So I’m Back, and with Thoughts

In lieu of the whole Colorado shootings, a youtuber I’ve mentioned before, Philip DeFranco, put up a video which focused on the question of gun control and the point of having guns in the US.

Check out from 5:20

The question he poses is interesting because he asks about what’s okay in terms of arms ownership, and while I have my opinions, I’ll talk about them after I address some important facts.

The fact that the AR15 was made legal to own means that humans have access to the civilian equivalent of the M16 used by the military. Of course, this is relevant because the shootings in Colorado took place with an AR15 as one of the weapons. The question that needs to be asked is, would things have been this bad if the AR15 were still illegal. To that I would say that I’m not sure. Would the shooter still have had access to this weapon? I don’t know.

The second thing is a point that Phil mentioned from the perspective of pro-gun supporters, being that the second amendment means that it is possible to protect your family, and that everyone having guns will act as a deterrent. There are several issues embedded there; the first being that the second amendment was a civil war act that was meant to give protection to the families then. Congress and the senate just never got around to making that amendment null and void, and really, no one knows why. The second issue there is that of deterrent. The question of whether deterrents really work is about as big of a question as “am I pointing a gun at the Joker, or am I pointing it at commissioner Gordon?” if you happen to be pointing it at a single minded killer, it may not be enough to deter him. Essentially, the same thing happened throughout the entirety of the Cold War, just with bigger guns.

The third thing that I want to address, that Phil mentions, is the human element. The question of why it had to happen. I’m not a psychologist, so I can’t claim to know one way or another what the killer was thinking, but could more have been done? When I worked in security, I used to have a huge team, of about 8 to 10 people per theatre, present half an hour to an hour before a movie screening, doing a sweep of the theatre, and then using whatever means necessary to sweep for anything that may pose any kind of criminal risk. I’m not sure what measures were implemented here, though I would like to know if more could have been done.

So what do I think? In terms of gun control, I think that having weapons as deterrents is a bullshit excuse, and that there should be no weapons at all if you haven’t been trained to properly use them (i.e. police, military, SWAT), and if guns are used for hunting, they should be controlled by national park offices. Admittedly, it’s because guns are used “in defense” that they can be abused, and accessible at any time. If we could limit accessibility to special uses (such as hunting or shooting ranges), then we could control them better. No, it won’t stop people from misusing them, but then, no system is perfect.

The Perfect App…

or “Isn’t That a Familiar Tune?”

I realize that I’ve spent a lot of time in silence with myself lately, and I’ve had a little self debate about what to call this blog (I say little because I mean that in the literal sense!). I came to the conclusion that it probably is a little more self serving when it is more elusive.

As time passes, I think that the hardest part for anyone is the “growing up” phase. No matter how well we think we cope with it, ultimately, it is a super difficult thing to do because we tend to overthink and try to make life something separate from personal identity. This is not to say that we don’t grow up as ourselves; rather, I think that as humans growing up in today’s society such as it is, we tend to neglect the values which make us who we are, and act, in some ways, insincerely.

In a paper that I wrote for a seminar on the topic of personhood and the metaphysics of persons, I suggest that “what it is to be a person is just that some being has the
present or future potential to interact with the world in a morally meaningful way, and is able to make moral judgments about other interactions.” Granted, the paper itself may not be very good, the case still stands that one is a person if they can act with moral reason. This alone is an important idea, I think; we tend to say that people who kill just for shits and giggles are “monsters.” We say the same for serial killers too. Another interesting claim that people seem to make is that people who do good for amoral reasons are shallow (such as celebrities who give money to charities, and whom we judge as acting on the grounds of getting noticed). There’s a certain quality of human sincerity and moral meaningfulness that is implicit within “being human” as we might understand it, and without that we can’t really ever overcome the challenges of the “growing up” phase.

