Why?

Why are "buildings" called "buildings"?... shouldn't they be called "builts", the whole "building" phase is over already... OK!?

Is the sky really blue?

Why do you HATE freedom?

The tyranny of agreement can be a hard concept for most people to grasp at first turn. But I assure you that the tyranny of agreement is the first step towards enslavement of heart, mind, and soul. To often we are enticed, tempted, and made shallow by the come-ons of outside influence. Most live their lives within that slow progression of unaware, unconscious dream. And so when my country calls upon me to support a "war" that I do not agree with, I am reminded of the tyranny of agreement, and I am free to choose my own path.

So the question is.... WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM ?

Paradox

If God is dead, then life is meaningless. If God is life, then God has meaning. If God is love, then love is life. And if life is pain, then pain brings God to us. Suffering opens our eyes, so that which is superficial may be washed aside and that which is true may be seen. But if God is dead, than truth has no bearing, no north star or center of the circumference. God is the creator, the truth and the light that allows us to see. To reject the one "I am" is to reject the source. God can only be dead if we make it thus within our hearts and minds.

Can you spot the fallacy? 2

If a sauropod has no ligament support for its neck, it has to hold it up using muscle-power entirely. How much energy does this use? Well, energy is the capacity to do work, so doing work is the thing that uses up energy. But work done is force applied times distance moved; and since all the sauropod is doing is holding the neck steady (not raising it), the distance moved is zero whatever the force involved -- so the work done is zero, and the energy used is also zero!

Whoever first made this argument is a very stupid individual. But seeing as I do not know who it was or how to admonish said person, I will move on to correct his fallacy.

It has been a debated point about the feasibility of support by the neck muscles and bone support structure on a sauropod. But this problem is dealing with work, which is actual force time distance (not "distance moved"). The neck was moved to it's current position at some point and did work, and anyone who has ever held a bucket of water or something heavy in any state of stasis for any period of time knows that work was done. The work in done on your muscles. How?... well let me explain.

When your muscles contract the myosin filament attaches itself to the actin membrane, using Ca(calcium)I believe. The entire muscle does not contract all at the same time. In a situation where a neck is in stasis, the muscle fibers rotate contractions so as to facilitate blood flow and relaxation of the muscle fibers. So in actuality, the muscle is continuously doing work. On a side note, cramping occurs when the muscle will not relax properly, this happens when blood flow is constricted and that happens when the muscle is over-worked, or the organism in question has not been eating its Wheaties.

Also, if we view this problem from a physical(as in physics) will find that work is being done in any form of stasis that opposes gravity. In the case of the sauropod, it is a given that the neck muscles are working against gravity, the gravity of the planet earth, which has fluquated very little in the time between the dinosaurs and now. So in order that the neck does not fall to the ground the sauropod continually applies work to the weight of his neck to keep it where it wants it. And since the earth is continually spinning, one could make a case for the centripical force applied as well, but that would just be silly.

So on both a physical and biological level, I have shown how the above statement is fallicious and just stupid, because it over simplifies a more complex situation.

So there!!!

Can You Spot the Fallacy?

"Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is."

This is a case of the bad analogy. In this instance the comparison of a river and a mind just doesn't hold water(pun intended). Even though it is possible that a broad mind could be shallow, it is not a direct result or condition of a broad mind. And on another note, most rivers keep a similar profile(cross-section) no matter how big or "broad" they get. What matters more than breadth is the type of river, the sediment being transported, and the general slope of the area. But who cares about that, right? We'll just make broad assumptions(pun intended again) and call it a valid analogy. There's no need to investigate to see if what is being said is actually true.

Oh well, whatever... you people get the point.

BYE!, and until the next post... have fun with logic and reason.