The Bullshit of DLC

The Bullshit of DLC

Note: This is an old post that was sitting unpublished in my draft list. It may be outdated in terms of some specific details. 

Okay, so I have been bitching about DLC for quite some time, on an intermittent basis. While I have provided some examples in the past of what I believe constituted bullshit, ripoff, exploitative DLC, and what I considered fair DLC worth purchasing, I never provided an open shut case for my stance.

This time, however, I have done some homework, and I think what I have come up with constitutes damn near investigative journalism. Hey, if the 'pro' video game journalists don't have the balls to do it, someone has to step up and do it for them, right? Might as well be me!

Spike TV Video Game Awards (VGA'S) and Categories are mostly BULLSHIT

I'm posting this as a response of sorts, but more to the point, as a post inspired by, SykoShadow's POST from 2 days ago regarding this year's Video Game Awards (VGA's) hosted as usual, by Spike TV. I responded to him via a lengthy comment, but that proved to be insufficient to quell my incensed mind, so here we go (much of that comment ill be migrated here, so if yo have already seen the comment, some of this will be familiar). My choices will be in bold.

Please note that I will be inserting my own nominations where I see fit (likely more often than I choose from their shitty nominees. If you don't like that, you can suck my left nipple while kneading the right one. Or, if that's not going to work for you (and likely won't for me, either) you can either leave me an angry comment, or just point your browser to something more soothing.

Also, most of this will be biased ranting, and cannot be honestly applied as valid criticisms (although some can). HOWEVER, stick it out to the end (or just skip to it) and you'll see that I have some legitimate points of contention with the VGA's.

My Views (more like ramblings) on Abortion

Here are my thoughts on abortion. As you will see, my position is not solidifed (the general slant of it is, the details are not) and the issue is, for me, a difficult one, but not for the usual reasons. The difficulty for me lies in the fact that formulating an opinion which is not borne (pun intended?) of assertions based on arbitrary delineations is rather difficult.

~

Video Game Addiction: Is it Real?

In this article I aim to take a modestly comprehensive look at the notion of video game addiction, and try to get to the bottom of the hype. Is video game addiction real, or not? Is it fact, or fiction? Truth, or Lie? Is it a reality facing gamers today, or a total myth? Is it a symptom of some other problem (perhaps an impulse control disorder), a condemnation of 'too much time' spent on a hobby unbecoming of an older teenager or even adult (as judged by a non gamer, usually issued forth through the cavernous maw that is a generation gap), a cultural phenomenon, perhaps the manifestation of an attempted escape from too much educational pressure put on the youth, or something else?
                
And if it is indeed real, are the video games an outlet for an addicted personality, or are they a causal factor? Does that distinction even matter? And, lastly, if it is indeed real, if there are people out there who seem to be addicted to video games, what does the research say regarding incidence rates, severity, and treatment outcomes? Is the media reporting this fairly, not taking it seriously enough, or blowing it way out of proportion?

These questions and more are going to be addressed as I tackle the issue of video game addiction. Is it fact or fiction?

Dead Rising Case Zero....You Guys Enjoying Your Demo?

Was it worth it?

because watch other developers adpot this model going forward. Suddenly, no demo for a game, but hey, there's a $5....prequel.....ya...

Those of you who keep insisting that it's not a demo aren't very critical in your thinking

Ray Comfort Week Continues!! Comfort PWND?

I am not sure if pointing out simple logical deductions to a retard (sorry) is considered pwning as much as it is beating up on a hapless retard (sorry again), but this hapless retard (sorry, really) is manipulating people into believing lies, making them feel guilty for being human, and making big money off of doing so, so fuck it, it's a pwning.

So, on to what I will, perhaps tentatively (you decide!) call Ray Comfort being PWND.

Dead Rising Case Zero is a Ripoff. It's a Demo (VIDEO EVIDENCE). Also, Corporations Own Us. It's Time to Wake Up a Bit.