So why did I title this post “The Perfect App” and what does it have to do with anything? I got to thinking earlier that if I were an app programmer for mobile devices like the iPhone or Android, I would probably code something that allows you to talk to yourself, but not just on a surface level. After reading Paolo Coelho’s The Alchemist, I wondered what people would be like if they could talk to their hearts. Then I realized that people now have a kind of “techjoy” fixation. They can’t do anything without a cellphone in hand, or a laptop in front of them. People just don’t care to spend the time to look at their own lives and see what their hearts have to offer them. So how about an app that lets you do that?

--Just a thought for a not so rainy day.

What’s Wrong With Us?

Earlier today, the US senate approved the motion to raise the debt ceiling, allowing the US government to borrow $2.4 trillion more. I sit here in disbelief as I try to puzzle all the pieces together. Yesterday, Philip De Franco mentioned on his show that this “roof-raising” will help the US out until next year. This will probably add to the unwanted over $14 trillion dollar debt that the US currently faces. The one question that I would like to see answered is whether or not this could have been avoided. I don’t quite have the answer to that, though many peoples’ opinions lead me to think that there is an alternative of some sort.

I’ve recently been reading the George R.R. Martin series, “A Song of Ice and Fire,” and a friend of mine told me that it was hailed as the contemporary “Lord of the Rings” and it occurred to me that this might be the case. (Spoiler Alert for  those who have not read the first book in the series!)

Passion Entails Passionate Action but…

What about apathy?

Ever notice how people seem to be super passionate about something (a cause, a person, a job) and that passion seems to lead them to do super selfish things?

Consider the following anecdotes:

Case One

Jeffrey is being considered for a position for district manager for his company, and could desperately use the promotion. However, he is in the running for this position with David. Jeffrey knows a couple of secrets concerning David though, that if spread, could ruin David’s chances of getting the position. Jeffrey realizes that for both of them, this job is important, but he decides he needs it more, so he decides to spread the secrets and management catches wind. As a result, Jeffrey gets the promotion, and David’s life is ruined.

In this case, the egoistic action is taken as a result of self concern or consequentialism bearing the greater benefit as the benefit to the self.

Case Two

Jeffrey is being considered for a position as district manager for his company, but is also being considered for a handful of other positions internally and externally, with a few that have already guaranteed that they would hire him and pay him better wages. However, David is looking for the specific position as district manager. Despite knowing that David is incompetent, he decides not to share that as it does not negatively affect him to lose this position to David.

In this case, the altruistic action is taken, not because it is altogether consequentially beneficial, but just because it is merely not inconvenient to do so.

So what do we make of this phenomena? Are humans intrinsically selfish? Well, no. Not necessarily. There are exceptions to this case, but I think it has to do with the competitive nature of survival. We just won’t do things that impede our ability to survive. We do things for others for reasons that in some cases lead to helping our ability to survive, which is fine, but is there more? It is incredibly hard these days to find someone who will go out of their way to be generous. No, I don’t mean getting off part way to work to give food to a food bank. I mean going the opposite direction for 2 hours to help a friend paint their house before getting to work, risking being late.

This is probably better evidenced in animes/mangas. Dragon Ball Z, a popular anime, is the perfect example (spoiler alert: spoilers after the jump for those who haven’t seen the anime yet).

The Difference Between a Fail and an Epic Fail

The first step is always the most important one. Regardless of what it is you want to do, without the first step, you can’t really do anything else. Oddly enough, it’s also often the step that people most want to not take, or at least it’s the one that people don’t want to admit that they want to take. It’s in our nature to be proud, since the acquisition of ability creates in us a need to gloat about this ability, whatever it is. The reason that I think we don’t want to admit to wanting to take the first step is because the first step is surrendering in some way. The thing is, in order to do anything, the first thing you need to do is surrender to circumstances and admit that you may fail. Without understanding the risk of failing, you can’t really celebrate your successes at the end, much less even putting effort into the work you plan on doing.

This is especially true for artists; the prouder we are about our artistic talents, the less we seem to think we’ll fail, and that results in a dangerous amount of over confidence. But if, like me, one is willing to say “hey, I may fail at this” and still give it a shot, it might come out a pleasant surprise, but it also means less humiliation when you in fact don’t succeed. I’ve seen people who start out with some kind of plan, so sure that it will be where life will take them, and then they end up falling apart because something went wrong along the way. It’s always important to realize that no matter how much experience we have, we’re only human, and despite our ability to achieve some kind of perfection, it may not always happen the next time we try.

