A Probability of Being

So recently the video by Rihanna and Eminem went big and caused a lot of discussion all over the blogosphere, but browmfemipower's post is the most compelling and is the one I would highly recommend anyone to read. It's challenging to read, because it doesn't speak to me. It's painful to read, because in a way, I'm one of the people she's pushing back against. But these are reasons why it is absolutely necessary I and everybody else have to read it. She doesn't want people linking to it because she gets shit from people who just can't grok with what she writes, because if you want an alternative perspective, she will give it to you, and it will be shoved into your mouth without benefit of the silver spoon that you're probably used to.

There was a time when I did not get along with my parents. I say this as an adult who has a pretty strong relationship with her dad, and a somewhat-shaky-but-almost-decent-give-it-a-few-more-years relationship with her mom. My parents are better than most. They gave me freedom when most of my peers were forced to stay home after dark. They gave me a pretty big allowance, once a month. From them, I inherited a strong, stubborn attitude which put me at odds with them but has served me well through my life thus far. But they're not perfect. Who is, right? I'm going to talk about one of those Imperfect Times. For context, when I was a kid, we made a chocolate drink called Milo with chocolate malt powder of that brand, milk powder, and sugar. ... OK, I still do, when my family has moved on to drinking it without the milk powder and sugar. For a while we didn't use milk powder and sugar, but sweetened condensed milk. I'm not sure if there was a reason for this shift, but a...

So, I used to hate Kant. Somewhere in my Intro to Philosophy textbook, is scribbled "Kant is a cunt" (those days I didn't know what 'cunt' meant, only that it's a bad word. Well, it still is for me, but bad in a good way) and "KANT U SUCK" and "YOU IDIOT!" and various other sputtered criticisms of his text. I have my textbook in front of me now, reading my reactions to some of his words: "... when a wretched man, strong in soul and more angered at his fate than faint-hearted or cast down, longs for death and still preserves his life without loving it- not fron inclination or fear but from duty; then indeed his maxim has a moral content." I thought it was bullshit then, and it's still bullshit now. A choice to live or die is not in itself a question of morality - it's a question of personal liberty. Certainly, if a person's choice to die affects others deeply, causing grief and mourning, the action takes on a certain l...

I've been having this thought for a while. And it's a line of reasoning that works even if you believe that humans are ultimately self-serving creatures. Heck, it's a line of reasoning that works especially if you believe that humans are ultimately self-serving. Let's just say that each person always has a choice between two kinds of actions, one which is "good", that is to say, extends a benefit to a fellow human being, and one which is "evil", that is to say, harms a fellow human being. Aight? Under what circumstance is it self-serving to do the "evil" action of hurting someone else? And if it is not self-serving, is it a rational decision? Let's just say Bob is a greedy-ass fuck. Aight? He'll do anything he can to get what he wants. Does it benefit him more to extend goodwill in his efforts to collect stuff, or does it benefit him to alienate others in his quest? Now, common sense says that it would probably do Bob a world of goo...