I thought it best to post this, though at this point I know very few will care. Over the summer I started up a Network Engineer course. While this doesn't stop me from writing, it does stop me from having any hope of writing reliably. To this end, I'm going to take a break from even hoping of having a semblance of a regular update cycle and just start up a buffer. Chances are, I won't start up again till spring, but I may come back for the new year.
Sorry if you found my earlier posts and wanted to read more.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Mawiage!
I've found myself thinking about the debate about same sex marriage, and I've been struck by how unethical it is to support bans on marriage in the first place. I understand that religious factors and history have had a huge hand in the current situation, but I just can't see how we are currently able to defend laws against gay and lesbian unions. Of course, reading the bloody name of this blog illustrates the number one suspect, that society has swallowed another stupid pill. It's probably expected that I would back up the homosexual community on this one, but for the record, I've gotten to this place through a different path than most might expect. I'm not a huge fan of the lifestyle that seems to have been built around the concept of homosexuality. It seems overly concentrated on the superficial aspects of society. Frankly speaking, gay isn't something I should be able to hear is a person's voice or see in your clothes. The moment that the concept of a gay/lesbian lifestyle appeared in out world, that lifestyle started to separate itself from the actual attraction to the same sex that defines the minority. The way that this has been idolized and encouraged in our culture has me worried.
To me, sexual preference is a personal thing, and should be treated as such. I understand that for many years homosexuality was repressed in modern society and only now can a gay man love freely, but I would counter that sex itself and anything to do with sex was pretty repressed in modern society, and only now the concept of dealing with sex as opposed to ignoring it is openly accepted. I might be overstating my discomfort here, and would like to make it clear that what I am bothered by is the culture, not the act. It's just something I find an annoyance at best.
This is why the absolute hatred of homosexuals portrayed by conservative media bothers me so much. Looking at the Bible, and knowing the religious teachings, one can only conclude that religion in this case is an excuse, not a divine calling. I can't see how anyone could really want to hold one sin so high above the others when it comes to the source material. My personal guess is that it's a form of social inertia coupled with a bunch of people who think they can use religion as a socially acceptable way to openly hate someone. Despite what we say in public, all emotions feel good. Anger feels good. Endorphins, adrenalin, dopamine, it's all there making us feel good. I think that of all of the people holding signs and raving against gay marriage, perhaps only 1/10 of them really meanit with any sense of religious conviction.
Of those people that actually are worried about the issue, there are only two arguments I've heard of that holds any weight in my mind. The first is the concept of homosexuality as a sin. Despite the rarity of mentions in the Bible compared to other sins, there are some who feel that we shouldn't be allowing people to "live in sin" or allow it to be encouraged. Well, I did have a friend who came up with the only appropriate response; "Who doesn't sin?". It is also the cornerstone of the Christian faith, that all of us are tainted by sin and living a virtuous life isn't the path to heaven. Also, with that in mind, if our concern is that they will go to hell, then maybe some Christians should rethink their methods of saving people, because ostracizing and abusing these people is not likely to get them to change their views.
The other argument I hear has a little more merit and a little more meat for discussion. It involves concern about rewriting the definition to the word "marriage". Some of my family hold this view and have stated a good point, and I feel I should paraphrase one of them to do the argument justice. "I love my wife, I love her more deeply then anything in this world. I entered into a divine contract of marriage with her, and people are now wanting to lower the bar. I'm not going to deny homosexual people the right to love each other, but by redefining marriage you are fundamentally cheapening the title I have with my wife." I can see where this argument might have merit. After all, according to Christian doctrine, homosexuality is considered a sin, (though I consider it a very forgivable one) and the the argument stands as long as you personally aren't being hypocritical in its application (make certain you aren't wearing any cotton/polyester blends).
The main counter to this however is one of language. We seem to have had the unfortunate lack of foresight to adopt the same words for "union under God" and "union under Government", and we seem to be letting our wires be crossed. I for one (and a few others) think that we should follow through with the separate church and state thing that we hold so dear. As a Christian I actually am on the fence when it comes to gay marriage in the church, but I do think that there should be nothing that stops two people of the same sex getting the tax benefits that come with marriage via government. I'd say limit the government to performing "civil unions" and let marriage be a religion thing. That seems a reasonable way to clear up the confusion. If a homosexual couple want to be married under God, then they should talk to their religious leader.
Now that I've made what I feel on the matter clear, I'd like to raise a point of ethics. Whether or not I feel it is wrong, how can any of us abide by any law that limits activities based on sexual preference? As I said, sex has always been one of those touchy subjects that no one is comfortable with, but after cruising the internet for a while, one knows that guy on guy action isn't the weirdest thing out there. If we are talking about base perversion, then we should be looking at banning leather stores and equestrian shops just to be safe. Actually there isn't a single damn thing out there that hasn't been sexualized in one way or the other, so why this one fetish. Then again, it seems to me that this is mostly a generational thing. I'm not seeing too many actual gay haters out there who are under the age of 30. I really feel that if this were an alternate world and there were a movement trying to ban gay marriage as opposed to upholding the ban, we would hate them for it. Todays controversy it isn't the fact that the majority of people are against same sex marriage, it's that there is legal inertia, and a lot of people are indifferent.
At the end of the day, everyone's got a fetish. Some of them are freakier than others, but one of the core lessons when dealing with each other (in the bedroom and out) is the acceptance that everyone is different, and what works for me won't necessarily work for you. What turns me on might disgust others, and that which turns Fred from my carpool on will most likely turn me off. This is okay, It doesn't mean he's right or wrong, just different. If a person is morally offended by homosexuals, I would ask them to re-examine this, cause from the looks of things, same sex marriage opponents seem to be mostly Christian. Most of these Christians seem to be protesting out of spite, and I think letting yourself treat anyone else differently due to spite is more deadly to the soul than a legion of rainbow wearing flaming homosexuals any day of the week. That's the bottom line here, folks. I don't support the homosexual community out of anything other than apathy. I don't care what they do in the bedroom, and I don't think the Government should either.
To me, sexual preference is a personal thing, and should be treated as such. I understand that for many years homosexuality was repressed in modern society and only now can a gay man love freely, but I would counter that sex itself and anything to do with sex was pretty repressed in modern society, and only now the concept of dealing with sex as opposed to ignoring it is openly accepted. I might be overstating my discomfort here, and would like to make it clear that what I am bothered by is the culture, not the act. It's just something I find an annoyance at best.
This is why the absolute hatred of homosexuals portrayed by conservative media bothers me so much. Looking at the Bible, and knowing the religious teachings, one can only conclude that religion in this case is an excuse, not a divine calling. I can't see how anyone could really want to hold one sin so high above the others when it comes to the source material. My personal guess is that it's a form of social inertia coupled with a bunch of people who think they can use religion as a socially acceptable way to openly hate someone. Despite what we say in public, all emotions feel good. Anger feels good. Endorphins, adrenalin, dopamine, it's all there making us feel good. I think that of all of the people holding signs and raving against gay marriage, perhaps only 1/10 of them really meanit with any sense of religious conviction.
