Showing posts with label ways of speaking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ways of speaking. Show all posts

Making Art no. 5: To learn to write, should one just devote himself to writing?

A Law Manifesto (A Schizophrenic Piece)

   

One will never be unique even if one presumes to be strong inside while trying to impress others with appearances made photographs or suppously motivate ridiculous phrases which clearly will not help anyone to undertake. And at not finding any mistake on this one gonna just keep stand and to think that undertaking or start an independent business is not about repeating speeches about sacrifices either because people should engrave in their heads the normalized of laughing at any apparent stupidity produced by even bits of ignorance that become as hypocritical and extremist as a friendly smiling or a nice looking guy who spends his time dreaming of satisfactions and relationships with himself in ways that he defines as inexplicable because he simply has no idea what he is talking about; But there he is offering himself as associate, helper and friend while this guy is talking about kindness and considering himself as wholeheartedly posing totally impossible scenarios about losing everything and with a supposed end of laughing of himself at rising from the ashes like a phoenix.

   

And and so deep is this guy into his role that he finds himself satisfied with the conformity of encouraging others to support the most needy without doing anything from his comfort trench thinking and showing himself consumed with desires for the same comfort that he adores so much, like this as “financial education” that he cannot search or maybe does not know how to search for because his words instead seek empathy and placate feelings by talking about everything that is getting out of his hand with textual quotes that among his fingers are just a total joke because it cannot be anything else when he is just writing sentences such as "If economists really knew about business, they would be rich, and not advisers to the rich" (Kirk Kerkorian) trying to advise from a useless facebook page. As the same are also those who presume empty content and without context and without use to anyone since by taking them seriously they seem like third world policemen not qualified for absolutely anything ethically since they direct theirs index fingers to point out matters that do not concern them and they have lost the course of their own studies and their own basic role in the world of understanding themselves as people who serve people and are not fit to decide what the other should do or think. And perhaps the top off/height/the las straw of this kind of people is to be as on oneself from the first opportunity that they manage, for example, to be such social misfits who live a history fed little by little with ideological surfaces that among them even allow themselves to go from party to party or from place to place thinking how many or few seem not to belong to herds that evidently also exist and from which they do not escape, and among them it is also evident that staying to inhabit the shadows will never attract anything anywhere around the world.

   

Reaching then ot the point where everyone who has enough imagination for it, may visualize any possible walk through of what must happen every first time like some with the possibility of not dedicating himself to search too much or not to face dramas that happen at random from a fact of trying to dedicate their time to at least maintain oneself, they are simply capable of expanding inequalities for a simple sick pleasure that with each act they perceive with professions that require only time and practice to perform them as well as spaces to demonstrate them and of which they are able to show off themselves or do everything possible so that others do not find out about all the possible ways and results of doing the same, because a young person is very likely to still not know too much about himself and much of his behavior and his way of standing out can still depend on what surrounds him.

   

It is a common belief that one's background and upbringing play a significant role in shaping one's identity and defining who they are. However, it is important to consider whether one's identity is solely determined by their origins, or if there are other factors that contribute to their uniqueness. While one's cultural, social, and familial background undoubtedly influence their beliefs, values, and perspectives, it is not the sole determinant of their identity. People are complex and multi-faceted beings, influenced by a variety of factors beyond their origins. Personal experiences, relationships, education, and individual choices all contribute to shaping one's identity. It is also crucial to recognize the role of personal agency in defining one's identity. While one's background may provide a foundation, it is ultimately up to the individual to determine who they want to be and how they want to live their life. Each person has the power to create their own path, independent of their origins. Furthermore, the idea of uniqueness goes beyond simply coming from a certain place or having a particular background. It is about embracing one's individuality, celebrating differences, and recognizing the beauty of diversity. One's uniqueness is not defined by where they come from, but rather by how they choose to express themselves, engage with the world, and contribute to society.

