good arguments for God’s existence, atheism still would not be shown to be true. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false....All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."

Second, the "presumption of atheism" demonstrates a rigging of the rules of philosophical debate in order to play into the hands of the atheist, who himself makes a truth claim. Alvin Plantinga correctly argues that the atheist does not treat the statements "God exists" and "God does not exist" in the same manner. The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists"). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.

Third, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade, atheism should not be presumed because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.

Fourth, to place belief in Santa Claus or mermaids and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for these mythical entities; rather, we have strong evidence that they do not exist. Absence of evidence is not at all the same as evidence of absence, which some atheists fail to see.

Moreover, the theist can muster credible reasons for belief in God. For example, one can argue that the contingency of the universe — in light of Big Bang cosmology, the expanding universe, and the second law of thermodynamics (which implies that the universe has been "wound up" and will eventually die a heat death) — demonstrates that the cosmos has not always been here. It could not have popped into existence uncaused, out of absolutely nothing, because we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause. A powerful First Cause like the God of theism plausibly answers the question of the universe’s origin. Also, the fine-tunedness of the universe — with complexly balanced conditions that seem tailored for life — points to the existence of an intelligent Designer.

The existence of objective morality provides further evidence for belief in God. If widow-burning or genocide is really wrong and not just cultural, then it is difficult to account for this universally binding morality, with its sense of "oughtness," on strictly naturalistic terms. (Most people can be convinced that the difference between Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa is not simply cultural.) These and other reasons demonstrate that the believer is being quite rational — not presumptuous — in embracing belief in God.

Note, I do not own any of the above text. It was originally written by Paul Copan. Unlike certain internet trolls I could name, I cite my sources.

Of course, I couldn't let something like that stand, so I responded to the troll, more out of a desire to sharpen my fangs than anything else. I've reproduced the reply below as well:

Well well, this is an especially finely constructed sand castle. Too bad it's not your own.

Regardless, I feel the urge to kick it over.

I can answer your first four objections by quite simply pointing out that atheism means a lack of belief, not a "belief in a lack", if you will. I've yet to come across a serious atheist who proclaims the nonexistence of God. Even Richard Dawkins, who you could argue is the most outspoken atheist on the planet, admits that there is no way to prove that God doesn't exist. Of course, there is no way to prove that any number of things don't exist.

For instance, you seem to have something against mermaids. Indeed, you claim that there is good evidence that mermaids do not exist! I challenge you to scour every inch of the seas and prove to me that there are no mermaids. What's that? You can't? Then your amermaidism is unjustified and as much a product of faith as believing in mermaids is!

Instead of this foolishness, realize that atheism is merely a lack of belief. That is the root of the word, after all. "A", meaning without, and "Theos" meaning belief in a God.

Now, on to your proposed "evidence" for a deity.

You have argued that our universe was not always here. That I will give to you, for the sake of argument, but nothing more. You have made a fatal mistake. You have posited something without any evidence. Seeing as we do not know what started the universe (and I invite you to prove me wrong on that, if you can) any and all propositions about what did are currently mere conjecture. I also invite you to prove to me that the universe requires something to cause it. You've worded your "proof" quite cleverly. If you were to say that everything requires a cause, then I would simply ask what caused God, but you've said that everything which begins requires a cause. Again, I'd ask you to prove your assertion, which you can't, but still, even if the universe requires a cause you have failed to prove that the cause is a God, or even your God.

Additionally, as to your "fine tuning" argument, I would point out that 99.99999% of the known universe will kill a human in seconds. We cling to the surface of a fragile marble which with its titanic storms, frigid poles and searing deserts, vast seas, and any number of hungry creatures, from bacterium to wolves to great white sharks willing to devour us in an instant. I find it incredibly arrogant that you would insist, in the face of a hundred thousand years of poverty, plague, famine, and death, that this planet was made especially for us.

And at last, we come to morality. Traditionally, this is the last stand of the battered theist. Demolished on every other front, they pull out the morality card, asserting that atheists have no standard for morality. Your reference to the torture and murder of innocent women by your fellow believers is ironic indeed, but it has missed its mark. Certainly, morality is subjective. If all humans operate on a universal moral framework, then where do men like Hitler come from? If a moral law from God is engraved on all of our hearts, then how do you explain the sociopath, someone who feels no moral compulsion about killing? You seem to have missed out on the last couple thousand years of warfare, because the last time I checked, it didn't look to me like mankind had a good, objective set of morals to work with.

Now, given that you simply copied and pasted your whole comment, I doubt that you are interested in serious discussion, but if you are, please respond. I found smashing your stolen sand castle amusing.

I thought I'd save the response for prosperity. I'll be sure to keep you updated if the troll responds. Also, if any of my (no doubt numerous) readers feel that I've made some sort of mistake in my response, feel free to call me out. I can take criticism, as long as it's intelligent.

This is QT, signing off.

Well that was fun.

2008-12-11T02:02:00.005-06:00

I made it, and man, that was a heck of a drive. 600 miles in under nine hours, which is pretty good time, If I do say so myself.

It wasn't so bad until it started snowing. At about seven, I'm rolling down Highway 36, and all of the sudden, the temperature plummets to 32F and a crapton of snow comes out of nowhere. Texas drivers don't seem to understand the concept of slowing down when it gets cold. I passed two wrecks.

I've had a pretty good time since I've been here, but mostly I'm trying to get over being so wound up. The drive made me tense, and I'd like to go to sleep now, please. I'll probably hit the hay right after I hit "publish post".

Oh, and one more thing. Now that finals are done, grades will start rolling in and I can see how everything turned out. Expect some updates on that. I'm enrolled in one of the toughest architecture programs in the state, so I reserve the right to brag when my GPA skyrockets (I wish).

