Galileo's daughter was essential to his research. She took care of him during his periods of illness and old age, helped him in his research and publishing, and kept him relaxed and ready when he was to go to the inquisition.
When Galileo first started living with his daughter in Florentine, he complained (a lot) of many ailments that he had. It was his daughter who went to the market to get his food, his medicines, and everything he'd need to live on a day-to-day basis. She kept him healthy for him to pursue his scholarly pursuits and do what he did best.
Then, while he was writing his book, she was his number one fan and editor. She read all of his manuscripts, and even though she received little formal education, she knew enough to help him edit things out, modify things, etc. She kept his manuscript tidy and helped make it great.
Finally, when Galileo was called to inquisition, Maria Celeste sent him letters telling him how to behave when it comes to the inquisition. Swallow your pride and do what they tell you do to do. She helped save his life and keep his teachings on track.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
St. Thomas Aquinas
Let's imagine for a minute, shall we? Let's pretend that this is not merely a blog, but an argument. And let's say, shall we, that myself and Precious are the participants.
checkitmyles (8:25:04 PM): if we define "concept" as something that is intangible, then beauty, in essence, is a concept
checkitmyles (8:25:05 PM): correct?
"Precious" (8:27:14 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:27:36 PM): it also can be said that "numbers" are concepts, because you cannot "touch" a number
"Precious" (8:27:48 PM): true
checkitmyles (8:28:22 PM): so if we take what Thomas Aquinas said as true, then there is a perfect beauty because it is a concept. likewise, there must be a "perfect" number
"Precious" (8:32:52 PM): ok
checkitmyles (8:33:38 PM): however, everyone has different "perfect" numbers. my number of choice is either 3 or 15. my dad's is 22. would you agree that we each have different numbers of choice?
"Precious" (8:33:51 PM): yes
checkitmyles (8:34:26 PM): now would you also agree that people have different ideas as to what perfect beauty is?
checkitmyles (8:34:47 PM): our loved ones/spouses would be good examples, no?
"Precious" (8:34:58 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:35:50 PM): so it then follows that there is no one "perfect" beauty, that, as margaret wolfe hungerford so elegantly put it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder
"Precious" (8:36:07 PM): yep
checkitmyles (8:36:47 PM): which then disproves the idea of a "perfect" beauty, because each person has their own ideas as to what a "perfect" beauty looks like
"Precious" (8:37:13 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:38:03 PM): which would then lead us to believe that each "concept" has their own perfections. a perfect "goodness" a perfect "knowledge" etc
"Precious" (8:38:35 PM): yeah i see wut u mean
checkitmyles (8:39:15 PM): which, then follows, that no one being could attain all of these perfections (there are over 6 billion souls on earth alone, let alone those in the heavens), unless they look/act/think completely differently among the different individuals
"Precious" (8:43:24 PM): yeah
If you don't understand what just happened above, then here is a summary. Concepts like beauty, goodness, knowledge, they are intangible. You cannot measure them. You can try to, yes, but you cannot truly measure them. Because we cannot measure them and give a definite value of each person's/thing's beauty, goodness, knowledge, then these concepts are in the eye of the beholder. As Margaret Wolfe Hungerford said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, there cannot be one, singular perfect. In my mind, Anne Hathaway is the prettiest actress alive (not sexiest, not hottest, but prettiest). I guarantee you, that in our core class alone, there will be, a minimum of 15 differing opinions. We all have a different idea as to what a perfect "beauty" is. Maybe I like smaller noses. Maybe someone else likes fuller lips (Angelina Jolie, anyone?). Maybe another person likes attached earlobes, and someone else likes detached earlobes. This is why everyone is unique, so that there is someone who is perfect for you. God cannot be the perfect beauty, goodness, knowledge, etc. The only way that is possible is if God looks/acts/thinks different when around different individuals to match their "perfection." Which then gets screwed up when God is around two totally different people. I could go on. I choose not to because I think you get the picture. Either God cannot attain ALL perfections (think about how many people in the last 100 years made it into Heaven alone, how is he going to be ALL of these perfections) or he is a two-faced God who acts differently around everyone.
If Bruce were to respond, he'd say "But God can do that Myles. Because he is God, he can be all those perfections, because God is the embodiment of perfection." Or something to that effect. To which I say, I don't buy that. I don't have an argument in return, exactly, but I don't believe that hardly-tested hypothesis.
checkitmyles (8:25:04 PM): if we define "concept" as something that is intangible, then beauty, in essence, is a concept
checkitmyles (8:25:05 PM): correct?
"Precious" (8:27:14 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:27:36 PM): it also can be said that "numbers" are concepts, because you cannot "touch" a number
"Precious" (8:27:48 PM): true
checkitmyles (8:28:22 PM): so if we take what Thomas Aquinas said as true, then there is a perfect beauty because it is a concept. likewise, there must be a "perfect" number
"Precious" (8:32:52 PM): ok
checkitmyles (8:33:38 PM): however, everyone has different "perfect" numbers. my number of choice is either 3 or 15. my dad's is 22. would you agree that we each have different numbers of choice?