   

In the modern age of social media and constant connectivity, there is a tendency for individuals to seek validation through external means such as photographs and motivational phrases. However, true uniqueness comes from within, from being comfortable in one's own skin and embracing one's authentic self. It is not about impressing others or conforming to societal expectations, but about being true to oneself. Moreover, the pursuit of entrepreneurship and independence is not about repeating empty speeches about sacrifices or projecting a false facade of success. It is about genuine hard work, determination, and a willingness to take risks. It is about being honest with oneself and others, and approaching challenges with humility and resilience. In conclusion, while one's background may have an impact on their identity, it does not solely define who they are. True uniqueness comes from within, from embracing one's individuality and pursuing one's passions. It is about being authentic, genuine, and sincere in one's actions and interactions with others. One's identity is shaped by a multitude of factors, and it is ultimately up to the individual to determine who they are and who they want to become.

Social: Banned videos from YT no. 1

   

   

If you knew that your doctor's identification number does not exist and his diploma is false, would you still allow him to perform an open heart surgery with you? Would you entrust your travels to a pilot who has made only a couple of flights and chosen to misunderstand the controls of an airplane? Would you trust your life to a lawyer who has sold your freedom? Would you inhabit a house built and designed by a criminal who has never studied architecture? Can you trust someone who talks about someone but has never talked to him? Can you trust a famous person who suddenly says that eating rotten fruits is not bad for the health and who says that studying biology is unnecessary? Can you be friends with someone who has only been rude, irresponsible, gossipy and hypocrite to anyone but accuses to the irony of life? Is it possible to trust someone who on a whim enters into a greenhouse only to step on and destroy all its flowers? Can you be friends with someone who speaks rudely and despotically to a waiter in any restaurant? Would you wear an invisible suit that a tailor sells you with the emptied and absurd "context" that only smart people can see? Can you trust a journalist who instead of doing her job spends her time telling people how to act or what to think? What kind of parents raise their children unethically? Would you leave firearms within reach of your children without any warning or explanation? Why would someone at a young age be fascinated with firearms?

   

How would you describe the mix between the stupidity and the immaturity with a gun?

   

   

Social: Before any Pandora Paper, the stupids channels out there with support

Regardless of whether one has found a note on Spanish, what is the point of talk about "God" in the year 2021? Is it so difficult to understand that talking about it on a radio program or internet channel is a completely useless act to start a conversation? Worse, there is a bunch of people that viralize it as something relevant yet after 2 years. But to this person totally indifferent to scientists gets enough attention and "fame" to promote anything else, but the point is to post anything? what if it is just trash? What provokes talking about any topic without enough information over one? What is the point of any religious fallacy if at the beginning we can talk about politic findings?

   

Is it hard to believe such big shit is still out there as the Pandora Papers?

 // 

So, this note must be understood as a reminder of important points and the idea of why it is important understand we are in a kind of big hole only few are able to control media thanks topics as "God" plus moking ppl that should look for information about stuff like:

   

Francis S. Collins does not believe in the existence of god, analogically called the human genome "language of god". The principle of causality (cause and effect) does not argue for any "god" as a cause. Aristotle belonged to a time and place, and his interpretation of "supreme divine mind" classifies it as the world of animals and plants. Alfred Russel Wallacela's successful comment about natural selection as insufficient to account for the human intellect and consciousness, but pay attention that all "spiritualistic" argument is still refuted with scientific investigations and readings. Darwin's autobiography has 94 pages long and does not literally mention anything the host claims. What has he said about William D. Phillips more than absolutely nothing? George Lemaître does not reaffirm the "existence of a creator" since as the Bing-Bang theory is understood as proof that universe had a beginning and tht at no time is it pejorative or reaffirms the existence of a "creator". Speaking of "God" is defined as an intelligent force, and no dark matter or energy necessarily needs to be understood as intelligent.