I am looking forward to Dead Rising 2, although with some trepidation. That being said, I am NOT looking forward to Dead Rising: Case Zero. Well, let me rephrase that: I am, in the sense that it's new Dead Rising and I really want to get my hands on some new Dead Rising, but unless Capcom changes their mind and releases Case Zero for free (fat chance!!), I am NOT getting it, and I suggest to any Dead Rising fans reading this that they leave it be as well, and send Capcom a message:

We will not pay for demos, assholes!
Yes, Dead Rising Case Zero is a demo. It's a demo and it's a damn ripoff!

But this is a prologue, not a demo!, you shout.

Happy Birthday Canada? FUCK THAT!!!! Happy July 4th? Fuck that As Well. It's BULLSHIT

So, everyone is celebrating Canada Day (and now, it's July 4th, so people south of us are taking their turn). My thoughts?

Meh.

Sorry, just not patriotic. I have no nationalistic feel good sentiments to speak of. I much prefer to identify as human and think of us all as living on the same planet than think of us divided up into these arbitrary countries and then pledge my allegiance to the one I happened, by accident of birth, to be well, born into.


National birthdays are bullshit. I can't wait until tomorrow when all the flags are gone, the firecrackers stop banging up and down my damn street, and no one gives a shit again....

Cynical, I know..... 

July 4th Addition to the blog:

Psychology: Science? Unscientific? Bullshit? Pt. 3

This is a follow up to THIS post, entitled "Psychology: Science? Unscientific? Bullshit? Pt. 2"

Some further discussion has taken place. A new comment from him, in response to the last one I gave (featured in part two of this (originally not intended to be a) series:

Then again I never studied psychology so thank you for elaborating. I just don't know how that general psychology or psychoanalysis as you pointed out helps any in the business world other than bettering someone as a person. I feel the same about art even though I am kind of an artist myself; I think it's totally useless unless you're actually going into art.

And my response to that was as follows:

Well, I'm not sure why you're using the business world as an endpoint (remember though, I still basically agree with your contention), but if that's the one you're going with, I suppose one could argue that, ina ddition to bettering yourself, as you pointed out, you could possibly use an understanding of the human psyche to aid yourself in processes like detecting falsehoods, guaging prospective employees, social networking, closing deals, etc.


Not that I really buy that (well, to some limited degree, sure) but I think that could be an argument. Although, if you remove the business world as the end goal, you have all sorts of ends: the sake of knowledge, interest, interpersonal relationships (famiial, marital, etc), professional endeavours (counselling), etc etc.

I was never a fan of it, but I don't think it's wise to write it off entirely (not that you or I are necessarily doing that).

If you compare real world benefits of something like your field and psychoanalysis, I think that the clear winner is your field. I think the argument could be made that of all areas of study, mathematics is probably the most important, as much as I hate(d) it.

What do you think? If you offered an opinion after part one and/or part two, does this have any bearing on your opinion at all? As always, feedback is mucho appreciado.

EDIT: Go back to part one to see a comment from this very same person. His original opinion is no longer one that he holds to the letter. I think we had a productive dialogue here. I also got his major wrong :(

Psychology: Science? Unscientific? Bullshit? Pt. 2

This is a follow up to THIS post, entitled "Psychology: Science? Unscientific? Bullshit?"

A bit more discussion has taken place. Him:

At the same time many psychological hypotheses are not testable and repeatable and that is a controversy in psychology. Modern psychology does use the scientific method a lot so that's why I consider it to be somewhat of a science. I totally agree with what you said about neuropsychology and evolutionary psychology but when I was talking about psychology being 'lame' I was talking about the main branch of psychology that most people study in college. I think it's kind of useless in the business world, not totally though.

And my response:

You're talking about psychoanalysis, and you're 100% right. However, I don't think that's the most studied branch of psychology. I think (at least, it was at the university I attended), that psychoanalysis was taught in intro psyc as a starting point, and also in history of psyc courses. I could be wrong though, as this is only based on one school. I can say that there are so many branches of psyc now that I feel confident thinking that it's probably no longer #1, and I DO know that it's an area of contention within pyschology itself.