"Precious" (8:33:51 PM): yes
checkitmyles (8:34:26 PM): now would you also agree that people have different ideas as to what perfect beauty is?
checkitmyles (8:34:47 PM): our loved ones/spouses would be good examples, no?
"Precious" (8:34:58 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:35:50 PM): so it then follows that there is no one "perfect" beauty, that, as margaret wolfe hungerford so elegantly put it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder
"Precious" (8:36:07 PM): yep
checkitmyles (8:36:47 PM): which then disproves the idea of a "perfect" beauty, because each person has their own ideas as to what a "perfect" beauty looks like
"Precious" (8:37:13 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:38:03 PM): which would then lead us to believe that each "concept" has their own perfections. a perfect "goodness" a perfect "knowledge" etc
"Precious" (8:38:35 PM): yeah i see wut u mean
checkitmyles (8:39:15 PM): which, then follows, that no one being could attain all of these perfections (there are over 6 billion souls on earth alone, let alone those in the heavens), unless they look/act/think completely differently among the different individuals
"Precious" (8:43:24 PM): yeah
If you don't understand what just happened above, then here is a summary. Concepts like beauty, goodness, knowledge, they are intangible. You cannot measure them. You can try to, yes, but you cannot truly measure them. Because we cannot measure them and give a definite value of each person's/thing's beauty, goodness, knowledge, then these concepts are in the eye of the beholder. As Margaret Wolfe Hungerford said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, there cannot be one, singular perfect. In my mind, Anne Hathaway is the prettiest actress alive (not sexiest, not hottest, but prettiest). I guarantee you, that in our core class alone, there will be, a minimum of 15 differing opinions. We all have a different idea as to what a perfect "beauty" is. Maybe I like smaller noses. Maybe someone else likes fuller lips (Angelina Jolie, anyone?). Maybe another person likes attached earlobes, and someone else likes detached earlobes. This is why everyone is unique, so that there is someone who is perfect for you. God cannot be the perfect beauty, goodness, knowledge, etc. The only way that is possible is if God looks/acts/thinks different when around different individuals to match their "perfection." Which then gets screwed up when God is around two totally different people. I could go on. I choose not to because I think you get the picture. Either God cannot attain ALL perfections (think about how many people in the last 100 years made it into Heaven alone, how is he going to be ALL of these perfections) or he is a two-faced God who acts differently around everyone.
If Bruce were to respond, he'd say "But God can do that Myles. Because he is God, he can be all those perfections, because God is the embodiment of perfection." Or something to that effect. To which I say, I don't buy that. I don't have an argument in return, exactly, but I don't believe that hardly-tested hypothesis.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
A Tale of Two Brothers
John closes the door behind him, and makes the long walk towards the city. Living in a rural area has benefits, but a downside is the fact that getting to the city can take as much as an hour, and that's on good days. His brother Jeremy, who is a recent convert to Christianity, has been talking about this "Jesus" character, and all these great stories. Jeremy constantly reads to John, seeing as John is illiterate, and John has decided to go to church, just to see what the whole deal is. There is a newish Visigoth Church in the city, a few months old, and John feels like it's a good time to visit.
Jeremy sits inside, reading the Bible. As he reads and reads, he is engrossed in the stories in the text. He can see it happening before him; he always had a large imagination. He cannot put the book down.
John stands outside the church, pondering what Christianity could really be. Jeremy has told him so much about it, but John has no idea what is in store for him in the building. Sure, John knows a few of the stories, but it's not like he knows what happens at Church or even at is in a church.
Jeremy gets a crazy thought, and puts the Bible down and thinks about it. What if Jesus walks among us today? What if he really is alive still, just disguised as regular humans? What if Jesus resides in all of us? Jeremy turns and the sun hits his eyes through the window. Jeremy cannot see.
John steps inside the church, and the double doors are a few feet away. His hands start to shake as he grabs the door handle. He opens the door and steps inside. The sun hits the stained glass windows, which then hit John in the eye. He cannot see.
Jeremy is blinded by the light, but keeps on looking into it. He sees... Jesus? Is that really him?
John is blinded by the light, and turns to see the stained glass scene. He sees Jesus preaching. He is at ease. He understands.
Jeremy hears Jesus's voice. He is finally at ease. He understands.
The brothers are forever connected by beatific visions, different in the process, but the same outcome. They become devout Christians from that point forward.
Jeremy sits inside, reading the Bible. As he reads and reads, he is engrossed in the stories in the text. He can see it happening before him; he always had a large imagination. He cannot put the book down.
John stands outside the church, pondering what Christianity could really be. Jeremy has told him so much about it, but John has no idea what is in store for him in the building. Sure, John knows a few of the stories, but it's not like he knows what happens at Church or even at is in a church.
Jeremy gets a crazy thought, and puts the Bible down and thinks about it. What if Jesus walks among us today? What if he really is alive still, just disguised as regular humans? What if Jesus resides in all of us? Jeremy turns and the sun hits his eyes through the window. Jeremy cannot see.
John steps inside the church, and the double doors are a few feet away. His hands start to shake as he grabs the door handle. He opens the door and steps inside. The sun hits the stained glass windows, which then hit John in the eye. He cannot see.
Jeremy is blinded by the light, but keeps on looking into it. He sees... Jesus? Is that really him?