Of those people that actually are worried about the issue, there are only two arguments I've heard of that holds any weight in my mind. The first is the concept of homosexuality as a sin. Despite the rarity of mentions in the Bible compared to other sins, there are some who feel that we shouldn't be allowing people to "live in sin" or allow it to be encouraged. Well, I did have a friend who came up with the only appropriate response; "Who doesn't sin?". It is also the cornerstone of the Christian faith, that all of us are tainted by sin and living a virtuous life isn't the path to heaven. Also, with that in mind, if our concern is that they will go to hell, then maybe some Christians should rethink their methods of saving people, because ostracizing and abusing these people is not likely to get them to change their views.
The other argument I hear has a little more merit and a little more meat for discussion. It involves concern about rewriting the definition to the word "marriage". Some of my family hold this view and have stated a good point, and I feel I should paraphrase one of them to do the argument justice. "I love my wife, I love her more deeply then anything in this world. I entered into a divine contract of marriage with her, and people are now wanting to lower the bar. I'm not going to deny homosexual people the right to love each other, but by redefining marriage you are fundamentally cheapening the title I have with my wife." I can see where this argument might have merit. After all, according to Christian doctrine, homosexuality is considered a sin, (though I consider it a very forgivable one) and the the argument stands as long as you personally aren't being hypocritical in its application (make certain you aren't wearing any cotton/polyester blends).
The main counter to this however is one of language. We seem to have had the unfortunate lack of foresight to adopt the same words for "union under God" and "union under Government", and we seem to be letting our wires be crossed. I for one (and a few others) think that we should follow through with the separate church and state thing that we hold so dear. As a Christian I actually am on the fence when it comes to gay marriage in the church, but I do think that there should be nothing that stops two people of the same sex getting the tax benefits that come with marriage via government. I'd say limit the government to performing "civil unions" and let marriage be a religion thing. That seems a reasonable way to clear up the confusion. If a homosexual couple want to be married under God, then they should talk to their religious leader.
Now that I've made what I feel on the matter clear, I'd like to raise a point of ethics. Whether or not I feel it is wrong, how can any of us abide by any law that limits activities based on sexual preference? As I said, sex has always been one of those touchy subjects that no one is comfortable with, but after cruising the internet for a while, one knows that guy on guy action isn't the weirdest thing out there. If we are talking about base perversion, then we should be looking at banning leather stores and equestrian shops just to be safe. Actually there isn't a single damn thing out there that hasn't been sexualized in one way or the other, so why this one fetish. Then again, it seems to me that this is mostly a generational thing. I'm not seeing too many actual gay haters out there who are under the age of 30. I really feel that if this were an alternate world and there were a movement trying to ban gay marriage as opposed to upholding the ban, we would hate them for it. Todays controversy it isn't the fact that the majority of people are against same sex marriage, it's that there is legal inertia, and a lot of people are indifferent.
At the end of the day, everyone's got a fetish. Some of them are freakier than others, but one of the core lessons when dealing with each other (in the bedroom and out) is the acceptance that everyone is different, and what works for me won't necessarily work for you. What turns me on might disgust others, and that which turns Fred from my carpool on will most likely turn me off. This is okay, It doesn't mean he's right or wrong, just different. If a person is morally offended by homosexuals, I would ask them to re-examine this, cause from the looks of things, same sex marriage opponents seem to be mostly Christian. Most of these Christians seem to be protesting out of spite, and I think letting yourself treat anyone else differently due to spite is more deadly to the soul than a legion of rainbow wearing flaming homosexuals any day of the week. That's the bottom line here, folks. I don't support the homosexual community out of anything other than apathy. I don't care what they do in the bedroom, and I don't think the Government should either.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Free Music?
So I mentioned before that a lot of the internet issues that exist today are basically caused by our fear of organizations violating net neutrality for unethical advantages in other fields of society. This is very thinly trying to not say that the RIAA are jerks. I refuse to be unbiased on this one. For over a decade, I have watched this battle on music copyrights escalate, and it has just gotten worse and worse. The escalation has been rather one sided, in my opinion. Though technical advances have occurred, the only real escalation from the downloaders has been what we can download in addition to music. The RIAA and MPAA on the other hand have become more and more draconian in their attempts to stem piracy. After reading a list of things that these companies have said and done, I have come to the conclusion that these organizations are actively causing suffering of their consumers for the sake of making profit. This to me speaks of certain lack of ethics and morals with the decision makers of these organizations.
This opens quite an interesting thought, and I feel it traces back to the old story of Robin Hood. It may not be legal, but fighting this evil is right. I think a lot of people out there justify downloading in that light. I've seen so many people take the title of pirate, and wear it proudly. I've also seen this rash of "coping isn't stealing" videos going around, and I think it's complete BS. The person you copy the song from isn't the person you're stealing from. Let's see you try that defense with counterfeiting and see how well you fare. I for one cannot see why there is a debate on this. Long story short, there is no magical defense that will make downloading content that has been produced for purchase a moral act. Movies that you don't want to buy, can be rented. If you only want one good song from a CD that is full of crap, you can get the song from iTunes or one of their competitors. If you don't want to give money to an organization that you feel is corrupt and evil, then the proper way of doing things is to do without. People who justify downloading are akin to a Robin Hood who steals from the rich and just keeps the money for himself, or a Robin Hood who feel good about what he does because he gives 10% of his loot to the poor. The idea doesn't fully fly.
The response from these companies isn't totally insane either, it's just outside of intelligence and good taste. A friend of mine addressed this on his site, and it makes sense. I don't really rag on the RIAA for trying to make people think twice about downloading copyrighted material, I rag on them for trying to manipulating statistics, using the debate as a platform to make money, attacking people via their ISPs, and so forth and so on. As I said, I don't mind the idea of making a particular action so costly that no one would do it, but I do mind using the idea as a way to make a quick buck. Their attempts to clarify law on the matter are also thinly veiled attempts to cement themselves into the world and maintain a monopoly on an outdated business model. It's comical in a way that only an over sized bureaucratic entity is able to provide. However, all this does is complicated the issue. Two wrongs never make a right, it just makes both people have reason to blame the other and not blame themselves.
Now I'm not a saint when it comes to this issue, nor am I going to be an absolute hard-ass. If you want to listen to a song once in a while, or just want to listen to it once or twice, then by all means, load up a video that uses the song. If you are trying to find a new band that you will like, feel free to download their album. All I'm saying is that until you pay money for listening to the music, then you are receiving a product you did not pay for. All that's really needed to understand where I am coming from is a basic understanding of exactly how commerce works. Remember how I said that I wouldn't paint everyone in the industry with a single brush? That's because musical production requires a lot of trained personnel. Even the most low tech studio I've ever seen, needed a trained person to mix and balance the artist's recordings. Then there are people involved in convincing stores to carry the product. I do believe in marketing, and its benefits to the world. Don't forget factory workers who do the mass production. Hell, all of these people deserve all the money they get. I'm not saying it balances out, but I do think that if you like the work an artist did, then all the people involved in the creation of it should be paid.