When I studied psychology, I took courses on psychopharmacology, neuropsychology, psychology of health, psychology of sleep, personality, learning psychology, psychology of media, social psychology, behavioural pychology, cognitive beahvioural therapy, etc etc etc. The only times I ever really studied psycholanalytic theory was in intro pych (aka psyc 101 as it is commonly referred to) and in the 4th year borefest, history of psychology. I believe a bit of it was also covered in a philiosophy class I took, as some of it wasrelevant to some of the philiosophical ideas we studied, but the details of this are hazy.

Thanks for the eaboration though, and I must say (and I say this with no condescension, I swear) that this serves as an example of how we must be careful when we speak, as it is easy to totally screw up and have our message be misconceived. I mean, you stright up denigrated all of psychology, when really, you were taking issue with a paritucular area of study within it. There's a huge difference there, and I went from being a bit....well, off put to completely understanding and even agreeing (although we could both be wrong in our conceptions, and I am sure there are plenty of people out there who would like to alleviate us of our misconceptions!!!!) (and they'd probably have a big problem with me, having studied it and all lol).

What do you think? If you offered an opinion after part one, does this have any bearing on that at all? Mine might not, as it is merely a retread since I had already discussed psychoanalytic theory, but his comment probably will, as it represents further clarification on his end; clarification which changed the way I saw his original comment, and quite likely may for you as well.

As always, feedback is mucho appreciado.

Psychology: Science? Unscientific? Bullshit? Pt. 1

I've heard it many times before, as I am sure many of us have:

 "Psychology is not a science." I have even heard that "psychology is bullshit."

While the second sentiment is not uncommon (over 700,000 hits on google), the first, "psychology is not a science," is VERY common (over 50 MILLION hits on ze goog). In fact, I just ran into one such comment and engaged in a small conversation regarding it.

An online friend of mine, who is a molecular biology (or was it microbiology?....I can't recall, but something to that effect) major recently made a comment to this end on a blog of mine, in which I had interviewed someone who is going to be majoring in pyschology (which was the discipline in which I attained my BA as well). Here is his comment:

I think a psychology major is so lame.

His response to me after I asked him for an elaboration was as follows:

Well from all of my friend's experiences they say they absolutely got nothing out of psychology so similar to what Lenano is planning on doing they all ended up changing their majors. I just don't like it as a science; at least not compared to sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics.

Sure psychology incorporates some aspects of biology and chemistry, but for the most part unlike those sciences, it doesn't provide conclusive theories. Since psychology uses a lot of deductive reasoning most psychological theories are in actuality hypotheses. I do however commend psychology for elaborating on stuff like social sciences and stuff, but for the most part I think other sciences could figure that stuff out and I consider psychology to be basically philosophy involving biology and chemistry. I may be stupid for saying that but that's just how I feel towards psychology.

I responded to him with the following:

One problem with this is that many psychological theories are testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. They also, just like theories in other disciplines, are based upon evidence. They are the explanations for the facts, and therefore, they ARE theories as opposed to just hypotheses. I see what you are saying about the nature of deductive reasoning, don't get me wrong, but psychology has changed much in the last 50 or so years.


Biology might point out that x follows from Y, but the manifestation of X will have to be pyschology. So if you think that form and function are good, but the interactions between and processes behind those functions are ''lame,'' well, I'd say you're looking at an incomplete picture. Without psychology, you'd have neurology but no neuropsychology. Without psychology, you'd have evolutionary biology but no evolutionary psychology.

Psyc is sort of like the why to the how. And the why toay is functionally much different than the why's of people like Freud and Jung. Of course, there are still those fanciful pychoanalytical theories (or hell, hypotheses) out there, as you drive at, and I agree. Even back when I was a fresh undergrad, I had issues with that stuff.

And psychology is the reason I am in the career I am in today.

What do you think? Is psychology a science?