John is blinded by the light, and turns to see the stained glass scene. He sees Jesus preaching. He is at ease. He understands.
Jeremy hears Jesus's voice. He is finally at ease. He understands.
The brothers are forever connected by beatific visions, different in the process, but the same outcome. They become devout Christians from that point forward.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Is Religion Necessary?
I was going back through our old forums on proboards, the Paradox of the Taco (Emily Yang), The Revolt on B2 and Birth of Corestianity (what a great story), and yes, even the infamous Prop 8 discussion, and something I read in one of the threads is that religion is necessary, without it, all humans would be living under a dictatorship and in a state of chaos.
You wanna run that by me again?
"we need religion
without it we'd be under dictatorship or chaos
and it gives us something to fear
fear keeps us in order
without us kept in fear we'd be flying around right now shooting each others heads off."
I'm still not sure how that makes sense. So let's take it piece-by-piece.
"Without [religion] we'd be under dictatorship." The only way I could possibly conceive this happening would be some atheist (obviously we'd all be atheists w/o religion) rising up and taking control and no one speaking up for ourselves. This would then require the police, the lawmakers, and the rest of the government to go corrupt and allow this to happen (not likely) as well as the common people allowing it to happen (looking back on history... not likely. How about those French revolutions?) In general, dictatorship would not work, or at least not work for long, as we would all revolt and establish democracy, assuming it hadn't been established long ago by the Greeks.
"Without [religion] we'd be under... chaos." Not sure how this one makes sense either, although I assume the reasoning for this is "it gives us something to fear... fear keeps us in order... without us kept in fear we'd be flying around right now shooting each others heads off." As an agnostic, I can honestly say that the reason I am not "shooting... others heads off" has nothing to do with God or a fear of hell. I'm afraid of the police, jail, etc. I could care less about eternal damnation. Religion has nothing to do with my life not being chaotic, it's more a fear of state and secular law that does that. Religion is absolutely not necessary to keep us away from chaos, and could be the cause of chaos in some ways (Crusades, etc.)
Now I know that a lot of people (Stella, Jooheon, and Solomon have already countered with this) will say that it wasn't REAL Christians that cause these wars and chaos, because REAL Christians would never do that. Regardless of whether or not the Christians that participated in the Crusades were "real" or not, they were still influenced by Christianity and the Bible. Part of their reasoning to go and take the Holy Land back was because it was the "Holy Land" and it belonged to the Christians. They fought and slaughtered Jews in their own empire simply because the Jews weren't Christians and helped contribute to the death of Jesus. Religion did play a part in the Crusades, whether it was REAL religion or not. Religion still is a cause of this war. As it is the cause of so many other wars. As Paul stated himself on proboards, "basically every political leader is leading cuz of religion and their beliefs, so religious wars is a given." Doesn't that leave the question, without religion, wouldn't there be far less wars? Without religion, and only atheism/agnosticism across the land, the following events would never have happened:
Crusades
Holocaust which then means no WWII
Iraq War
Palestine/Israeli War
Any war regarding "The Holy Land"
ALL of the horrifying events read today in class
Think about it. Does religion really help? Is it really a fear of hell that keeps us from killing, or a fear of jail, and what your family/friends will think? It's a tough question, and I think at some point we have to realize religion might not be as great as we think.
You wanna run that by me again?
"we need religion
without it we'd be under dictatorship or chaos
and it gives us something to fear
fear keeps us in order
without us kept in fear we'd be flying around right now shooting each others heads off."
I'm still not sure how that makes sense. So let's take it piece-by-piece.
"Without [religion] we'd be under dictatorship." The only way I could possibly conceive this happening would be some atheist (obviously we'd all be atheists w/o religion) rising up and taking control and no one speaking up for ourselves. This would then require the police, the lawmakers, and the rest of the government to go corrupt and allow this to happen (not likely) as well as the common people allowing it to happen (looking back on history... not likely. How about those French revolutions?) In general, dictatorship would not work, or at least not work for long, as we would all revolt and establish democracy, assuming it hadn't been established long ago by the Greeks.
"Without [religion] we'd be under... chaos." Not sure how this one makes sense either, although I assume the reasoning for this is "it gives us something to fear... fear keeps us in order... without us kept in fear we'd be flying around right now shooting each others heads off." As an agnostic, I can honestly say that the reason I am not "shooting... others heads off" has nothing to do with God or a fear of hell. I'm afraid of the police, jail, etc. I could care less about eternal damnation. Religion has nothing to do with my life not being chaotic, it's more a fear of state and secular law that does that. Religion is absolutely not necessary to keep us away from chaos, and could be the cause of chaos in some ways (Crusades, etc.)