 // 

 // 

Here the note: https://www.cope.es/religion/historias/noticias/asi-desarma-directo-con-argumentos-cientificos-creyente-ateo-20190402_385969

 // 

Here the video on youtube: https://youtu.be/y6x3AH-ZJ8s

 // 

 // 

The literal text of what is spoken:

 // 

Make the translation with internet. THANK YOU

 // 

 // 

00:00 danann: roberto cómo estás roberto. roberto: bien si, 00:04 vos dime sos uno de aquellos ignorantes que 00:06 en pleno siglo 21 creen en dios ¿no? danann: tan ignorante 00:10 como francis collins, si. 00:12 roberto: bueno no sé quién es pero no me importa. danann: el 00:14 padre del genoma humano simplemente. si bueno, 00:18 me chupa un huevo. a ver probarme que 00:20 dios existe. a ver. danann: ¿como? 00:22 roberto: probable que dios existe. danann: vos quieres que yo 00:25 responda a la incógnita más grande de la 00:28 historia del universo así como así en un 00:30 modesto espacio de internet 00:32 roberto. roberto: yo lo que yo lo que quiero es 00:34 que me des argumentos científicos de por 00:37 qué dios existe. danann: ok, el principio de 00:41 causalidad podría ser un argumento 00:43 científico por ejemplo, ¿sabes lo que es 00:45 el principio de causalidad? roberto: no pero 00:48 explicarme vos que hablais como si supieras. 00:51 danann: no es algo muy difícil el principio de 00:55 causalidad es el principio que 00:56 postula que todo evento debe tener una 00:58 causa. roberto: ¿ah si? danann: sí, de hecho es inviolable la 01:03 única partícula que podría violar el 01:05 principio de causalidad es el taquión, y 01:06 es una partícula 01:08 hipotética así que yo diría, que 01:10 no sé si entendés a dónde voy, pero que 01:12 el principio de causalidad y el hecho de 01:14 que es posible causalidad sea inviolable 01:15 es un buen argumento a favor del teísmo 01:18 o del deísmo. 01:20 roberto: y si es inviolable ¿quien creó a dios? ¿un 01:23 genio? 01:24 danann: no campeón las leyes de la física hasta 01:27 donde sabemos son universales al menos 01:30 segundo que sabe es la eminencia como 01:31 william davis. 01:33 obviamente el creador del universo la 01:35 fuerza creadora del universo tendría que 01:36 estar o que ser un agente externo 01:39 al universo por ende no necesariamente 01:40 tiene que regirse por las leyes 01:43 universales entonces no sé si me explico. roberto: entonces claro ya, 01:46 que las leyes físicas existen cuando te 01:48 conviene. danann: no las leyes físicas son 01:51 universales, vos me estás pidiendo una 01:53 opinión sobre un agente externo al 01:55 universo. a ver si vos maestro armas un 01:58 muñequito de plastilina y palitos, ¿te vas 02:00 a regir por las leyes de la plastilina 02:02 de los palitos o vas a seguir siendo un 02:03 ser humano? roberto: no, no, no, no. yo no creo en la magia a 02:06 diferencia de vos sobre lo de hace 3 mil años. 02:09 danann: yo no hable de magia eso es una falacia 02:11 del espantapájaros estoy hablando del 02:13 principio de causalidad y una razón por 02:15 la cual yo puedo sostener mi deísmo. ¿en 02:19 la evolución crees vos? la evolución no 02:22 es una creencia la ciencia tampoco no 02:24 son creencias amigos son hechos, son 02:25 teorías científicas que son observables. 02:27 no son cosas en las que creemos conocer 02:30 mucha gente que no crea en la evolución 02:32 que la niegue porque si es así no te 02:34 estás moviendo un ambiente no muy 02:34 científico como tanto como tanto decís. 02:38 además el padre de la evolución fue un monoteísta, sabes. roberto: darwin no fue monoteísta, burro. 02:44 danann: darwin no es el padre de la evolución maestro, 02:46 aristóteles es el padre de la evolución 02:48 además el trabajo de darwin es 02:49 absolutamente derivativo de trabajo de 02:51 wallace. eeh, uuhmm, y 02:53 por cierto wallace fue espiritista, y darwin 02:55 buen afirmaba que para que la evolución 02:56 fuera posible hacía falta detrás de ella 02:59 una mano inteligente. roberto: darwin nunca dijo eso. 03:01 danann: está en la página 92 o 93 de la 03:04 autobiografía de darwin amigo. 03:07 que vos no lo hayas leído no significa 03:10 que no lo haya dicho. 03:13 roberto: pero eso es porque los que decían que 03:15 eran ateos los perseguía la inquisición. 