Sarah Palin: 100K for Q/A, Still Needs Crib Notes

So Sarah Palin uses crib notes for a Q&A session, during which she was asked general queestions about concepts and things she supports. She is unable to even recall her own stances on policy?


Here's the question for which she needed to consult her hand:

What are the top three priorities once there's a conservative president and congress?


....

---

Can someone please, please, help me out here. Explain to me how someone so incredibly useless can get paid 100K for a speaking engagement, and possibly run for president, after all of the stupid, stupid things she has said?  And even now after this, people will continue to take her seriously.

What must one do to lose credibility anymore? It used to be that people had integrity, and were qualified for the positions they were running for (and even if they didn't, and weren't, they knew how to hide it).

Now......ya, I don't understand it. You can be a war criminal and still get paid huge money for speaking engagements, rather than be placed in jail like you should be (Bush), you can be a complete and utter dolt, still get paid for speaking engagements, get hired to work for a news channel (if you can call it that) and possibly run for US presidencey (Palin).

What the **** is going on down there?

How did we get this far? We have free speech on trial in Amsterdam, we have this woman who:

1) Doesn't know her own policies

2) Still fails prescreened questions

3) Tried to ban books

4) Thinks foreign policy consists of proximity and visibility

etc etc etc

And somehow, rather than be made a laughing stock, she:

1) Has a million plus selling book

2) Gets paid 100 thousand dollars to speak to disenfranchised people about greed

3) Was a presidential running mate

4) May be running for US presidency in 2 years

etc etc etc.

It hurts. It honestly hurts. I'm only 28, and I can honestly say I sometimes feel like I might as well give up, it's over. This is one of those times.

Am I the only one who gets nostalgic for time periods in which he did not even live? I see images and video of the early 20th century, and I wish I was there....but, yes, I am aware of the rose tinted glasses thing. I know the folly of the ''sinking ship'' view of the current generation.

It's just so hard sometimes......

Christianity is Wrong, Disgusting, and Morally Reprehensible

Just think about this for a moment.

God creates us. He creates laws. We break those laws. God sets the penalty for such disobedience. That penalty is death.

He ends up killing nearly everyone.

So, this god character needs to come up with a new plan.

"AHA!," he says, ''I've got it! I'll forgive them!''

...."But first I need a blood sacrifice."

And so he sacrifices himself to himself in order to atone for us breaking the laws he himself created. Now we're all forgiven.....sort of.

Wait just a minute....he sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself?
Let's let that sink in.

And now we are supposed to view it this as mercy? Why couldn't he just forgive? Or change his rules? Or, you know, see all this coming, since he is supposedly omniscient?

But nope. None of that. There had to be death.

Why?

Just because.

Now go tell your young children that they have blood on their hands. Or should I say on their 'soul'? Someone they did not know was brutally murdered to atone for the sins of their ancestors, for which they somehow carry the burden.

That's fucking disgusting.

EDIT: See HERE to get some more perspective as to why the entire story of christianity is reprehensible- and ridiculous. If, after reading both this and that, you still do not agree, please proceed to click HERE, as clearly that would be the perfect description for you.

Astrology is Bullshit

Repeat after me:

Astrology is Bullshit!

Astrology is Bullshit!

Already knew this? Good, now read this anyways.

Find yourself a bit miffed right now, thinking I'm full of crap? Keep reading.

So, I am going to make the case today that Astrology is nothing than a pile of outdated and laughable ridiculous pseudoscientific fucking bullshit. And I will do this through 3 pathways:

Scientific Evidence

Psychological Evidence

Logic

After this is all said and done, my goal is for everyone who reads this to understand that

ASTROLOGY IS FUCKING BULLSHIT



Man, this feels good already. You have no idea how much I detest this astrology shit. Everytime I get asked ''What's your sign?'' I want to punch through the persons' stomach, pull their liver out, and beat them with it. I especially love how no one ever knows your sign, until you tell them it (well, I used to, to humour them, but now I just tell them it's nonsense, but I digress) and then they either nod and say ''yup'' or get all perky and say ''I knew it.'' Ya, you fucking knew shit, you liar, because if you did, you WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO ASK ME!!!!.