Now I know that a lot of people (Stella, Jooheon, and Solomon have already countered with this) will say that it wasn't REAL Christians that cause these wars and chaos, because REAL Christians would never do that. Regardless of whether or not the Christians that participated in the Crusades were "real" or not, they were still influenced by Christianity and the Bible. Part of their reasoning to go and take the Holy Land back was because it was the "Holy Land" and it belonged to the Christians. They fought and slaughtered Jews in their own empire simply because the Jews weren't Christians and helped contribute to the death of Jesus. Religion did play a part in the Crusades, whether it was REAL religion or not. Religion still is a cause of this war. As it is the cause of so many other wars. As Paul stated himself on proboards, "basically every political leader is leading cuz of religion and their beliefs, so religious wars is a given." Doesn't that leave the question, without religion, wouldn't there be far less wars? Without religion, and only atheism/agnosticism across the land, the following events would never have happened:
Crusades
Holocaust which then means no WWII
Iraq War
Palestine/Israeli War
Any war regarding "The Holy Land"
ALL of the horrifying events read today in class
Think about it. Does religion really help? Is it really a fear of hell that keeps us from killing, or a fear of jail, and what your family/friends will think? It's a tough question, and I think at some point we have to realize religion might not be as great as we think.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Jawohl, Mein Fuhrer!
Wow, Hitler, you're book, Mein Kampf is so enthralling. Your statements are so valid, they must be true. Hey, let's all follow you on towards world domination because we are all gullible human beings who need to be told that our blood is superior and the Jews are not, and that they are just lowly animals.
Oh wait, except you forgot for one thing Dummy Hitler.
Species does not equal race.
"Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable."
You sir, are a dumbass.
Humans are humans. We are all one species. If we intermingle, so what? You're argument convinces us that by having babies interracially, it is seen as just as bad in Nature's eyes as having babies interspecies. That is entirely not true. Nature ensures that interspecies-bred animals cannot reproduce (the mule, the liger, etc.) Nature doesn't ensure interracial humans cannot reproduce, it allows us to do so. That right there automatically should show solid evidence against your case that Nature has no problem with us intermingling. This just doesn't hold up under any scrutiny.
Oh wait, except you forgot for one thing Dummy Hitler.
Species does not equal race.
"Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life. The precondition for this does not lie in associating superior and inferior, but in the total victory of the former. The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable."
You sir, are a dumbass.
Humans are humans. We are all one species. If we intermingle, so what? You're argument convinces us that by having babies interracially, it is seen as just as bad in Nature's eyes as having babies interspecies. That is entirely not true. Nature ensures that interspecies-bred animals cannot reproduce (the mule, the liger, etc.) Nature doesn't ensure interracial humans cannot reproduce, it allows us to do so. That right there automatically should show solid evidence against your case that Nature has no problem with us intermingling. This just doesn't hold up under any scrutiny.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
All-Star Saturday!
Oh man. The festivities today were amazing. Shooting, dunking, Derrick Rose, passing, dribbling, Kevin Rudolf, Dwight Howard, speed, running, Daequan Cook, Rudy Fernandez, Jason Kapono, more shooting... the whole night was simply crazy.
Started at 5:30 in Phoenix, Arizona. Friday night, Terrel Owens took home the MVP yet again for the celebrity game, but the game itself was so much more than that. Coached by Dr. J and Magic Johnson, the two squads showed so much hilarity it was insane. Michael Rapaport, an actor best known as Donald Self in Prison Break, accumulated 8 fouls, which has to be some kind of record. Lisa Leslie and Nancy Lieberman, two WNBA greats, were fooling around out on the court. But the guys who really took the show, were Wildkat Edgerson, Handles Franklin, Special K Daley, and Scooter Christiansen.
Also known as the Harlem Globetrotters.
At one point, Daley was called for a foul, and then grabbed a bucket, chased after the refree, and threw the contents of the bucket at the announcer's table where the referee, Mike Breen, usually sits to announce the games. Jon Barry, who was sitting there currently, fell out of his seat backwards trying to avoid getting doused by the inevitable water in the bucket. It wasn't water. It was confetti.
In the end though, it was Terrel Owens's game. He scored 17 points and finished two alley-oops to lead his team to victory. He took home his second MVP award and was the life of the party out there.
Oh yeah, then there was real basketball.
Kevin Durant electrified the crowd with 46 points, a rookie challenge record, as the Sophomores beat the Rookies, 122-116. At one point he nailed 3 threes in a row, then grabbed a defensive board, turned around, threw a long pass to teammate Rodney Stuckey, who easily made the layup. Michael Beasley lead all rookies with 29 points, as the Sophomores would win again.
Saturday night is the night everyone wanted to watch. The Haier Shooting Challenge, the Sony Skills Challenge, the Foot Locker 3-Point Shootout and the Sprite Slam Dunk Competition are the main events that everyone wants to see.
Team Detroit upset the hometown Team Phoenix in the Haier Shooting Challenge, despite Team Phoenix starting off on a red-hot 5/5. They had 30 seconds to make a half-court shot and defeat Team Detroit, but couldn't pull it off, finishing with a time of 1:16 to Detroit's 58.3.
Then came Devin Harris, Mo Williams, Derrick Rose, and Tony Parker to prove who has the most "skills" out of the point guards of today. Harris got off to a fast start, setting the bar at 36 seconds. Mo Williams fell behind with a time of 37.2, still respectable. Derrick Rose led all with a time of 33.3, and Tony Parker was horrible, with a time of 50.8. Rose would be the victor, finishing with a time of 35 to Harris's 39.
