Prostitution
Current mood: aggravated
Category: News and Politics

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 125, Prostitution

Porn.

(I always wanted to start a blog like that.)

It's legal. I haven't ever viewed any, but I know that if I ever wanted to, I could. And that's the way it should be. Because viewing pornography, and making pornography, doesn't hurt or force anything on anyone. When it does, that aspect of it is outlawed, as it should be. Like child pornography, for example. The children are too young to give consent and yatta yatta yatta. Porn laws are pretty good the way they currently are.

The Power of Zero
Category: School, College, Greek

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 124, The Power of Zero

This is an essay I turned into my college math instructor last week. She has said "it's an enjoyable read," but hasn't finished it yet, nor commented further.

Samuel Thomas Poling

October 30, 2006 A.D.

Math

The Power of Zero: The Mistake

Math is a world of logic, nothing more. Many contend that logic and math are different things, but math is just a certain area of logic to do with amounts, values, and things around that area. To navigate any mathematical problem you must rely on reasoning. Every theorem and shortcut must be provable within the world of logic. This is math. Anything else, anything else at all, can never be used to support a mathematical idea. Not desire, not how many people believe it, not by who said it to be true – only logic can say what works and what doesn't.

Polygamy
Category: News and Politics

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 123, Polygamy

Monogamy, marriage to one person at a time.
Bigamy, marriage to two people at a time.
Trigamy, marriage to three people at a time.
Polygamy, marriage to more than one person at a time. That's two spouses and up. And anymore than one spouse is illegal.

As Edward Lear once wrote:

There was an old fellow of Lyme

Who lived with three wives at one time.

When asked, 'Why the third?'

He replied, 'One's absurd,

And bigamy, sir, is a crime.'

Actually, that would be seen as two counts of bigamy, but whatever. I know, I'm a joke killer.

The War on Drugs
Category: News and Politics

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 122, The War on Drugs

I'm surprised I didn't already write a blog on this one. It's so easy to destroy the idea behind this rediculous battle, which is fought in our streets every day.

Last year, when I was a senior in high school, we watched a video in my civics class on the War on Drugs. Its primary focus was how it was failing miserably. It ended implying the question, "What should we and what could we do about this?"

The instructor of my class room asked the question himself as he turned the video off.

Logical Fallacy Lesson 3, Non Sequitor
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL3NS

Non Sequitor is Latin for "It does not follow." When someone says "It does not follow" in Latin, they are basically accusing you of a logical error, the logical fallacy of Non Sequitor.

Now, I knew tons and tons of the logical fallacies long before I knew any of their titles or Latin translations. I'd know when someone was saying ad hominem or post hoc ergo propter hoc, I didn't know the Latin words, nor even categorize those logical fallacies, but I called them out when I heard them in debates.
I later learned that they had their own titles and categories, and I now use those titles and categories, because they're obviously helpful. When you categorize and give titles to logical errors, it makes them so much easier to refute (although annoying to some after a while).

Logical Fallacy Lesson 2, Red Herring
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL2RH

For Logical Fallacy Lesson 2, I'm doing "Red Herring." I find it rather boring to talk about, but it is very, very common. You can pin Red Herring on someone more often than almost any other fallacy, because Red Herring usually goes hand in hand with tons of other fallacies. It has it's own form, yes, but it partially comes in to play all the freakin' time. I've had millions of chances to call someone out on it, but I always forget to and I only attack the main fallacies the person makes. But every times someone ever makes a logical fallacy, consider if they are guilty of Red Herring as well.

Logical Fallacy Lesson 1, Argumentum Ad Hominem
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL1AAH

Here is the basic definition of Ad Hominem:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about A.
Therefore claim X is false.
That is ad hominem.

Now, unfortunately, the great stupid, ignorant mob of people who like to parade their foolishness on my blogs seem to have done just enough research to know ad hominem has something to do with insult or something in that general nature. So whenever I say something mean or insulting, they accuse me of ad hominem. They are guilty of the logical fallacy ad hominem and are hypocrites when they do so. Because, for the foolish, there is a huge misconception about the fallacy.

From an old MySpace Blog:

Boy Scouts of America
Category: News and Politics

"Duty to God Scouting maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise, the member declares, " On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law. ""

-- www.scouting.com , the BSA official webpage

"The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual can not serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law..."

-- www.scouting.com , the BSA official webpage

And old MySpace Blog:

Overkill a Theist
Category: Religion and Philosophy

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Christian Man
Date: Oct 7, 2006 12:23 PM

I believe in God, fix me, oh wait you can not fix me, I have a brain, should I say more?

------------------
My Response:

------------------

Unless you want to prove you don't have one. Which you... Pretty much already did.

Ad hominem mixed with bald assertion and non Sequitor. Three logical fallacies. Logical fallacy = logical error = illogical = stupid = you.

You avered a personal attack in attempt to refute an entire world view (or lack-of-a-world-view in this case). A completely unsupported attack as well, as you didn't explain, at all, whatsoever, how theism requires brains and atheism is the lack of them. And once this was so unsupported and riding on nothing but bare insult, your "reasoning" does not follow through to confirm your theist beliefs. Which would make you guilty of non Sequitor ("it does not follow") logical fallacy.

From my MySpace Blog:

Theist Argument 2: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog #140, Theist Argument 2, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Listen, folks, I feel like Crap right now, I really do. It's late, I've had a lot of work to do, a lot of emotional bullshit to wade through. I'm really not in the mood to mess around with theistic stupidity. Unfortunately what gets me angry is always what gets me happy. That is to say - What gets me happy is destroying what gets me angry. But I really just want to get to the happy part right now if you know what I'm saying.