What is all boils down to is personal responsibility. While the corporation running the industry is fairly evil, that never gives us right to do evil back. If you receive a song that was meant to be purchased, and you like it, purchase it. If you don't like it, delete it. If you want to listen to it, but don't like it enough to buy it, make a decision and stop waffling. To all those people like me, who download music to discover new artists, make certain that you follow through and actually buy the music. I am guilty here, but it doesn't change the fact that I know what I should be doing to be in the right. If you dislike the RIAA, and their practices, then protest, start an activist group or buy CC. At the end of the day, I don't think of a pirate as an evil person stealing from hard working musicians, I think of them as Average Joes who are just too lazy to follow through on doing the right thing, and if we stop giving the RIAA reasons to do stupid shit, then maybe the law would back us up once in a while.
This opens quite an interesting thought, and I feel it traces back to the old story of Robin Hood. It may not be legal, but fighting this evil is right. I think a lot of people out there justify downloading in that light. I've seen so many people take the title of pirate, and wear it proudly. I've also seen this rash of "coping isn't stealing" videos going around, and I think it's complete BS. The person you copy the song from isn't the person you're stealing from. Let's see you try that defense with counterfeiting and see how well you fare. I for one cannot see why there is a debate on this. Long story short, there is no magical defense that will make downloading content that has been produced for purchase a moral act. Movies that you don't want to buy, can be rented. If you only want one good song from a CD that is full of crap, you can get the song from iTunes or one of their competitors. If you don't want to give money to an organization that you feel is corrupt and evil, then the proper way of doing things is to do without. People who justify downloading are akin to a Robin Hood who steals from the rich and just keeps the money for himself, or a Robin Hood who feel good about what he does because he gives 10% of his loot to the poor. The idea doesn't fully fly.
The response from these companies isn't totally insane either, it's just outside of intelligence and good taste. A friend of mine addressed this on his site, and it makes sense. I don't really rag on the RIAA for trying to make people think twice about downloading copyrighted material, I rag on them for trying to manipulating statistics, using the debate as a platform to make money, attacking people via their ISPs, and so forth and so on. As I said, I don't mind the idea of making a particular action so costly that no one would do it, but I do mind using the idea as a way to make a quick buck. Their attempts to clarify law on the matter are also thinly veiled attempts to cement themselves into the world and maintain a monopoly on an outdated business model. It's comical in a way that only an over sized bureaucratic entity is able to provide. However, all this does is complicated the issue. Two wrongs never make a right, it just makes both people have reason to blame the other and not blame themselves.
Now I'm not a saint when it comes to this issue, nor am I going to be an absolute hard-ass. If you want to listen to a song once in a while, or just want to listen to it once or twice, then by all means, load up a video that uses the song. If you are trying to find a new band that you will like, feel free to download their album. All I'm saying is that until you pay money for listening to the music, then you are receiving a product you did not pay for. All that's really needed to understand where I am coming from is a basic understanding of exactly how commerce works. Remember how I said that I wouldn't paint everyone in the industry with a single brush? That's because musical production requires a lot of trained personnel. Even the most low tech studio I've ever seen, needed a trained person to mix and balance the artist's recordings. Then there are people involved in convincing stores to carry the product. I do believe in marketing, and its benefits to the world. Don't forget factory workers who do the mass production. Hell, all of these people deserve all the money they get. I'm not saying it balances out, but I do think that if you like the work an artist did, then all the people involved in the creation of it should be paid.
What is all boils down to is personal responsibility. While the corporation running the industry is fairly evil, that never gives us right to do evil back. If you receive a song that was meant to be purchased, and you like it, purchase it. If you don't like it, delete it. If you want to listen to it, but don't like it enough to buy it, make a decision and stop waffling. To all those people like me, who download music to discover new artists, make certain that you follow through and actually buy the music. I am guilty here, but it doesn't change the fact that I know what I should be doing to be in the right. If you dislike the RIAA, and their practices, then protest, start an activist group or buy CC. At the end of the day, I don't think of a pirate as an evil person stealing from hard working musicians, I think of them as Average Joes who are just too lazy to follow through on doing the right thing, and if we stop giving the RIAA reasons to do stupid shit, then maybe the law would back us up once in a while.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Father's Day
Once again, I'll start things off with a warning. I've stated before that despite my beliefs and upbringing, I try to make this blog relevant and applicable to all, and this day it is not. Today this post will be very personal in nature, and will touch on religious overtones. Read on, though, you might like what I have to say. I refuse to apologize for this, cause the man I dedicate this post to is worth it. I love you, Dad.
Most things in my current life can be summed up in this paragraph. Six months ago, in January, I was laid off. Unlike others I have heard of, I did not panic, mainly because in the weeks previous my father and I had been discussing my future and came to the conclusion that getting laid off would be the best thing possible to happen to me. My father's foresight equipped me with a plan to land on my feet and prosper from this circumstance. Money was going to be tight, but my dad offered to let me move in for a few months so I could save (or in this case reduce spending to break even). While living with them, my dad provided moral support and motivation as I studied to upgrade my computer certifications and he always challenged me to think of new ways I could better myself, and though every suggestion sounded insane, he was never wrong. Now, despite being a computer geek living in my parent's basement, I have 3 different paths to success and a plan to move out within a month.
So it should come as no surprise that when I woke up this Sunday morning, I did what the day is dedicated to, thinking about all the things my father has provided for me, and how grateful I really should be. I like to have a certain egotistical attitude most of the time, but don't get me wrong, I know how pathetic I am. Everyone has that little voice in them telling them where they can improve and how they have screwed up. I know that growing up, I was not the model child, my parent had more then their fair share of parent-teacher meetings. I know I was the subject of more then one heated conversation between my parents. I know that I have often fallen very short of my potential and that my father has stood there in the background upset that I wouldn't live up to what I could be. I know that right now I fit most of the stereotypes of dead end man-child.
I also know what my dad will think when he reads the previous. It will be along the lines of, "Jordan, I am proud of you, you don't have to be perfect or successful, I will love you anyway." It always amazes me, too, just how willing he is to show his love. My father opened his house to me when I was going through a rough spot, it wasn't needed, but his generosity has allowed me to devote more attention to my future and not worry about struggling to survive. When I need to go anywhere in the city for anything of importance my father offers a ride at the drop of a hat, saying he's retired and he has time. When the possibility came up of me moving to a different city to get a job, he started talking about buying a house in the other city and becoming my landlord, provided I was point-of-contact for the other renter. Whenever I have had an issue and gave me distress, he has always had the right advice. Even those few times the advice didn't work, I could see that the underlying principles that were guiding him were always sound.
So when I was thinking all of these things I think it understandable that I felt a little undeserving. I am thankfully wise enough to know that I am not alone in this feeling, and that there are many out there who feel the same, but it's difficult to come up with a way to thank someone who has done so much for you for so little. His place in my life could only be described as one thing; a blessing.