In the 3-point shootout, Rashard Lewis, Mike Bibby, Daequan Cook, Danny Granger, Roger Mason Jr., and Jason Kapono squared off to see who would be this year's best 3-point shooter. Kapono, had he won tonight, would've been the third player ever (behind Bird and Hodges) to win three years in a row. Lewis, Cook, and Kapono easily made it to the final round, but Lewis would only make 7 in the tiebreaker and Cook sank 19 for the easy victory. Daequan Cook upset the competition.
Time for the big event of the night, the Slam Dunk competition. I know some people think this year's dunk contest was weak, but I strongly disagree. J.R. Smith started it off, catching the ball off of a double-bounce (that is incredibly hard to do) then windmilling it for the finish. His second dunk was weak, and he finished out of the finals. Rudy Fernandez came out with some sick stuff, behind the back pass off the back board, and then grabbing it with one-hand to throw it down. He then grabbed a ball thrown off the back of the backboard, and reverse jammed on the other side. Nate Robinson started off the first round by lobbing it to himself, then fully extending on his windmill, something that seems impossible for a 5'9" guy to do. He then jumped on top of Wilson Chandler and dunked it, which was so funny. I was dyinggggg. Dwight Howard showed his incredible hops by reverse windmilling it off a lob, and then going into an actual phone booth, changing into his Superman outfit, raising the rim to 12 feet, and dunking it off a lob, and made it look easy. He dunked on a 12 foot rim!!! That's insane.
Superman, however, would be defeated by Krypto-Nate in the second round, as Nate came out in a green jersey with neon green shoes to match. He started with a lob to himself, to a reverse tomahawk that brough the crowd to its feet. Dwight followed up with lob off the side of the backboard, cocking his hand back to at least 6 feet away from the rim, and then jamming it home. Krypto-Nate then jumped OVER Superman Dwight Howard, all 6'10" of him, and dunked it. That won it right there, and even Dwight Howard seemed to acknowledge that, as he tried to dunk from the free throw line, with a less-than impressive dunk.
NATE ROBINSON, A 5'9" GUY, DUNKED OVER DWIGHT HOWARD, A 6'10" CENTER. Krypto-Nate, dunked over Superman. Game over.
Bold prediction for tomorrow: West defeats East, 117-102.
Click here to watch Krypto-Nate's amazing final round.
Started at 5:30 in Phoenix, Arizona. Friday night, Terrel Owens took home the MVP yet again for the celebrity game, but the game itself was so much more than that. Coached by Dr. J and Magic Johnson, the two squads showed so much hilarity it was insane. Michael Rapaport, an actor best known as Donald Self in Prison Break, accumulated 8 fouls, which has to be some kind of record. Lisa Leslie and Nancy Lieberman, two WNBA greats, were fooling around out on the court. But the guys who really took the show, were Wildkat Edgerson, Handles Franklin, Special K Daley, and Scooter Christiansen.
Also known as the Harlem Globetrotters.
At one point, Daley was called for a foul, and then grabbed a bucket, chased after the refree, and threw the contents of the bucket at the announcer's table where the referee, Mike Breen, usually sits to announce the games. Jon Barry, who was sitting there currently, fell out of his seat backwards trying to avoid getting doused by the inevitable water in the bucket. It wasn't water. It was confetti.
In the end though, it was Terrel Owens's game. He scored 17 points and finished two alley-oops to lead his team to victory. He took home his second MVP award and was the life of the party out there.
Oh yeah, then there was real basketball.
Kevin Durant electrified the crowd with 46 points, a rookie challenge record, as the Sophomores beat the Rookies, 122-116. At one point he nailed 3 threes in a row, then grabbed a defensive board, turned around, threw a long pass to teammate Rodney Stuckey, who easily made the layup. Michael Beasley lead all rookies with 29 points, as the Sophomores would win again.
Saturday night is the night everyone wanted to watch. The Haier Shooting Challenge, the Sony Skills Challenge, the Foot Locker 3-Point Shootout and the Sprite Slam Dunk Competition are the main events that everyone wants to see.
Team Detroit upset the hometown Team Phoenix in the Haier Shooting Challenge, despite Team Phoenix starting off on a red-hot 5/5. They had 30 seconds to make a half-court shot and defeat Team Detroit, but couldn't pull it off, finishing with a time of 1:16 to Detroit's 58.3.
Then came Devin Harris, Mo Williams, Derrick Rose, and Tony Parker to prove who has the most "skills" out of the point guards of today. Harris got off to a fast start, setting the bar at 36 seconds. Mo Williams fell behind with a time of 37.2, still respectable. Derrick Rose led all with a time of 33.3, and Tony Parker was horrible, with a time of 50.8. Rose would be the victor, finishing with a time of 35 to Harris's 39.
In the 3-point shootout, Rashard Lewis, Mike Bibby, Daequan Cook, Danny Granger, Roger Mason Jr., and Jason Kapono squared off to see who would be this year's best 3-point shooter. Kapono, had he won tonight, would've been the third player ever (behind Bird and Hodges) to win three years in a row. Lewis, Cook, and Kapono easily made it to the final round, but Lewis would only make 7 in the tiebreaker and Cook sank 19 for the easy victory. Daequan Cook upset the competition.