Like that one time I saw a ''psychic'' who gave me all sorts of vague information about what was going on with the situation between myself and my sister, which was great, save for the fact that I DON'T HAVE A FUCKING SISTER, YOU FUCKING FRADULENT LIAR!!!! YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT, IF YOU WERE REALLY PSYCHIC!!!! Ever notice how ''psychics'' always have vague answers, general statements, and they have to ask you your birthday and things.....I THOUGHT YOU WERE FUCKING PSYCHIC YOU SHOULD KNOW MY BIRTHDAY!!!! Funny, with the thousands of psychics in the world, not ONE steps forward before a terrorist attack and warns the people. Were were all the psychics before 9/11, HUH? WERE WHERE THEY? TOO MANY CROSSED ENERGY WIRES THAT DAY?

….Okay, sorry, big digression there. Back to the topic at hand (and yes, ''psychics'' are also bullshit; perhaps I'll get to that in another edition).

So, on with the evidence.

Scientific Evidence

Definition of atrology: Astrology is a group of systems, traditions, and beliefs which hold that the relative positions of celestial bodies and related details can provide information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters.

Well, guess what? It has been scientifically demonstrated that this is bullshit.

I'll attack this in 2 ways:

1)Studies done on the accuracy of astrological predictions
2)The problem with the ''science'' behind the astrology to begin with

Studies done on the accuracy of astrological predictions

''Good news for rational, level-headed Virgoans everywhere: just as you might have predicted, scientists have found astrology to be rubbish, writes Science Correspondent Robert Matthews.''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1439101/Astrologers-fail-to-predict-proof-they-are-wrong.html

Its central claim - that our human characteristics are moulded by the influence of the Sun, Moon and planets at the time of our birth - appears to have been debunked once and for all and beyond doubt by the most thorough scientific study ever made into it.

For several decades, researchers tracked more than 2,000 people - most of them born within minutes of each other. According to astrology, the subject should have had very similar traits. Researchers looked at more than 100 different characteristics, including occupation, anxiety levels, marital status, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels and ability in art, sport, mathematics and reading - all of which astrologers claim can be gauged from birth charts.

The scientists failed to find any evidence of similarities between the time twins, however. They reported in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies: The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success . . . but the results are uniformly negative.

And that's not all.

The time-twins study is only the start of the bad news for astrologers, however. Dr Dean and Prof Kelly also sought to determine whether stargazers could match a birth chart to the personality profile of a person among a random selection.
They reviewed the evidence from more than 40 studies involving over 700 astrologers, but found the results turned out no better than guesswork.
The success rate did not improve even when astrologers were given all the information they asked for and were confident they had made the right choice.

Dr Dean said the consistency of the findings weighed heavily against astrology.

It has no acceptable mechanism, its principles are invalid and it has failed hundreds of tests, he said. But no hint of these problems will be found in astrology books which, in effect, are exercises in deception.
From wiki:

Studies have repeatedly failed to demonstrate statistically significant relationships between astrological predictions and operationally-defined outcomes. Effect size tests of astrology-based hypotheses conclude that the mean accuracy of astrological predictions is no greater than what is expected by chance.

But there's more

The problem with the ''science'' behind the astrology to begin with

The whole thing is based on the fact that your your zodiac sign supposedly corresponds to the position of the sun relative to constellations, right? Well, check this out:

The positions changed over 2200 years ago.

Let that sink in for a second.

You see, the Earth wobbles around in it's axis in a 25, 800 year long cycle. This phenomena is called precession, and it is the reason why your ''signs'' are completely wrong. Even if this was all true, they'd be off by about a month:

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/your-astronomical-sign.html

Over the past two-and-a-half millennia, this wobble has caused the intersection point between the celestial equator and the ecliptic to move west along the ecliptic by 36 degrees, or almost exactly one-tenth of the way around. This means that the signs have slipped one-tenth—or almost one whole month—of the way around the sky to the west, relative to the stars beyond. For instance, those born between March 21 and April 19 consider themselves to be Aries. Today, the Sun is no longer within the constellation of Aries during much of that period. From March 11 to April 18, the Sun is actually in the constellation of Pisces!