This is when it hits me, and I understand why we call God the "Heavenly Father". What I feel for my dad today is exactly what Christians are called to feel towards God. All of the rhetoric of Christian worthlessness makes sense in this light. It's so hard to reconcile the love that we receive in light of how short we fall of our own potential and expectation. We know that no matter how much we fail, we would still receive this love, and we almost feel obligated to attempt to make ourselves worthy of this gift. As we strive forward to better ourselves, we try to explain ourselves, and it always comes out as 'we feel guilty and unworthy'. The response to this tends to be along the lines of 'accomplishment is not a requirement, I'm proud of you and love you anyway.' The thing that follows sums it all up, I feel it's the core of the call to perfection is simply this; 'Despite the fact the your love for me is unconditional, despite the fact that I get your blessings anyway, I want to better myself as a testimony to you and how wonderful you are. It isn't guilt that drives me, but my love for you that makes me want to become worthy. I love you.'
I love you Dad.
Thanks.
Most things in my current life can be summed up in this paragraph. Six months ago, in January, I was laid off. Unlike others I have heard of, I did not panic, mainly because in the weeks previous my father and I had been discussing my future and came to the conclusion that getting laid off would be the best thing possible to happen to me. My father's foresight equipped me with a plan to land on my feet and prosper from this circumstance. Money was going to be tight, but my dad offered to let me move in for a few months so I could save (or in this case reduce spending to break even). While living with them, my dad provided moral support and motivation as I studied to upgrade my computer certifications and he always challenged me to think of new ways I could better myself, and though every suggestion sounded insane, he was never wrong. Now, despite being a computer geek living in my parent's basement, I have 3 different paths to success and a plan to move out within a month.
So it should come as no surprise that when I woke up this Sunday morning, I did what the day is dedicated to, thinking about all the things my father has provided for me, and how grateful I really should be. I like to have a certain egotistical attitude most of the time, but don't get me wrong, I know how pathetic I am. Everyone has that little voice in them telling them where they can improve and how they have screwed up. I know that growing up, I was not the model child, my parent had more then their fair share of parent-teacher meetings. I know I was the subject of more then one heated conversation between my parents. I know that I have often fallen very short of my potential and that my father has stood there in the background upset that I wouldn't live up to what I could be. I know that right now I fit most of the stereotypes of dead end man-child.
I also know what my dad will think when he reads the previous. It will be along the lines of, "Jordan, I am proud of you, you don't have to be perfect or successful, I will love you anyway." It always amazes me, too, just how willing he is to show his love. My father opened his house to me when I was going through a rough spot, it wasn't needed, but his generosity has allowed me to devote more attention to my future and not worry about struggling to survive. When I need to go anywhere in the city for anything of importance my father offers a ride at the drop of a hat, saying he's retired and he has time. When the possibility came up of me moving to a different city to get a job, he started talking about buying a house in the other city and becoming my landlord, provided I was point-of-contact for the other renter. Whenever I have had an issue and gave me distress, he has always had the right advice. Even those few times the advice didn't work, I could see that the underlying principles that were guiding him were always sound.
So when I was thinking all of these things I think it understandable that I felt a little undeserving. I am thankfully wise enough to know that I am not alone in this feeling, and that there are many out there who feel the same, but it's difficult to come up with a way to thank someone who has done so much for you for so little. His place in my life could only be described as one thing; a blessing.
This is when it hits me, and I understand why we call God the "Heavenly Father". What I feel for my dad today is exactly what Christians are called to feel towards God. All of the rhetoric of Christian worthlessness makes sense in this light. It's so hard to reconcile the love that we receive in light of how short we fall of our own potential and expectation. We know that no matter how much we fail, we would still receive this love, and we almost feel obligated to attempt to make ourselves worthy of this gift. As we strive forward to better ourselves, we try to explain ourselves, and it always comes out as 'we feel guilty and unworthy'. The response to this tends to be along the lines of 'accomplishment is not a requirement, I'm proud of you and love you anyway.' The thing that follows sums it all up, I feel it's the core of the call to perfection is simply this; 'Despite the fact the your love for me is unconditional, despite the fact that I get your blessings anyway, I want to better myself as a testimony to you and how wonderful you are. It isn't guilt that drives me, but my love for you that makes me want to become worthy. I love you.'
I love you Dad.
Thanks.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Net Neutrality pt 2
I give up. For 2 weeks I've tried to come up with various problems that exist on the internet that network neutrality violations could fix, but I've failed. I've gone so far as to look at the parliamentary submissions from various ISPs. There is only one justifiable debate on violating network neutrality, traffic shaping to ensure Quality of Service (QoS) vs Peer to Peer (P2P) usage. I thought I had some form of argument on that score, until I read BitTorrent's late submission to the commission. After reading all of this, I've determined that the ISPs are whooped, they don't have a leg to stand on.
Even before reading BitTorrents reply, they didn't have a leg to stand on. The main argument is that P2P usage causes congestion on the internet and that requires a management via "traffic shaping". "Traffic Shaping", for the curious, is the practice of forcibly slowing down, or "throttling", the internet usage of certain applications to allow room for other applications to work. They seem to make it clear that they blame P2P traffic for congesting the network and they have to manage this themselves for the sake of time sensitive traffic, like IPTV, VoIP, and live streaming. They all admit that they use Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) for this. This means that they track what a user is doing and act accordingly. I have a three simple problems with this.
The first problem I have is that throttling, ethically, should be controlled by the user. I've seen too many technical issues where a person has flooded their line with Torrent traffic and thus had nothing left for browsing. Setting up a speed cap for the program in question solved the issue, albeit the internet was slow for the user. If they had a problem with that, the advanced settings allowed the user to schedule the programs network usage, so the program would only download when they weren't home. While not perfect, it did the job. ISPs doing this for you is a different deal. They are claiming your downloading is affecting other people's lines, and state that as reason for interference. The only reason congestion would ever really be a problem would be because the ISPs have treated the internet like the banks treated money. Banks loan out more money then they have on deposit. (Here's a video on the subject). ISPs promise more bandwidth than they have available thinking that they can juggle their customers as long as everyone doesn't demand usage at once, collectively everyone will stagger their usage. This doesn't work out so perfectly, leading to "peak usage" times, where everyone does use their internet at once. So, ISPs took a shortcut, and they want to make the user pay the price. This inherently seems wrong to me. Hell, we accept the shortcut because we all benefit, but discriminating to lesson the shortcut's impact sets a bed precedent.
My second issue is one of trust. I mentioned in my previous post that a lot of the concerns Network Neutrality proponents raise deal more with the concept of fear that the ISPs will misuse this power. What I didn't mention is that they are right. Corporations, in my experience have not earned our trust and never will. The fundamental problem here is that corporations tell us that the customer is number one, but they rarely are. Shareholders are number one, this means profit is number one and customers don't like hearing that truth. Over and over again we see proof that the corporate structure is not one that leads to our best interests. They will sell us out if they think they have a chance of doing so and us still giving them our money. Also, just because they are large organizations that deals with something outside of the average person's comprehension doesn't automatically mean that they make the right choice, it just means that they have a better chance of not getting caught. DPI and other methods of traffic shaping involve a level of privacy invasion that these companies have not earned the right to use.