Time for the big event of the night, the Slam Dunk competition. I know some people think this year's dunk contest was weak, but I strongly disagree. J.R. Smith started it off, catching the ball off of a double-bounce (that is incredibly hard to do) then windmilling it for the finish. His second dunk was weak, and he finished out of the finals. Rudy Fernandez came out with some sick stuff, behind the back pass off the back board, and then grabbing it with one-hand to throw it down. He then grabbed a ball thrown off the back of the backboard, and reverse jammed on the other side. Nate Robinson started off the first round by lobbing it to himself, then fully extending on his windmill, something that seems impossible for a 5'9" guy to do. He then jumped on top of Wilson Chandler and dunked it, which was so funny. I was dyinggggg. Dwight Howard showed his incredible hops by reverse windmilling it off a lob, and then going into an actual phone booth, changing into his Superman outfit, raising the rim to 12 feet, and dunking it off a lob, and made it look easy. He dunked on a 12 foot rim!!! That's insane.
Superman, however, would be defeated by Krypto-Nate in the second round, as Nate came out in a green jersey with neon green shoes to match. He started with a lob to himself, to a reverse tomahawk that brough the crowd to its feet. Dwight followed up with lob off the side of the backboard, cocking his hand back to at least 6 feet away from the rim, and then jamming it home. Krypto-Nate then jumped OVER Superman Dwight Howard, all 6'10" of him, and dunked it. That won it right there, and even Dwight Howard seemed to acknowledge that, as he tried to dunk from the free throw line, with a less-than impressive dunk.
NATE ROBINSON, A 5'9" GUY, DUNKED OVER DWIGHT HOWARD, A 6'10" CENTER. Krypto-Nate, dunked over Superman. Game over.
Bold prediction for tomorrow: West defeats East, 117-102.
Click here to watch Krypto-Nate's amazing final round.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Creationism vs. Evolutionism
First of all, just to clear things up, if I was FORCED to choose between the two, I'd choose evolutionism. I don't agree with it for the most part, but I could see people evolving and species evolving, etc. I don't believe in some omniscient, super-powerful being, so that throws a pretty big wrench into the entire "creationism" theory for me.
However, I don't believe in either one. They both have huge holes. Neither can be proved correct or incorrect, unless you want to do a 3-million year experiment for evolutionism. Evolutionism, obviously, can be shown as incorrect by so many different ideas, I can't even list them. Creationism is a faith thing, you either believe or you don't. It's not like you can prove or disprove it. How are you supposed to prove that there IS or IS NOT an almighty creator up there somewhere? You can't, unless someone dies, comes back, and tells everyone. And has pictures to show for it. Unless they can do all that, it's fairly impossible to prove creationism correct. Seeing as I'm pretty big on tangible evidence, creationism is a no-no for me.
Honestly, to me, if it hasn't happened in the last... 1500 years or so it's pretty irrelevant to my life. Yes, there are things like the Iliad that are still important today, but I don't care much for history. This and this happened, so what? Knowing this, it's fairly obvious that I haven't given this topic much thought. After thinking about it for a while, the theory I have come up with is this.
12 billion years ago, the universe came about. It wasn't created. It wasn't some cosmic accident. It just is. Like the Tao. It just is. Animals were born and made, and they just were there. No accident, no creator. They just were. Dinosaurs were killed off by gigantic meteor, some animals survived, humans came about, and we have what we have today. Who cares how it all happens? So what? Are we here today? Yes. Does what we do now affect everything around us? Yes. So why don't we focus on that instead of the unanswerable questions like this one? I think it's a waste of time and money, and it should just be thrown to the wayside.
However, I don't believe in either one. They both have huge holes. Neither can be proved correct or incorrect, unless you want to do a 3-million year experiment for evolutionism. Evolutionism, obviously, can be shown as incorrect by so many different ideas, I can't even list them. Creationism is a faith thing, you either believe or you don't. It's not like you can prove or disprove it. How are you supposed to prove that there IS or IS NOT an almighty creator up there somewhere? You can't, unless someone dies, comes back, and tells everyone. And has pictures to show for it. Unless they can do all that, it's fairly impossible to prove creationism correct. Seeing as I'm pretty big on tangible evidence, creationism is a no-no for me.
Honestly, to me, if it hasn't happened in the last... 1500 years or so it's pretty irrelevant to my life. Yes, there are things like the Iliad that are still important today, but I don't care much for history. This and this happened, so what? Knowing this, it's fairly obvious that I haven't given this topic much thought. After thinking about it for a while, the theory I have come up with is this.
12 billion years ago, the universe came about. It wasn't created. It wasn't some cosmic accident. It just is. Like the Tao. It just is. Animals were born and made, and they just were there. No accident, no creator. They just were. Dinosaurs were killed off by gigantic meteor, some animals survived, humans came about, and we have what we have today. Who cares how it all happens? So what? Are we here today? Yes. Does what we do now affect everything around us? Yes. So why don't we focus on that instead of the unanswerable questions like this one? I think it's a waste of time and money, and it should just be thrown to the wayside.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
RAP Question?
I have had a RAP question formulating in my mind for a while, I'm gonna post it now.
