Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Deadpool - Fan Fic

This post has a link at the bottom to a Deadpool fan fiction that I did.

For those of you familiar with this Marvel character and his story archs, you will quickly recognize this scene I wrote as my own rendition of the opening to Deadpool Kills the Marvel Universe.

For those of you who are unfamiliar to Deadpool [real name Wade Wilson], I will give you the shortest synopsis of who he is.  He is an anti-hero, specifically a mercenary, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer.  In exchange for his mercenary services for the Weapon X Project, an experimental cure for cancer was tested on him.  The result was that Deadpool was literally immortalized, but his cancer also spread to the rest of his body.  So, now, Deadpool is infested all throughout his body with tumors.

For a better and more complete description of Deadpool's character, here is another link to a comic vine post about him:  Deadpool.

(I have a vague memory that you, Mr. Young, have a disliking for fan fiction.  So, knowing that, I am sorry for this.)

Here is the fan fic: Deadpool Script: Begining.

Monday, April 20, 2015

Definition of Lolicon and Why it is Illegal


Lolicon: a popular slang term that is the Japanese translation of Russell Trainer's book, The Lolita complex.  Specifically, lolicon is used, most often, to describe content featuring under-aged girls in hentai or manga or anime (as drawings or computer images) who are illicitly portrayed.

The origins of the title to Russell Trainer's book, Lolita complex, was from Vladimir Nabokov's book, Lolita, about an older man having sexual affairs with a 12-year-old girl named Lolita.


The PROTECT Act of 2003 prohibits... 

"(1) making a visual depiction that is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image of, or that is indistinguishable from an image of, a minor engaging in specified sexually explicit conduct; (2) knowingly advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting through the mails or in commerce, including by computer, any material that is or contains an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in such conduct..."

Though it is not commonplace, this federal definition of illicit material outlined by the PROTECT Act has sent a handful of men to prison, some for several years, for owning, importing, exporting, selling, viewing, and/or buying lolicon on the grounds that lolicon is "a visual depiction... of... a minor engaging in specified sexually explicit conduct".  That is an irrefutable fact; lolicon is just that. 


The ultimate goal of the PROTECT Act is to protect against, and prosecute accordingly, cases of sexual child abuse.  But is it okay that this law impinges on a person's ability to sexually satisfy themself?

It has been argued that you can't choose your sexuality.  That is one of the leading arguments for the right to homosexual marriage.  If there is no choice whether you like guys or girls, doesn't that mean you have just as little choice to whether you like children or adults?  And if so, shouldn't your sexual preferences be defended?  Or is it, no matter the case, unacceptable?

(Please understand that the questions posed in this post are about whether people should have the right to view drawings or computer images of sexually portrayed children, NOT if people should have the right to view pictures of real children, and much less participate in real sexual acts with them.)

There is no justification for an adult having sexual relations with children.  

There is also no justification for rape; and despite that, many people have rape fantasies that are, by law, acceptable.  There are entire websites devoted to people's recorded rape fantasies.  So, if rape fantasies are okay, why can't pedophilic fantasies be okay?  What's the difference?

Please, if you have your own thoughts on this subject, leave a comment below.

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

James' Opinion is Erroneous

In James' previous post, he simply stated that my allegation that dogs are better than cats was "false".  Well I am writing here, in this post, right now, to clarify that it is HE who is wrong in this argument!

(Mr. Young, this is not a part of my weekly posts.  Do not grade this post.)

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Top 5 Reasons Why God is Imperfect

This is a list of ideas that I have put together to prove, in my opinion, that God cannot ever be perfect.

#5:  He had to create Hell.  

If God is perfect, why does He feel it necessary to punish his own creations?  He sends his own children to Hell for their wrongdoings, yet those wrongdoings would never have happened if He hadn't created us.  Since He created us, doesn't the blame of our wrongdoings fall on him?  Shouldn't the creator be responsible for his creations?

#4:  He is nothing more than a concept.