Lastly, one thing had struck me through reading all of these official governmental papers. One line keeps cropping up; Market Forces. It's true that corporations built the internet without legal promoting to fulfill the consumer's needs. However, the government is stepping in because ISPs aren't using market forces to fix the issue, they are using rationing. I might be in the minority here, but I had no problem with high usage fees. My provider caps my data traffic at something like 100 Gigs per month, then afterwards they charge me something like $2 per Gig. I rarely break this cap. I think I did it once when I downloaded the entire archive of OCRemix after a computer crash. I have a friend who downloads a lot of audio books though, and he regularly breaks the cap. We both feel it's fair that we pay a little extra for heavy usage, (he feel the markup cost of $2 a gig is a little extreme though.) In both cases, we change our habits to limit our network usage in response to this. I pay for a higher speed, I'm fine with paying for using it a lot, but I'm not fine with paying for something and only being able to use it some of the time for some things for reasons that are artificial. It bothers me that they defend themselves citing the wonders of market forces when their reliance of traffic shaping indicated a failure of those same forces.
All of this ignores BitTorrent's reply to these ISPs' comments, which mentions that most P2P clients use Torrent protocols that ultimately reduce network. Better yet, they are about to release this uTP technology, that will self-throttle making all of this a moot point, as file sharing will no longer cause congestion.
Well fuck, I just wasted a lot of time.
Note: This is a lot more technical than I like, sorry about that. So many wiki links...
Reference Links
ISP Submissions
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1029651.pdf
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1241688.DOC
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1242429.DOC
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1029682.pdf
Even before reading BitTorrents reply, they didn't have a leg to stand on. The main argument is that P2P usage causes congestion on the internet and that requires a management via "traffic shaping". "Traffic Shaping", for the curious, is the practice of forcibly slowing down, or "throttling", the internet usage of certain applications to allow room for other applications to work. They seem to make it clear that they blame P2P traffic for congesting the network and they have to manage this themselves for the sake of time sensitive traffic, like IPTV, VoIP, and live streaming. They all admit that they use Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) for this. This means that they track what a user is doing and act accordingly. I have a three simple problems with this.
The first problem I have is that throttling, ethically, should be controlled by the user. I've seen too many technical issues where a person has flooded their line with Torrent traffic and thus had nothing left for browsing. Setting up a speed cap for the program in question solved the issue, albeit the internet was slow for the user. If they had a problem with that, the advanced settings allowed the user to schedule the programs network usage, so the program would only download when they weren't home. While not perfect, it did the job. ISPs doing this for you is a different deal. They are claiming your downloading is affecting other people's lines, and state that as reason for interference. The only reason congestion would ever really be a problem would be because the ISPs have treated the internet like the banks treated money. Banks loan out more money then they have on deposit. (Here's a video on the subject). ISPs promise more bandwidth than they have available thinking that they can juggle their customers as long as everyone doesn't demand usage at once, collectively everyone will stagger their usage. This doesn't work out so perfectly, leading to "peak usage" times, where everyone does use their internet at once. So, ISPs took a shortcut, and they want to make the user pay the price. This inherently seems wrong to me. Hell, we accept the shortcut because we all benefit, but discriminating to lesson the shortcut's impact sets a bed precedent.
My second issue is one of trust. I mentioned in my previous post that a lot of the concerns Network Neutrality proponents raise deal more with the concept of fear that the ISPs will misuse this power. What I didn't mention is that they are right. Corporations, in my experience have not earned our trust and never will. The fundamental problem here is that corporations tell us that the customer is number one, but they rarely are. Shareholders are number one, this means profit is number one and customers don't like hearing that truth. Over and over again we see proof that the corporate structure is not one that leads to our best interests. They will sell us out if they think they have a chance of doing so and us still giving them our money. Also, just because they are large organizations that deals with something outside of the average person's comprehension doesn't automatically mean that they make the right choice, it just means that they have a better chance of not getting caught. DPI and other methods of traffic shaping involve a level of privacy invasion that these companies have not earned the right to use.
Lastly, one thing had struck me through reading all of these official governmental papers. One line keeps cropping up; Market Forces. It's true that corporations built the internet without legal promoting to fulfill the consumer's needs. However, the government is stepping in because ISPs aren't using market forces to fix the issue, they are using rationing. I might be in the minority here, but I had no problem with high usage fees. My provider caps my data traffic at something like 100 Gigs per month, then afterwards they charge me something like $2 per Gig. I rarely break this cap. I think I did it once when I downloaded the entire archive of OCRemix after a computer crash. I have a friend who downloads a lot of audio books though, and he regularly breaks the cap. We both feel it's fair that we pay a little extra for heavy usage, (he feel the markup cost of $2 a gig is a little extreme though.) In both cases, we change our habits to limit our network usage in response to this. I pay for a higher speed, I'm fine with paying for using it a lot, but I'm not fine with paying for something and only being able to use it some of the time for some things for reasons that are artificial. It bothers me that they defend themselves citing the wonders of market forces when their reliance of traffic shaping indicated a failure of those same forces.
All of this ignores BitTorrent's reply to these ISPs' comments, which mentions that most P2P clients use Torrent protocols that ultimately reduce network. Better yet, they are about to release this uTP technology, that will self-throttle making all of this a moot point, as file sharing will no longer cause congestion.
Well fuck, I just wasted a lot of time.
Note: This is a lot more technical than I like, sorry about that. So many wiki links...
Reference Links
ISP Submissions
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1029651.pdf
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1241688.DOC
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1242429.DOC
* http://www.crtc.gc.ca/public/partvii/2008/8646/c12_200815400/1029682.pdf
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Net Neutrality
For those non-techies, What is Net Neutrality? Well, leaving my opinion out of it, it's the debate over how much control Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should have over the internet. As it stands, the internet is very much like the road system, we pay for gas, and we drive on the road. There are rules of the road that exist to make things go smoothly. The rules of the internet currently read "first come, first serve" which means everyone has as much right to be there as the other, much like the rules at a stop sign (at least in most of Canada) and this works well. Here's the difference between my analogy and reality, the roads are publicly owned, and the internet is privately owned by various organizations. Let's extend my metaphor and imagine that roads are privately owned. One problem that does exist in this circumstance is that roads are busy things, as a road gets busier, eventually you need to upgrade things to make it work out. If a "Stop" sign gets busy, it's time to install a light. Net Neutrality proponents want regulations in place to prevent corporations from deciding that instead of expanding the infrastructure, they would rather set up a "Premium Service" and give priority at stop signs to those that pay for it, leaving non payers waiting until all the premium members had left. There a few other things involved with Net Neutrality, but if you don't already know about it, and are curious, I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Net Neutrality has gained many proponents, mainly because a lot of people are afraid that these companies will attempt to control more and more of what a consumer will be able to do with the internet. Frankly, a lot of the stuff I hear kinda comes off as this sci-fi dystopia corporate overlord paranoia. "They will will control all that we see, and track all that we do. The poor will be treated as second class citizens and be allowed only the dregs of the internet left over from the rich. Small businesses will be marginalized as they are denied the power of the internet and find their customers going to the larger companies. The RIAA will use proprietary information to stifle all forms of illegal downloading, and then start to track your movements and charge you a quarter every time you hear a song." Another batch of fears seems directed at the younger generation fearing the older. "Video game bandwidth will be forcibly limited for the benefit of "UberCorp's High Definition On Demand Television, Best of the 80s™". Youtube will only load at speed if you pay for it too." The horrible thing is, even though it sounds like an Orwell book, I don't think such things are unrealistic as a fear, just will appear in a more subtle form.
