Men V.S. Women

I was walking with some friends the other day, and we got on the subject of sexism. there were three males and one female.

now, I will not go into what was said there too much but it got me thinking. Sexism is way blown out these days, especially in movies (which affect the real world). people seem to think that saying that Men and women are different is sexist. Well, they are wrong, or sexism is not a bad thing.

The way I see it is if we are the same, then why can we even tell the difference between the two genders? it isn't like the doctor put a blue or pink ribbon on our wrists when we were born and arbitrarily called us man and woman. we are different, there is no doubt, even if it is merely the external physical structure.

now that we have that to agree on, time to get controversial. we are different in more than just fissile appearance. mails have a tendency of being stronger, more focused, have a heightened leadership ability and are better at controlling emotions. females are usually more caring, are better at multitasking, and are a great support.

where we get the problem of "real sexism" is when we start saying that men are better than women because we are stronger, or women are better because they can multitask better. well fiddlestix, women and men may be different, but one is not better than the other. men are better at some things and women are better at others. for instance, women should not fight in war, they are not naturally made to be effective in that field. and men should not be the mom of the house, we just do not have the brains to do it.

now, the last time I said this to people of an overly opposing opinion (most notably a woman who thought that she could do anything a man could do and that generalisations are generally bad) they said that they knew some buf girls and some emotional men. Well of course you have. this is not an absolute thing, that all men must be strong, and all women must be emotional, just that they have those tendencies.

so to recap, men are not women. we are very different, yet we are still equal. ~=

original

Okay, this time I am going to attack an argument. I have heard this argument countless times, and three of those times have been recent and aimed at me. the argument (if it could be called that) is "is that your opinion or are you just quoting someone else." now, the reason there is a . and not a ? is because it is implied that the question is already answered. the thing is the answer almost always has to be yes, but what is wrong with that?

a simple response is do you believe that the world is round? they will (hopefully) answer yes, in which case you may ask if they discovered that on there own? or are they merely taking the word of another.

there is nothing wrong with quoting others, or believing the same thing as someone else (including your parents).

people who use this sentence are implying that using another's opinion is wrong, the thing is that the only person who can honestly use this sentence is the first one who used it. all others are merely copying him or her.

using another person's quotes and ideas are not an evidence of weakness, far from it. anyone who has had to write an essay for school knows that they need quotes in it if they want it to be a good one. quotes, far from making your essay weaker, make your essay stronger, you get support from the quote, and respect from the reader for doing some research.

this is such a weak argument that just gets thrown around to try and shut down peoples opinions, dismissing them as pareting others and not thinking for themselves. the obvious problem being that no argument or opinion, even the one used to condemn such arguments, are original. there is nothing new under the sun.

God bless.

Dillon V.M. Richard.

a little more

this is the same Dragon, but I messed with the 3D particle's and gave the membrane of the wings a bump simple map.

impossible

This term in VFS, I audited a Maya class. after the first two classes, we started making moving caricatures. most people in my class chose to make, well, people, but I chose something different.

I did this for three main reasons.

1. I did not want to be normal

2. I wanted to make something for my little sisters.

and 3. I did not think I would make it past the modeling stage, so of course I had to.

I will not tolerate intolerance!

Okay, when I go on my little rants on my blog once a month or so, I like to think that it is because I have something that would further educate anyone who read my blog. or encourage those who already share my views. I have recently come to the conclusion that this is far from the kace, a good excuse and hopefully perk, but not the cause. The true reason is because when I listen to some people talk, on the street or in an interview, on occasion, the speaker will make me want to smash a head thru a brick wall. Needles to say, this is a good alternative.

anyhow, on to the matter at hand. tonight it is tolerance. I have spoken about this before  but now I will do so in greater detail. Many people ( at least the ones who get on TV. and the subsequent ripple effect. ) have some funky notions about the word tolerant, and I want to take the word back. first of, I will start with the definition of tolerance from http://dictionary.reference.com.

 1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices,          race, religion,nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.

2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.

3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmaticviewpoint.

4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance: My tolerance of noise is limited.

5. Medicine/Medical, Immunology .

a. the power of enduring or resisting the action of a drug, poison, etc.: a tolerance to antibiotics.

b. the lack of or low levels of immune response to transplanted tissue or other foreign substancethat is normally immunogenic.