You will most likely find that once precession is taken into account, your zodiac sign is different. And if you were born between November 29 and December 17, your sign is actually one you never saw in the newspaper: you are an Ophiuchus! The eliptic passes through the constellation of Ophiuchus after Scorpius.

Here is how the ''real'' chart would look:

Capricorn - Jan 20 to Feb 16
Aquarius - Feb 16 to Mar 11
Pisces - Mar 11 to Apr 18
Aries - Apr 18 to May 13
Taurus - May 13 to Jun 21
Gemini - Jun 21 to Jul 20
Cancer - Jul 20 to Aug 10
Leo - Aug 10 to Sep 16
Virgo - Sep 16 to Oct 30
Libra - Oct 30 to Nov 23
Scorpius - Nov 23 to Nov 29
Ophiuchus - Nov 29 to Dec 17
Sagittarius - Dec 17 to Jan 20

Ever heard anyone mention Ophiuchus before?

Ya, me either.

Psychological Evidence

Two psychological concepts can easily explain why people are so convinced of the veracity of astrology: The Forer Effect and Confirmation Bias.

The Forer Effect

The Forer effect refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people.

http://skepdic.com/forer.html

Psychologist Bertram R. Forer (1914-2000) found that people tend to accept vague and general personality descriptions as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone. Consider the following as if it were given to you as an evaluation of your personality:

You have a need for other people to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself as an independent thinker; and do not accept others' statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic.

Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student the above evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with 5 meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an excellent assessment and 4 meaning the assessment was good. The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2 out of 5, or 84% accurate. In short, Forer convinced people he could successfully read their character. His accuracy amazed his subjects, though his personality analysis was taken from a newsstand astrology column and was presented to people without regard to their sun sign.

Want to see a short 1:35 second video of this in effect? It's awesome:





Astrological readings are always vague and present common characteristics.

Think about it. What about the fucking assholes in the world? The serial killers, psychopaths, sociopaths, rude, bitchy, annoying, etc people. Where are their readings? You ever see a reading that said ''You will be a fucking prick today?”' NO! They present ideas that people are likely to agree with, because we all like to think of ourselves as being ''At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved.''

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to prefer information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses, independently of whether they are true. In the context of ''psychic'' and astrological ''readings,'' this describes the tendency for people to remember and place significance on the ''hits'' and to forget the ''misses.'' It has been demonstrated that people will come out of a ''psychic'' reading which had a success rate of that equal to chance (duh) and state that they thought the reading was 80 or 90% accurate. I have seen video footage of this, and in more than one, people even reported things like ''he knew all about my aunt theresa's illness, and I didn't even mention it'' when in reality, they are on video telling the ''psychic'' ''my aunt is sick.''

So you get people hearing a vague reading applicable to anyone, thinking it's really accurate and specific to them, all because they place significance on the things that seemed right, and downplay the ones that are ''off.'' Then, they tend to report a much higher accuracy after the fact than there really was.

Logic

Ah, logic. I love logic. We all should love logic. Astrologers hate logic. Tell me something:

Astrology states that our personalities are determined by celestial positionings at the time of our birth, right? Well then, WHY DO TWINS HAVE DIFFERENT PERSONALITIES? Shouldn't they be exactly the same?

Here's a hint: YES, they should be, and NO THEY ARE FUCKING NOT!

Why, in that video I posted above, did a room full of people with completely varied ''signs'' all agree that the reading they got described them, when they ALL GOT THE SAME MOTHERFUCKING READING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

How many times does science have to disprove bullshit before people let it fucking go?