The corporations in this case seem to hold this view that new rules are not needed because they would never do such a thing. Such rules would also prevent beneficial services being offered to the public. Frankly, they are right. I feel that proponents of Net Neutrality are preying off of our fear of control and proposing ridiculous scenarios to gain support. There is a lot to be said for optimizing the internet and prioritizing it's use. After all, while we all use the roads, the moment we see flashing lights of an emergency vehicle, we pull over. Trucks tend to get their own lane for our convenience. The internet is a hundred times more complex and more likely to benefit from such rules. This covers much of the debate, and before even researching the corporate views, I can see some points on their side, however, to illustrate this point, you either need to know exactly how the internet works (on a physical level) or have someone explain it to you.
Time for a lesson on Internet 101. If you know this stuff, feel free to skip a paragraph or two. This is coming from a few years bouncing around various levels of Verizon Online's company and my own education.
The internet is not a thing. In any logical schematic of a computer network, professionals always visualize the internet as a cloud. It's thousand, millions of computers that are working with a brilliant organizational communication protocol that allows them to work together to let anyone talk to anyone. If any particular path becomes congested, information is automatically rerouted to paths that are open. Various groups created technologies that allowed the average man to navigate the network without needing an IT specialist to help. Since it is often looked upon as a singular entity, people have developed funny ideas on how things on the internet work. Some people think that when they buy it from their ISP, that the ISP has control over everything, they are wrong.
The Internet itself is basically run by half a dozen companies that maintain individual aspects of the foundations that makes up the internet. ISPs go to these people and buy service from them at bulk, and then sell service packages to you, the consumer (good thing, it would be a nightmare otherwise). Since originally it was too expensive to create a whole new infrastructure to accommodate this new technology, ISPs found ways of using existing mediums for data transfer, whether it be analog noise via phone lines, electrical signals via copper cable wires (redundant term when you think of it). They give you a device that translates your computer's standard networking signal into something to be transfered over their pre-existing system, then they build a centralized server into the existing infrastructure that translates this data back into computer-speak and connects that to the internet. These systems also provides you with the package of services needed to actually do stuff online. All they are responsible for is that signal over their network, whether it be phone or cable.
Here's where it gets fun. The connection that centralized server has is ridiculously fast, but it's built to service hundreds to thousands of people. The existing networks that the ISPs use, however, have different qualities in different locations. These were not built specifically to handle internet so different areas, and sometimes different houses on the same street, have radically different capabilities when it comes to the strength of the signal they are able to send. In a lot of cases this is simply a matter 100-200 kilobytes per second, but the company would like to be able to market a standard of some kind instead of saying "whatever we can give you". They also prefer to charge you per month as the high speed services are always on, and charging per byte of information is just asking for trouble. So the companies standardize what is can promise to provide at bear minimum on low end networks. Most lines can actually handle a signal that would give you a few bites over what is advertised, but they purposely send a signal that is only in line to the speed package you are paying for. This works, it's fair. What about those with newer wires that can handle a stronger signal? Then those in a better area have the option of paying more to get a higher speed of internet that is possible by the improved wire. I'd like to note that this wire was there already for another service that they offer, and we are only talking about the connection between you and the centralized server, so they are basically charging you more so they don't slow you down as much. I don't have a problem with this, it's really the only sane way to manage something like this, while keeping it fair. I just want to establish that the ISP companies already are in the practice of not providing you with the best service possible, just the service you agreed to.
Another aspect come up. There are two sides of the equation here, sending and receiving information. Well, on average, unless you are using P2P(link) network programs, you are often going to be downloading (receiving) much more then you upload (send). With this in mind, ISPs provide packages geared towards connections that have a much lower upload speed then download. That reserves space on the central server for business owners who run website servers. Again, good idea. Provide what is needed to who needs it, this works for the average person. Alright, that covers the basics. Now for the opinions.
Enter the people who know what they are doing. I'll tell you this truly, ISPs hate "expert" users. Despite the fact that they are often the people that build and maintain the technology they profit from, whether it's a network engineer or an enthusiastic hobbyist, the "tech-savvy" cause the largest headaches for ISPs despite the fact that they are needed so much. We often know their system as well as they do, or we know just enough to get ourselves into trouble. We know what to expect from our internet and know what we can do with it. Worst of all, and let's face it, we do things we shouldn't do. We push the boundaries of their service, forcing them to accommodate things they are not in control of, or prepared for. When we screw up and affect other people, they hold the ISPs responsible. We are the ones who constantly call for faster internet, and then find new ways to use the speed provided, so that we need more yet again. Basically, we force them out of their comfort zone, and hold them to task for their mistakes. What's worse is that we feel entitled to our web wasting ways. The problem is, that we are entitled to it. If the world is to keep developing, then boundaries must be pushed. When boundaries are pushed, we see the cracks, sometimes we make those cracks, sometimes we just notice what was already there, but in either case, whether we work for them or pay them for service, we are the discoverer and messengers of bad news.
Not only that, we ask for things that no normal person would ever need. The average user doesn't notice or care when the internet drops for a second, or even a minute. Often they are reading a website that has already been saved on their computer. The gamer playing a game online notices it, and they speak up. The average person doesn't use the internet all the time, most people just need internet access when they want it, ISPs can manage their network more efficiently with DHCP, customers don't need a static IP address,. The guy who want to host an ftp server from his house does, and he speak up. The average person needs far less upload speed then they need download and never even notice the difference, the file sharer running a torrent notices. In some cases the ISP regulate the problem away. It's in the Terms of Service that you cannot run a server off of a residential line. If you want to do extra stuff, buy a business line, pay for the service you want. Fair. Other times they are forced by other technologies to up their standards. Just before I was laid off, Verizon introduced some great tools where I could reduce ping speed for increased stability. Cool. Others are in legal gray areas and that is where a lot of the debate comes from. However it happens, it always ends up that the average user never complains, and the tech-savvy guy just doesn't like the fact that the rules to the game have changed.
There are problems, and solutions, but I think I'll make this topic a two parter. Frankly, I don't think this is a case of "Big Bad Corporate Daddy" stepping on the little guy. I think there are legitimate problems here, that they have a right to address. Most of the restrictions are concessions to how a business must be run, but there usually is a way to do what we want to do, within reason. The major issue is that none of us can talk about what we really want to talk about, because it involves another ongoing moral battle. We want our file sharing. Most of us are fine with these little concessions we have to make in order for the internet to work, we understand this, but as long as we feel like there are groups out there who will manipulate the market to bypass the moral issue, we won't trust ISPs to make any changes for fear that it will become a weapon against us. It's at this point "us" and "them" should disappear. As long as there is an us/them duality, we are just going to react against a perceived agenda and make each other hate each other more. When that happens all of those little concessions we made because they just made things work, become ammunition in our hands on how we have been wronged. As long as we do this "us/them" thing, there will be no resolution, and no point.