03:17 ningún científico podría no creer en dios 03:21 pedazo de ignorante. 03:24 danann: ¿a darwin lo perseguía la inquisición? ningún científico puede creer en dios decis. 03:25 roberto: no. danann: ¿a alexander fleming, louis pasteur, young, 03:27 william phillips y francis collins los 03:29 perseguía la inquisición también? 03:32 ¿es por eso que los perseguía la inquisición? 03:35 estoy nombrando a científicos del siglo 20 y 03:37 a 2 que están vivos; el premio nobel de 03:40 física william phillips y el padre del 03:42 genoma francis collins. ¿vos decís que a 03:44 francis collins ya william phillips los 03:46 persigue la inquisición hoy? roberto: vos la iglesia, vos 03:52 no puede darse cuenta de que la iglesia sigue teniendo poder. 03:57 danann: dale, dale maestro, muéstrame tu contraparte. tú con tu 03:59 argumento amante de las ciencias. 04:02 roberto: ¿mi contraparte? no, escúchame vos pedazo de animal 04:05 yo no tengo que probar que dios existe. los negativos para tu información 04:09 no se prueban. danann: en primera sí puedes probar un negativo 04:11 ya que se puede 04:12 demostrar que los dinosaurios no existen 04:14 simplemente recurriendo a ciencia muy 04:16 sencilla, pero no te voy a pedir que pruebes 04:17 un negativo. por supuesto que no te 04:18 voy a pedir que pruebes 04:19 que dios no existe. roberto: ¿entonces? danann: lo que 04:22 quiero es que me expliques es como surgió 04:24 a partir de que se creó y se originó el 04:27 universo. eso es lo que quiero que me expliques 04:30 tu visión de cómo se originó el universo. 04:33 mi visión es que hay una inteligencia 04:34 superior detrás, la tuya ¿cuál es? ¿como 04:37 cómo ocurrió? 04:40 ¿roberto? 04:42 roberto: estaba tomando agua. muy sencillo, se creó con el big 04:44 bang 04:46 danann: pésima elección de respuesta roberto. 04:48 el padre de la teoría del big bang fue un 04:50 sacerdote católico y físico llamado 04:51 george lemaitre. la razón de esta teoría 04:54 fue justamente probar que el universo 04:57 tuvo un comienzo como sus creencias 04:59 manifestaban y de hecho la comunidad 05:02 científica de aquel momento tildó a 05:03 georges lemaitre de ser un creacionista y tildó 05:05 peyorativamente a la teoría del big 05:06 bang' decir era una teoría creacionista. de 05:08 hecho no sé si sabías que 05:09 el término big bang' es peyorativo es 05:11 insultante. o sea el big-bang no sólo no 05:15 contradice la existencia de un creador 05:16 sino que dicha teoría fue elaborada para 05:19 reafirmar la existencia de un creador. 05:22 roberto: ¿y porque ese creador universal tiene que 05:25 ser dios es la definición por excelencia 05:27 de dios? danann: es la definición por excelencia de dios. 05:29 creador universal o hacedor del universo. 05:30 roberto: no no el universo pudo haberse creado a 05:33 sí mismo. danann: si, eso no es ateísmo, es 05:35 panteísmo. estás afirmando que sigue 05:37 habiendo una fuerza creadora. quiero que 05:39 me expliques desde tu ateísmo como 05:42 dirigir el universo sin ninguna fuerza 05:43 inteligente detrás. roberto: no sé. danann: entonces no sos 05:47 ateo, sos agnóstico. 05:49 roberto: no es que yo, te voy a explicar. danann: anda iluminame. roberto: bueno sí. 05:55 espero a que la ciencia lo descubra. danann: ¿vos esperas? 05:59 ¿como? roberto: yo espero a que la ciencia lo 06:01 descubra, que la ciencia lo pruebe. danann: entonces no 06:03 pensás mientras, no teorizas. no lo 06:05 filósofas. no lo pensás por tí mismo. tu 06:07 mérito es sentarte a esperar que alguien 06:08 más lo descubra y te lo cuente y eso te 06:10 hace un juez de la 06:11 intelectualidad ajena 06:13 y andás señalando a los demás como 06:14 ignorantes 06:18 ¿roberto? 06:20 sigo esperando tu contra argumento. 06:23 ¿cómo ya partir de qué se originó el universo 06:25 sin necesidad de un agente externo o 06:27 inteligencia creadora? 06:29 roberto: no no es que seguro puede haber una 06:32 fuerza inteligente detrás. danann: lo que estás 06:35 diciendo que consideras que hay una 06:37 fuerza o inteligencia creadora detrás 06:40 del universo. bienvenido al teísmo 06:44 roberto, ahora sos tan ignorante como yo. 06:47 roberto: aanda a romperte el culo pelotudo 06:50 danann: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