In response to the song "Heart of a Champion" by Nelly
In the first verse, Nelly raps "I put more money in my community than you got in your budget." At first glance, this line is simply Nelly showing exuberance for his achievements, about how he's accumulated so much money. After taking a closer glance, fully explain how this line can be seen as selfish and hubristic. Many celebrities today seem to take this same attitude when it comes to territory and money. What does this tell us about ourselves, both as individuals and as a society? How can this be seen as both positive to the individual and detrimental to the society? Why then, if it can be acknowledged as a statement as detrimental to society, do we, as individuals, allow things like this to happen? Explain.
In response to the song "Heart of a Champion" by Nelly
In the first verse, Nelly raps "I put more money in my community than you got in your budget." At first glance, this line is simply Nelly showing exuberance for his achievements, about how he's accumulated so much money. After taking a closer glance, fully explain how this line can be seen as selfish and hubristic. Many celebrities today seem to take this same attitude when it comes to territory and money. What does this tell us about ourselves, both as individuals and as a society? How can this be seen as both positive to the individual and detrimental to the society? Why then, if it can be acknowledged as a statement as detrimental to society, do we, as individuals, allow things like this to happen? Explain.
God=Hitler?
5 The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them." 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
9 This is the account of Noah.Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
I hope other people see this connection, but from what I can understand:
God is pissed off at the world.
They aren't following his belief system, his religion.
He needs to do something about it to rid the world of the evildoers.
Noah is the only one who is favorable in his eyes.
Now does anyone see this connection?
Hitler is pissed off at the Jews.
They don't follow his belief system, what he stands for.
He wants to do something about it to rid the world of the Jews forever.
Nazis are the only one favorable in his eyes.
What do they both decide to do about it? Obviously, God wouldn't stoop so low as to killing off everyone who is "wrong" in his eyes, like Hitler would. This God is benevolent right? Hitler was just a crazy, insane, murder really. God couldn't be like him.
Oh wait, yeah he is.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air..."
So Hitler said, "I will wipe out the Jews, who do not follow me, from the face of the earth—men and women, and babies, and all the Jews alive."
In America, genocide is punishable by law, either death or life imprisonment. That's pretty heavy, I think. The two highest punishments possible for genocide. According to the Prevent Genocide Convention held in 1948 (how ironic, right after Hitler's reign in WWII), genocide is defined as:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth..."
I think that falls under (a), (b), and (c), possibly (e) as violations and considered genocide. Had God lived in America, he'd be put to death for this, or possibly just life imprisonment. I don't know about you, but attempting (and succeeding) in killing off 99.999% of the human/animal population, could be qualified as punishable by death.
To most people, Hitler is evil, malicious, and a cold-blooded killer. He committed mass genocide.
To most people, God is benevolent, omniscient, and all-powerful. He also committed mass genocide. Somehow, the two should be much, much similar in terms of how they are described.
Affirmative Actions
I stand 100% by what I said today in class. Affirmative action is racism, and should be stopped immediately. It's racist, it leads to wasted grants and scholarships, wasted application spots, and the state that our nation is in right now.
First of all, it is inherently racist. Just because someone is a certain race doesn't mean they deserve to go to college. If one kid has more credentials than the other, then they deserve the spot in college, regardless of race, background, etc. Now, if the other kid has shined despite a bad background, or wrote a good application essay explaining the extenuating circumstances and the colleges believe this child is worth the acceptance, then they should be accepted. However, colleges should not look at two similar kids, or one kid that is perhaps "better" than the other, and select based on race. That is racist, and racism is looked down on in our society (as it should be).
Second of all, it is a waste of an acceptance and grants/scholarships in some cases. Sometimes, the student only applied because it was a high level school (UCLA for instance) and not because they think they can handle it. This student is accepted and given x amount of dollars in loans, grants, and scholarships. They can't handle the college work, because they weren't as studious in high school or for whatever reason, they are not ready. They were selected because they were a certain race, not because they were qualified for the spot, and they can't handle it and was dropped. However, another kid who was qualified for this spot in college is not accepted, and now the acceptance was wasted. Also, the first kid who dropped out has also received x amount of dollars to pay for tuition that he and the companies/groups giving out the scholarships/grants cannot get back. That is wasted money, because nothing came out of it.
Finally, our country is in a dire state. We are not the smartest country out there (i.e. the Bush presidency), and we are also in a horrible state economically (the Federal Reserve System is horrible, but I digress). The reason this country is not the best it could be is because many kids who should be going to college cannot because they weren't accepted. Some of these kids were not accepted because other minorities were accepted ahead of them. We feel like we need to accept more minorities because of affirmative action. Affirmative action is initiated by our government. Our government is supported by a nation in which, according to a census released in 2004, only 27% of adults 25 and over have graduated from college. So few people are graduating because some people who are accepted are not qualified, because they are minors. And the vicious cycle continues.
Affirmative action is NOT the solution. Granted, in the short term, it does solve the problem and allow more minorities to go to college. However, what this country NEEDS to do, is to clean up these communities in which the minorities come from. Clean up the poor towns, and create more jobs for people to have, better wages, etc., so that the people living in these communities do not resort to violence or drugs, and can focus on schoolwork. Once that happens, more minorities will be accepted into colleges, NOT because they are minorities, but because they are QUALIFIED.