I know there is more to the issue, I don't feel done in my thoughts on this, more next week.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thoughts on Free Will
While I hate to start things off on such a religious note, I feel I must. I am trying to make this applicable to everyone, not just one subset of people. This point however is built purely from a Christian standpoint. I've thought quite a bit about this, and since it seems to drive my morals and ethics so much, it is the only place I can start. This also ends up addressing one of the more difficult theological questions that exist. My answers run a little contrary to how most Christians believe.
Why are we here? It's asked by everyone at one point or another. Christians are taught that God created us. (I'm not debating the method of creation today.) However, we are not the first creations. Before light came his messengers, commonly thought of as angels. So, the act of creation can not be the sole reason for our existence. What we are commonly told is that God created man because unlike His angels, we have free will. We can choose. This becomes very important. If this is true, then free will is the point. Existence itself is due to our ability to choose. The logical fallout from this is pretty powerful.
One of the overwhelming theological questions is now very simple to answer. "Why would a loving caring God allow suffering?" Two reasons, as SMBC so aptly put it; Firstly, nature cares not for man, secondly, people are dicks. More to the point, people choose to be dicks. I do not think that God overly cares about our comfort or our suffering, these are simply side effects of living and choosing. Furthermore, it's rather arrogant of us to assume that suffering a bad thing. I've gone through tough times and tribulations and I will go so far as to say that I am defined by my pains. Through my suffering I have learned patience, compassion, tolerance and control. I'm certain that nearly everyone can mention a time when suffering a little has improved us. I think that the end product of our lives is not measured in comfort or happiness, but by the quality of our character.
Another thing that comes from this is the unfortunate revelation of just how wrong Christians have been in the past and in the present. We cannot take a person's choice from them. Not only is it arrogant and presumptive to force our moral codes onto others, it is WRONG! Every time I read of people trying to change a law to make it conform to Christian dogma, every time I hear of converts made via the threats of hell, ever time I hear of another faith being attacked in the name of God, I feel shame. It makes all Christians seem like monsters, and the results are wasted. If the universe really did work on a merit system where our sins are tallied against us, a person who made a correct choice because they had no choice at all, or feared reprisals from others, did not make a choice at all, thus would gain no credit for their actions. However, the one who removed the choice from said person has committed the sin of removing from that person God's most precious gift, free will. Jesus' message spoke of not worrying about the individual rules and instead focused on being a good person. This is something that you cannot force someone to do. Long story short; forcing Christian morality on others is the exact opposite of what God intended (but we are still free to make that mistake).
The final conclusion I come to from the importance of free will is this; it is in God's plan for us to say no. The fact that we can say "No" is what makes us saying "Yes" all the more special. If God wanted us to choose to worship him, then it is critical that we take that choice with the weight that it is due.
I am reminded of a discussion I had with a minister on the subject of speaking in tongues. I've never felt the need or desire for this. I've gotten carried away in church before, I've fell down, I've danced, but I've never felt the need to ramble incoherently. He was of the mindset that it was a blessing, blessings are inherently good, therefore it was inconceivable that I should not receive this blessing. Now, just to make it clear, I'm not disrespecting those that speak in tongues. I can see how the ability to not worry about words during worship makes sense, it's just something I felt I've never needed. God granted me the ability to never be at a loss for words. I've never been in a position where I've felt words were limiting. I'd also like to make it clear that the minister in question is a good man, he's one of the best teachers I've ever had the privilege to listen to. So to have this battle of wills between this man and I was a strange thing. His insistence placed me in the position of faking it and thus lying to God, or outright defying him. We've had a similar discussion about baptism. His point of view is valid, but I feel that such choices about God should be made with more feeling and conviction then "All right, I guess so." He is right that blessings are good things, but forcing such things on people taint these gifts and cheapen them for the rest.
This all goes to reinforce what I feel is a core rule of my life. No man has the right to remove free will from another. In fact, doing so is one of the greatest sins conceivable, for in doing so, you remove from your fellow man his most precious quality. Since this is one of the most important things, a Christian who feels called to do things for the good of others must gauge their actions against the possibility that we may be removing from someone else the choice to do the right thing themselves. This comes with it the risk of us being disappointed when the person makes the wrong choice, and we have every right to express that disappointment, but that's as far as it goes. We cannot force them to not make that mistake. (Within reason of course. I can come up with many exceptions to the rule.) This is the price and the responsibility that comes from us having the ability to choose, we must respect that others will choose differently.
I'm sorry that this had such a Christian bent to it, I want my writing to be understandable and accessible to all. As a side note here, I really hope that you can agree with the concept of treating free will with the utmost respect, and hold to the ideal that in every way possible we should protect this. I don't feel that this is an ideal that requires religion for validation.
Why are we here? It's asked by everyone at one point or another. Christians are taught that God created us. (I'm not debating the method of creation today.) However, we are not the first creations. Before light came his messengers, commonly thought of as angels. So, the act of creation can not be the sole reason for our existence. What we are commonly told is that God created man because unlike His angels, we have free will. We can choose. This becomes very important. If this is true, then free will is the point. Existence itself is due to our ability to choose. The logical fallout from this is pretty powerful.
One of the overwhelming theological questions is now very simple to answer. "Why would a loving caring God allow suffering?" Two reasons, as SMBC so aptly put it; Firstly, nature cares not for man, secondly, people are dicks. More to the point, people choose to be dicks. I do not think that God overly cares about our comfort or our suffering, these are simply side effects of living and choosing. Furthermore, it's rather arrogant of us to assume that suffering a bad thing. I've gone through tough times and tribulations and I will go so far as to say that I am defined by my pains. Through my suffering I have learned patience, compassion, tolerance and control. I'm certain that nearly everyone can mention a time when suffering a little has improved us. I think that the end product of our lives is not measured in comfort or happiness, but by the quality of our character.
Another thing that comes from this is the unfortunate revelation of just how wrong Christians have been in the past and in the present. We cannot take a person's choice from them. Not only is it arrogant and presumptive to force our moral codes onto others, it is WRONG! Every time I read of people trying to change a law to make it conform to Christian dogma, every time I hear of converts made via the threats of hell, ever time I hear of another faith being attacked in the name of God, I feel shame. It makes all Christians seem like monsters, and the results are wasted. If the universe really did work on a merit system where our sins are tallied against us, a person who made a correct choice because they had no choice at all, or feared reprisals from others, did not make a choice at all, thus would gain no credit for their actions. However, the one who removed the choice from said person has committed the sin of removing from that person God's most precious gift, free will. Jesus' message spoke of not worrying about the individual rules and instead focused on being a good person. This is something that you cannot force someone to do. Long story short; forcing Christian morality on others is the exact opposite of what God intended (but we are still free to make that mistake).