My personal favorite is the fourth one. 

and now that we are all on the same page, the false hood. The way some people talk, being a tolerant person means to believe or accept what others say, no matter how they differ from their own beliefs. now, if they would spend five seconds and look at the part where this definition says "opinions and practices that differ from one's own", they would get it straight and I would not be typing at one in the morning ( that is probably a lie, some other ignorant quirk would get on my nerves and I would be typing about that instead.). 

So, I try to tell someone that Jesus loves them and wants them to go to heaven, and that person starts yelling at me saying that I am an intolerant hump( in so many words), and I say." well what is your opinion on things?" and she has little more to say than that I am an evil intolerant heater.
now this is Oober abridged, and happened awhile ago, but you get the jist.

who is the tolerant one? the one willing to hear an opposing opinion, or the one who is too busy crying intolerance so loud she can't hear a fog horn?

I am sorry, that is leading the witness, but it should be blindingly obvious, I just thought that I would make it even easier. it is obviously the first one.                                 (palm to face.)

Okay, now that we all know what tolerance and intolerance is, what is so bad about intolerance anyways? Have you ever thought about why it is such a bad thing to be intolerant? 

Tolerance has its place, but it should not permeate everything. If we started tolerating everything  we would live a short and miserable life. Merder, no problem, that is what you want to do, if it makes you happy go for it. Just do not make me do it( even that statement is intolerant.). you do what you want, and I will do what I want.

Yes, this is an exaggerated situation, but it holds true nonetheless, and I hope it makes the point. not everything can be tolerated.

actually, the only ones that really have a problem( other than the ones having to deal with the people with the problem) are the people calling for tolerance themselves. think about it, if I say "you keep your opinion and let me keep mine," I have just said," I do not care what you believe  I believe that you should not tell me what you believe. so do not tell me what you believe, even if what you believe says that you should tell me, respect my belief that you should ignore your belief."

In effect, they have broken their own code. The philosophy of " tolerance" is fairly sound, until you tell someone about it. if you go up to someone and say" you should be tolerant of everything" or "I will not tolerate intolerance", you have pretty much shot yourself in the foot. both sentences say that you should tolerate everything but intolerance.

This is Dillon V.M. Richard. God be with you all, and may he tolerate our presence on earth just a little longer.

amen.

Argument good?

I want to take back the word arguing. many people give me a weird look when I tell them that I love to argue. they sometimes say something like, well at least you know your own short comings. the thing is, I do not see it as a shortcoming. argument is how we better our knowledge. when I argue with someone, I bring some information to the table, and the other person(s) bring their own information and they but heads. some of my arguments are dropped and so are some of my counterparts. this refines our arguments and even adds to them. If my argument is way off, I would like to know, wouldn't you?

what we do not want is a fight, which is what many people think of when you say argument. a fight is when instead of giving an argument you attack the person. Richard Dawkins interviews are often examples of this when he calls those who oppose him stupid, ignorant and many more names. once we start attacking the person instead of the argument, we know that our argument is weak and should probably listen to our counterpart and researching the topics under discussion.

for those who think I am the pot calling the kettle black with that comment about Dawkins, I was not targeting Dawkins himself, but his argument taktiks. I have a friend who is a huge fan of Dawkins, and he even admits that his arguments are to insulting. Again, not against Dawkins, but his argument stile.

The key is respect. Do not raise your voice, do not interrupt, and listen to the others side of the argument. I am currently in two ongoing arguments with people I consider close friends. We have known that we disagree on this topic since we met, and still became friends, and will remain friends after we are dun, weather we come to agree or not.

as christians, proverbs 27:5 says open rebuke is better than secret love, and 27:17 says iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend. I personally like the new king james version of the Bible.
These verses clearly tell us that we need to make sure that we keep each other's wits sharp.

Evolutionists should have no problem with argument. the whole theory is about conflict making the survivors better. when it comes to argument, let it be survival of the fittest.

the two arguments are about evolution V.S. creation and so those are the sides that I have portrayed here.

for the birds.

here are the pictures of me catching a pigeon. I pasted teas to a box trap with a video playing on an I Pad, placed inside. Ah art school, gotta love the assignments.