In conclusion, affirmative action is not the correct move to make in this situation. This country cannot afford it, both in terms of academics and economics, and it is bad in the long-term. The right thing to do here is to clean up all the bad communities so that these minorities can go to college because they are ready for it.
First of all, it is inherently racist. Just because someone is a certain race doesn't mean they deserve to go to college. If one kid has more credentials than the other, then they deserve the spot in college, regardless of race, background, etc. Now, if the other kid has shined despite a bad background, or wrote a good application essay explaining the extenuating circumstances and the colleges believe this child is worth the acceptance, then they should be accepted. However, colleges should not look at two similar kids, or one kid that is perhaps "better" than the other, and select based on race. That is racist, and racism is looked down on in our society (as it should be).
Second of all, it is a waste of an acceptance and grants/scholarships in some cases. Sometimes, the student only applied because it was a high level school (UCLA for instance) and not because they think they can handle it. This student is accepted and given x amount of dollars in loans, grants, and scholarships. They can't handle the college work, because they weren't as studious in high school or for whatever reason, they are not ready. They were selected because they were a certain race, not because they were qualified for the spot, and they can't handle it and was dropped. However, another kid who was qualified for this spot in college is not accepted, and now the acceptance was wasted. Also, the first kid who dropped out has also received x amount of dollars to pay for tuition that he and the companies/groups giving out the scholarships/grants cannot get back. That is wasted money, because nothing came out of it.
Finally, our country is in a dire state. We are not the smartest country out there (i.e. the Bush presidency), and we are also in a horrible state economically (the Federal Reserve System is horrible, but I digress). The reason this country is not the best it could be is because many kids who should be going to college cannot because they weren't accepted. Some of these kids were not accepted because other minorities were accepted ahead of them. We feel like we need to accept more minorities because of affirmative action. Affirmative action is initiated by our government. Our government is supported by a nation in which, according to a census released in 2004, only 27% of adults 25 and over have graduated from college. So few people are graduating because some people who are accepted are not qualified, because they are minors. And the vicious cycle continues.
Affirmative action is NOT the solution. Granted, in the short term, it does solve the problem and allow more minorities to go to college. However, what this country NEEDS to do, is to clean up these communities in which the minorities come from. Clean up the poor towns, and create more jobs for people to have, better wages, etc., so that the people living in these communities do not resort to violence or drugs, and can focus on schoolwork. Once that happens, more minorities will be accepted into colleges, NOT because they are minorities, but because they are QUALIFIED.
In conclusion, affirmative action is not the correct move to make in this situation. This country cannot afford it, both in terms of academics and economics, and it is bad in the long-term. The right thing to do here is to clean up all the bad communities so that these minorities can go to college because they are ready for it.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Latin Words?!
So as some of you might now by know, we're learning about modus ponens and modus tollens. Both of those words are Latin; modus ponen meaning "affirms by affirming" and modus tollen meaning "denies by denying." We are also learning about syllogisms, which are another way of coming to a conclusion. All three of these things are commonly used in geometry -_-.
A syllogism is three statements, with each statement containing two terms. It looks something like this.
All people eat food.
Justin eats food.
Therefore Justin is a person.
We first make a general statement, that is followed up by a specific factual statement, and by combining the two we come at a conclusion that is valid. Modus ponen does something similar, as it would looks more like htis.
If Justin eats food, then Justin is a person.
Justin eats food.
Therefore Justin is a person.
This starts with an If, then statement, and then a statement that proves the first part, followed by a conclusion that ends with the last part. Although it is only true if the first two statements are inherently true, it is valid by the way it is proved. Modus tollen is a little different, but once again looks the same way.
If Justin eats food, then Justin is a person.
Justin is not a person.
Therefore, Justin does not eat food.
By using backwards logic and evidence, we can come to the conclusion that Justin is not whatever the first statement says he is; because he isn't the last part, he cannot be the first part. He isn't a person, so he cannot eat food because eating food would make him a person.
Each cna be used to prove a statement true or false, but all three are used similarly and all three are different in their own way. That's all from the desk of Maiyozu-San, see you guys in class tomorrow.
A syllogism is three statements, with each statement containing two terms. It looks something like this.
All people eat food.
Justin eats food.
Therefore Justin is a person.
We first make a general statement, that is followed up by a specific factual statement, and by combining the two we come at a conclusion that is valid. Modus ponen does something similar, as it would looks more like htis.
If Justin eats food, then Justin is a person.
Justin eats food.
Therefore Justin is a person.
This starts with an If, then statement, and then a statement that proves the first part, followed by a conclusion that ends with the last part. Although it is only true if the first two statements are inherently true, it is valid by the way it is proved. Modus tollen is a little different, but once again looks the same way.
If Justin eats food, then Justin is a person.
Justin is not a person.
Therefore, Justin does not eat food.
By using backwards logic and evidence, we can come to the conclusion that Justin is not whatever the first statement says he is; because he isn't the last part, he cannot be the first part. He isn't a person, so he cannot eat food because eating food would make him a person.
Each cna be used to prove a statement true or false, but all three are used similarly and all three are different in their own way. That's all from the desk of Maiyozu-San, see you guys in class tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