Catch ya on the flipside.

Paranoia and Orchids?

I was reading one of those free magazines that you can get at Healthy Planet stores, and noticed a little bit of the ridiculousness that society has taken and literally blown up. In this magazine is an article about “Orchid” kids.

So tell me, do any of these apply to you? In fact, they all apply to me, and most apply to most people. I was also reading on some other websites that some of the symptoms of other diseases are also normal. My question is, why do we get so paranoid just because of a little thing. A perfect example of this is back during the SARS outbreak in Toronto, people started joking about it when people coughed. At each corner, a cough or sneeze, a stuffy nose or a face mask meant that someone had SARS, and sure it was only said jokingly, but there were people that took it seriously, and people that take any symptoms that overlap between something which could change a person’s life, and a normal life, and automatically take the greater of two evils approach. Sure, treating a disease early is nice, but just because I overthink something, it doesn’t mean I’m hypersensitive or OCD. Maybe I just feel the need to be thorough because I don’t want to screw up? Isn’t that a normal thing for people, or do we all need to be bumbling and carefree morons who can’t get up off the pavement long enough to find a job?

This paranoia seems to lead me to think that society doesn’t want to progress any further…

Collectibles and Other Junk

Upon cleaning my room today (gasp! You cleaned it?!) I came across a little bit of a collector’s item; a first edition laser cel from Resident Evil 4 with the certificate of authenticity, in its original packaging. This raised an interesting question for me; what are collector’s items worth.

When it comes to collecting things, I’m curious about why people collect what they do? What kind of sentimental value an object can hold for a person seems to differ indefinitely and why it has that value is just as varied in terms of the different answers people will give. I find it somewhat neat though, when I talk to people about collections of things.

Today when I visited the Games Workshop at Scarborough Town Center, a group of teenagers came in and looked around, and I overheard them speaking with Dan, one of the staff there. They were talking about what they might be interested in getting, since their dad was a collector of miniature figures. After they left (because the stuff in the store didn’t suit their needs), I actually didn’t think too much about the scene, but I realized something about the people who usually frequent the store now that I think about it; all of the players of the various games in the franchise are collectors as well as participants in this hobby rather than being just people who have the hobby. In a way, we’re all people who share the hobby of collecting.

Many of the people who collect, collect just because they like having these things; I don’t have a specific reason for being a collector along those lines specifically, but I do collect stories. I’m not claiming to be too different from other people by saying this, but I don’t really have anything else that I am devoted to collecting. I mean I do have a bookshelf filled almost completely, but those are all because I’m interested in the stories. I remember the stories people tell me, like one of my friends who wants to go into modelling. Far be it for me to judge the stories of my friends and all the people I meet – in fact, I hope that the universe conspires to help her achieve her dreams, but I do enjoy listening to stories, reading them, telling them, and while strange, dreaming them.

The best thing about stories, the stories I collect, is that they exist in everything I touch. Sometimes I will forget a story, but I do remember most of them, and each one that I have I treasure; for example, I remember that I picked up the laser cel at the Anime club table at my university campus, I remember the girl signing up for the Chapters points program in line in front of me when I picked up one of my notebooks, I remember the game my friends bought me for my PSP as a birthday gift, I remember the day my brother got the PS3 as a birthday gift, I remember thinking that my mom got me a real cat, when she was talking about a statue, and I remember the experience of the handmade rosary around my neck right now. I remember stories and treasure them, and I don’t understand the sentimentality that goes behind it, but I realize now more than ever that I do understand what Dr. Orbinski means, and what many mean, when they say that “stories are all we have.” They really are. We may forget sometimes, but we’re human. As long as we treasure the stories around us, we will never lose our own story.

And whether your collection consists of paintings, insects, stamps, coins, or stories, as long as you do more than just collect, but actually transform the collection into something to share with the world, then I believe the story behind what you collect will never be lost.