We can only imagine a being of such divine power to create the world as we know it; and therefore our limited understanding of Him becomes imperfect.  Thus He can never exist in our world, in the world of the living, as something perfect.  I acknowledge that many believers in God do agree in some way or another with this idea, and I think that validates it even more.

#3:  He modeled man after himself.

If God created man in His image, then doesn't that mean He has an appendix?

#2:  He tricks His own children.

I've encountered the argument that God constantly tests his children's faith.  That is why there are dinosaur bones, pagan Gods, and the gift of your own free will.  What is the logic behind these tests?  A good analogy of this is if your own biological father tried to convince you that he didn't exist while, at the same time,  rewarding so long as you continued believing in him.  Why wouldn't God just lay out the rules, tell us straightforwardly that He exists, and in doing so leave no margin for error?  Is it because the Devil is constantly acting against Him by tempting us?  Well, that leads to the number one reason God is imperfect:

#1:  Out of Him came everything else in the world.

This is very similar to the first reason I gave in this post as to why God is imperfect.  Think of it this way:  God created everything, which means he spawned good and evil.  Lucifer came forth from God; therefore Lucifer is another one of God's creations; and finally that means God had to have some evil within himself to create an evil being.  Every horror that we can think of - war, famine, deceit, rape, abduction, Hell itself - must have come from God under the assumption that He is our creator.  How else could it have come to be if God is the source of everything in our world?

I cannot prove that He doesn't exist; but if He does, there is no doubt in my mind that He is more human, more like his own creations, than most of us think.  And that's not a bad thing.  He could still be as loving, benevolent, and powerful of a creator there could be.  He just not infallible.

There are countless different ideas about God and who or what He is to us and our universe.  For instance, the number five reason that I described to prove He isn't perfect wouldn't work with the Unitarian version of God:  Unitarians believe that God absolves everyone's sins and brings all His children to Heaven; no one goes to Hell to be tortured for eternity.  Also, there are people who believe God did create the world, but He did it trillions upon trillions of years ago, which explains the existence of prehistoric beasts and us evolving from apes.  Even still, there are versions of Him that say He is not one man that sits in Heaven, but rather He is everything at once - a cosmic entity that lives through its creations.  And there are many, many more ideas about what He really is.  No matter what, though, I will stand by my claim that He - the supposed creator of the world - cannot be perfect.

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Is There Something Else?

This post is an articulation of a complicated question.  There is no answer in this post, so if that's what you're looking for, you're not going to find it here (sorry).

Is there something else beyond our contemporary quantum-mechanical conception of the world?  Something that is not bound by physics, possibly never changes in any way?

Last year, I wrote a series of posts describing the multiverse theory.  One of them was about points of
singularity within black holes:  Points of singularity are the center of a black hole where density and space-time becomes infinite, possibly transforming all physical laws in some unknown way.  Another post described the multiverse theory supported by Hilbert space:  Hilbert space suggests that there is an infinite number of dimensions that come after the first four (length, height, width, and time); and this means that after transcending a certain amount of dimensions, objects will take different courses than in others, creating different universes.  In both these examples, physical laws will change and new kinds of worlds will emerge.

None of what I mentioned above is what I'm trying to describe.  What I mean to ask is is there something else than the physical world?  Something that is not composed of matter or missing matter?

Words fall short of what I'm trying to say, so picture this:  Even though you can't see it all, visualize
the entire world as you know it (planets, meteors, stars, galaxies, black holes, etc.); and keep in mind all that you know about the world that you know (science, history, math, etc.); and discard it all.  Put it in a box, swipe it off-screen, burn it, or do anything to it that gets rid of it.  Now ask yourself, what's left?  Is there nothing, or something?  Can something exist independently from our universe, or multiverse, that is still irrefutably real?  Another facet of reality?  Is what we consider as the universe some small part in an even bigger apparatus?

It is impossible for me to answer this question, and probably impossible for you, too.  This is nothing more than a concept that can never become anything more.