The final conclusion I come to from the importance of free will is this; it is in God's plan for us to say no. The fact that we can say "No" is what makes us saying "Yes" all the more special. If God wanted us to choose to worship him, then it is critical that we take that choice with the weight that it is due.
I am reminded of a discussion I had with a minister on the subject of speaking in tongues. I've never felt the need or desire for this. I've gotten carried away in church before, I've fell down, I've danced, but I've never felt the need to ramble incoherently. He was of the mindset that it was a blessing, blessings are inherently good, therefore it was inconceivable that I should not receive this blessing. Now, just to make it clear, I'm not disrespecting those that speak in tongues. I can see how the ability to not worry about words during worship makes sense, it's just something I felt I've never needed. God granted me the ability to never be at a loss for words. I've never been in a position where I've felt words were limiting. I'd also like to make it clear that the minister in question is a good man, he's one of the best teachers I've ever had the privilege to listen to. So to have this battle of wills between this man and I was a strange thing. His insistence placed me in the position of faking it and thus lying to God, or outright defying him. We've had a similar discussion about baptism. His point of view is valid, but I feel that such choices about God should be made with more feeling and conviction then "All right, I guess so." He is right that blessings are good things, but forcing such things on people taint these gifts and cheapen them for the rest.
This all goes to reinforce what I feel is a core rule of my life. No man has the right to remove free will from another. In fact, doing so is one of the greatest sins conceivable, for in doing so, you remove from your fellow man his most precious quality. Since this is one of the most important things, a Christian who feels called to do things for the good of others must gauge their actions against the possibility that we may be removing from someone else the choice to do the right thing themselves. This comes with it the risk of us being disappointed when the person makes the wrong choice, and we have every right to express that disappointment, but that's as far as it goes. We cannot force them to not make that mistake. (Within reason of course. I can come up with many exceptions to the rule.) This is the price and the responsibility that comes from us having the ability to choose, we must respect that others will choose differently.
I'm sorry that this had such a Christian bent to it, I want my writing to be understandable and accessible to all. As a side note here, I really hope that you can agree with the concept of treating free will with the utmost respect, and hold to the ideal that in every way possible we should protect this. I don't feel that this is an ideal that requires religion for validation.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Introduction
You know, I started to write this huge rant, on how angry it makes me that people in the world actively cause suffering for no reason, but I realized that it might be wiser to start with an introduction. I don't think anyone will care, but it is at least polite.
My name is easy enough to find, Jordan Cunningham. I'm a 25 year old male living in London, Ontario, Canada. Raised Christian, still one, but I like to think that I've got the whole "do unto others" thing and the "love your brother" thing down pat, as opposed to the "I'll convert you for JESUS"philosophy that is so popular with the media. I'm opinionated, I like to think of myself as a nice guy, I got a few trustworthy friends who do worthwhile things online. Might link them from time to time.
Now to get beyond the basics. I think I am smarter then average. I know this seems to be an arrogant statement, but it's just the fact that I can't stop thinking. If something does not seem right to me, I need to see why, and sometime, when I see why, I feel this need to see how it can be fixed. Often I fail on that last one, but it's the single minded obsession with these thoughts that has brought me here. I often walk down the street talking to myself working out some explination that makes sense to me for some stupid comments I heard an hour ago. It's not that I feel superior to people, trust me, I screw up enough to make sure that never happens, it's just that some of these solutions seem so simple to me.
So, I keep quiet about my opinions, cause no one likes a know it all, and I watch people on both sides of the fence yell and scream, and I always want to jump in and say, "Hey, is this really about what it is, cause if I could figure this stuff out, why haven't any of you?" In the end, I realize that human nature seems to grip us all, and always muddies the waters, and the best we can do is to police ourselves, and not to add to the problems of the world.
This brings me to the core of my philosophy. Really, it's based off of some stuff Jesus said, (note, I will NEVER quote The Bible, I'll talk on why later.) the love your brother as you love yourself bit. I've just turned it into "Don't be a dick, and don't be 'That Guy'." In the interests of not making this a huge rambling speech, I'll just say, that this pretty sums up who I am. Everything else about me I'd rather not pin down to any titles, political camps or theological philosophies, not until I have something specific to talk about.
I made this blog because, after the whole "Boobquake" ordeal, I got fed up with some of the stuff I read on this girl's comment section. It seemed to pointless, so inane, and I thought to myself, "I have all of these thoughts and speeches locked away in my head, on so many philosophical, political and moral issues, I never hear these opinions stated by anyone else in the world. Maybe I should start a blog or write a book or something. Get it out of my system." Well, the urge didn't go away after 3 days, so here we go.
Hopefully I won't come of as a total jerk.
My name is easy enough to find, Jordan Cunningham. I'm a 25 year old male living in London, Ontario, Canada. Raised Christian, still one, but I like to think that I've got the whole "do unto others" thing and the "love your brother" thing down pat, as opposed to the "I'll convert you for JESUS"philosophy that is so popular with the media. I'm opinionated, I like to think of myself as a nice guy, I got a few trustworthy friends who do worthwhile things online. Might link them from time to time.
Now to get beyond the basics. I think I am smarter then average. I know this seems to be an arrogant statement, but it's just the fact that I can't stop thinking. If something does not seem right to me, I need to see why, and sometime, when I see why, I feel this need to see how it can be fixed. Often I fail on that last one, but it's the single minded obsession with these thoughts that has brought me here. I often walk down the street talking to myself working out some explination that makes sense to me for some stupid comments I heard an hour ago. It's not that I feel superior to people, trust me, I screw up enough to make sure that never happens, it's just that some of these solutions seem so simple to me.
So, I keep quiet about my opinions, cause no one likes a know it all, and I watch people on both sides of the fence yell and scream, and I always want to jump in and say, "Hey, is this really about what it is, cause if I could figure this stuff out, why haven't any of you?" In the end, I realize that human nature seems to grip us all, and always muddies the waters, and the best we can do is to police ourselves, and not to add to the problems of the world.
This brings me to the core of my philosophy. Really, it's based off of some stuff Jesus said, (note, I will NEVER quote The Bible, I'll talk on why later.) the love your brother as you love yourself bit. I've just turned it into "Don't be a dick, and don't be 'That Guy'." In the interests of not making this a huge rambling speech, I'll just say, that this pretty sums up who I am. Everything else about me I'd rather not pin down to any titles, political camps or theological philosophies, not until I have something specific to talk about.
I made this blog because, after the whole "Boobquake" ordeal, I got fed up with some of the stuff I read on this girl's comment section. It seemed to pointless, so inane, and I thought to myself, "I have all of these thoughts and speeches locked away in my head, on so many philosophical, political and moral issues, I never hear these opinions stated by anyone else in the world. Maybe I should start a blog or write a book or something. Get it out of my system." Well, the urge didn't go away after 3 days, so here we go.
Hopefully I won't come of as a total jerk.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