Okay then.

Peace, shalom, and all that crap.

-QT

Heading Home

2008-12-09T15:50:00.006-06:00

Man it's good to be done for the year. I just finished my last final and turned in my last paper, and now I'm ready to head on home for the holidays.

The only thing that stands in my way is a ten hour drive.

I live in an unspecified college town in northeast Texas. My family lives in an unspecified suburb of an unspecified Gulf Coast city. The route is long and this will be my first year driving it, so I'm just a little bit nervous.

After that, though, I'll be home for a whole month of nothing but good company, good food, and awesome presents. Yes, despite being a godless heathen, I celebrate Christmas. Regardless of what Bill O'Reilly says, Christmas is now a secular holiday. The Christians swiped it from the pagans, and now us dratted secularists have swiped it from the Christians. My family is largely Christian anyway, so it's not like I could get away with not celebrating the solstice.

I've got some last minute preparations to do, and I've still got to pack a few things, but other than that, I'm set. I'll be heading out at about ten thirty tomorrow morning, so if you don't hear from me by Thursday, my car is probably idling upside down in a ditch somewhere. For once I'm hoping it doesn't snow.

I might post again tonight or tomorrow morning, who knows?

Axial tilt is the reason for the season,

-QT

Cynthia Dunbar, Creationist Saboteur.

2008-12-07T15:08:00.010-06:00

Let's not beat around the bush. Cynthia Dunbar, representative for District 10 of the Texas State Board of Education, is functionally retarded, as are the people who voted for her. Someone please explain to me how a woman who home schools her own children in order to prevent their exposure to any ideas that contradict her narrow, bigoted religious views is part of the organization that sets teaching standards for the entire state?

Earlier, Dunbar was partially responsible for the travesty that was the committee to review state science standards. This woman decided it was a good idea to appoint three creationists to the committee that would decide how to alter the state science standards. One of these biblical buffoons was Stephen Meyer, the vice president of the motherfucking Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank based out of Washington State. Not only did the board appoint these retards (the other two were Charles Garner and Ralph Seelke) but Mrs. Dunbar and a colleague nominated Don McLeroy, a dentist who thinks the earth is six thousand years old, to head up the whole cluster fuck.

It was so bad that my parents, die hard Republicans the both of them, vowed that they would not only vote against Dunbar, but will donate money to the campaign of whoever was running against her. That's right, Cynthia Dunbar is so stupid she made my parents donate money to get rid of her, something they never do.

So, given that I'll never be going to public school in Texas ever again, why do I care? Well, for one, my younger brother WILL be attending school for quite a while to come, and I'd like him to have a decent education, and for two, evolutionary biology is really fucking important to science as a whole. These fundamentalist fools would rather see American science education fall further behind the rest of the first world than admit that their literal interpretation of the bible doesn't have a leg to stand on.

*sigh* It boggles the mind.

Anyway, back to Dunbar.

As further evidence of her lack of critical thinking skills, she has now published a book. Her book, entitled "One Nation Under God: How the Left is Trying to Erase What Made Us Great" currently has a one star rating on Amazon. The tags are also an amusing read (I had nothing to do with that, thank you very much).

Now, this "One Nation Under God" nonsense is something that really raises my blood temperature to the boiling point. Bible bashing boors looking for some way to justify their belief that America was somehow founded as a Christan nation have taken to pointing out that our pledge has "One Nation Under God" in it and our money has "In God We Trust" written on it. Of course, as soon as someone even suggests that we shouldn't have such blatantly religious bullshit in a secular government, fundies freak out. Every time someone tries to get "Under God" removed from the pledge, religious organizations throw a shit fit and scream about how "Godless secularists are trying to destroy America!"

Never mind, of course, that the pledge wasn't written until 1892, and in no way was put in place by our founding fathers. Never mind that "Under God" wasn't added into the pledge until 1954. Never mind that "In God We Trust" was never on our bills until 1957 (it first appeared in small quantities on coins in the 1860's). Never mind that the first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America expressly forbids the government to favor one religion over another (which "In God We Trust" certainly does, by excluding polytheistic or atheistic religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism). Never mind that it also goes against the wishes of several of our Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, who was, incidentally, the guy who came up with the "wall of separation" between Church and State.

(Deep breaths, deep breaths, calm down.)

Okay, it's good to get that off my chest and out of my head. In short, creationists are stupid, theocrats suck, and if you live in Texas, please consider kicking the idiots off of the board of education.

I'm out,

-QT

Might as well get this show on the road.

2008-12-06T23:52:00.006-06:00

Well, I finally did it.

I started a blog.

"Why not?" I figured. "Everyone else and their small, yappy dog has a blog."

So I fired up Blogger and here we are.

Okay, down to business.

If you somehow managed to miss the warning that smacked you in the face when you first showed up, be warned again. Yes, this is a blog for grownups. Even if it doesn't at the moment, my blog may at some point contain foul language, blasphemy, crude sexual humor, verbal pornography, descriptions of unthinkable creatures from beyond the depths of the void, political nonsense, and science. If you're under, say, sixteen, you might want to leave now.

Or don't, honestly, I really don't care, but if you should read something here that warps your fragile mind and scars your psyche for the rest of your short, miserable life, it's not my fault, okay?

Good.

This blog will probably contain commentary on current events, politics, cool science things, religion, and anything else that catches my fancy. It will also probably serve as a repository for my rage should I stumble across something that really angers me.

If you like that sort of thing, feel free to stick around, maybe drop the occasional comment, if you'd like. If you don't like that sort of thing, well, you're probably in the wrong place.

That's it for now. It's past midnight, and I need to hit the sack.

Later,

-QT