Another one, as I posted above: What about the fucking assholes in the world? The serial killers, psychopaths, sociopaths, rude, bitchy, annoying, etc people. Where are their readings? You ever see a reading that said ''You will be a fucking prick today?”' NO! They present ideas that people are likely to agree with, because we all like to think of ourselves as being ''At times you are extroverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and reserved.''

So, again, Think abouuuuuuutttt iiiiittttttt!!:

There are tons of assholes in the world, yet NO READINGS for them? So, what, celestial positiongs only determine the personality of nice people? Assholes get their personalities from, like, what? Genetics? Environment? Give me a break. Our personalities come from the fucking sky, man, we all know that!!!!!

Astrology is absolute fucking horseshit. It's bullshit, it's fake, it's a huge money making industry (seriously, famous astrologers make MILLIONS) that takes advantage of people. Astrologers should be in jail for fraud, not making millions. Same with ''psychics'' but that's for another day.

They are propagating pseudoscientific nonsense that has been discredited since we moved to a heliocentric view of the cosmos. In other words, a few hundred fucking years. They are exploiting people, and if you have ever paid for a ''reading'' you should go demand your money back.

The End

Thanks for reading.

Our Ideas Regarding Sexuality/The Body/Nudity Are Screwed Up

Warning: this blog contains FOUL LANGUAGE.

Still here? Alright, let's rock.

I just saw this picture of a fashionable, unknown (to me), pretty celebrity:

And it raises the question: In a society where nudity is frowned upon, how does putting a little star over your nipples make it okay to walk around with your tits out? Somehow we have decided that breasts should be covered up, but then have arbitrarily determined that it's only the nipples that are the ''offensive'' part? It's the nipples that somehow make the breast a breast?

If that's true, then why can guys walk around without a shirt? Obviously we aren't really ''offended'' by nipples. So if nipples are okay, and clearly, breast tissue surrounding the nipples is okay (that's why media outlets with no nudity policices allow pics like that) then I have to ask....what the fuck? How does that make any sense? Are female nipples somehow ''offensive''? If females walked around in topless bikinis at the beach, would that cause irreperable harm to those who witenssed it?

I also love how on a webistes with nio nudity policies, or in ''no nudity'' magazines, a good ol' girl who ''won't do nudity'' not only has no problem showing off 99% of her breasts (as long as those nipples are covered), but she will show her ass....oh, but she's wearing a thong. Um, that desn't cover the ass, at all. I can clearly see your ass, honey. So I guess asses aren't nudity......?

Good thing that ass is covered. Otherwise I'd have been offended

The whole thing, like so much else in life, is so arbitrary, and really, fucking stupid. I don't know how it was determined that our bodies are evil/dirty/sinful whatever, but it's ridiculous. It leads to stories like the one where that guy was arrested for making coffee naked in his own house,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6406630/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-in-own-home-while-naked.html

because some woman was walking by with her little son and they looked in his window and saw him. OH NOES! A PENIS!! Guess what, sister? YOUR SON HAS A PENIS. Penises are not offensive. They are only shocking because we randomly said they are. If no one made a big deal out of it from the start, there would be no issue. Seeing a penis should not be a traumatic experience.

Funny thing is, she probably wouldn't have batted an eye if they walked by a male dog. Somehow, it's not dog penises that are the problem, just human ones. Unless this nutcase would have tried to get the dog arrested as well, who knows. Fucking soccer moms.

My mother in law exemplifies this. It's natural for babies to touch their genatalia. Well, when my daughter does it, my wife and I don't bat an eye. But my mother in law immediately moves her hand and scolds her (a ten month old baby). I haven't said anything yet, because I haven't seen it (my wife told me about it the other day) but when/if I do see it, I will make a point to nicely tell her that there is nothing wrong with it, and see if she tries to defend her position. I can't see her arguing anything other than ''it's just not nice.'' ''It's not proper for a lady.''

SAYS FUCKING WHO? If we ALL do it, maybe you should just shut up and accept it's normal, rather than punish people for not meeting some false, arbitrarily imposed bullshit standard.