 // 

 // 

Make the translation with internet. THANK YOU

Social: A bunch of nasty stories, about nasty people, told on a nasty way.

Of course it is outrageous that people are not well prepared and with so little concern for their country, but most of them agree with our leaders only for money, the degree of impunity for their excesses.  Citizens with apathy, conformists, indoctrinated, aligned, and left; Perhaps all accomplices under the degree of the subconscious. Yet all the advertisements we see have been etched into our memory and our decisions are apparently only based on consumer choices, but one is from the generation in which it was proclaimed daily that "There is nothing that is really necessary if you feel like that."  Let heads rolling, how beneficial is it to preserve negative patterns?  Is finding a balance without hypocrisy of abandoning oneself in any belief exclusively to win something possible? Betting on an almost Blaise Pascal style or perhaps a completely different one is utopian? (1)

One will try to explain himself, on my case it was difficult to grow up knowing that the thing that I could grab onto was dead from its roots, however, on my opinion there are no need to extreme resentments; And that is why I decided to search for social networks as an instrument of manifestation and social evolution, which I accept opened a channel of communication that on my perspective continues to be indifferent to their real needs:  Different generations identify themselves as oppressed, perhaps for the same reason their modes of protest occasionally go beyond the limits that degrade new oppressed and exalt non-existent values, on the style of preparatory popularity, giving rise to aggression on any way and on any medium or place that can be made present. It seems easy to forget that the word of everywhere these days is Tolerance;  To understand it is to achieve moral superiority by being tolerant. And it must be understood that tolerance does not mean suffering or enduring, and to fully tolerate it is necessary to want to.  The desire to know new ideas and the need to emphasize them for study and debate, possibly thus managing to resolve our differences; Simple suggestion to stay flexible.
 

But to call this "on my practice", social reconciliation as a first step to achieve true national development is close to nil.  Respect and the exercise of constructive criticism and ideological solidarity on every sense that strengthens the rule of law and national harmony, are forgotten when it comes to benefits.  "What's good for me on the end?"  Distrust predominates when becoming aware and does not consider who is legitimate, at some point pretending to act differently.  There are too many things that do not retain any grace, life itself has no meaning in its generality.  You might wonder why waste yourself?  However, the most honest thing anyone can do, I suppose, is to be totally who you are and write, speak and act like one.  Freedom of expression and belief, with all its immunity under the Magna Carta.  Water and then wind.

P.S.
If theres an objection is facing references, this text is only research and personal analysis of all of them.  No interest unrelated to the opinion, act of reply or preservation of various notes.

 

P.S.2.

Repost from  Sunday, May 12, 2013

https://mojejstronie.blogspot.com/2013/05/1-uno.html?m=1

 

R:
 (1).  Understand the bet as regards the text as an example, for what is morally accepted or what is beneficial learned or modified through ethical advancement.  Bet on their own beliefs, concepts, values ​​and / or ideas that guide acts to growth, be it personal or collective, by not applying such a bet exclusively to a deity. 

(1.2) It is accepted that Pascal does not intend to scientifically prove the existence of God and, in order not to fall into any fallacy of the false dilemma, let us qualify it as "Any deity or Zeitgeist from among the variety of options known from the theological field" for various applications or explanations about the quote  or the present text.


Social: What is the point?

Who does reports and news depend on? Who does international relations depend on? If presidents meet it is based on their power and the signed agreements.

Is it that one should believe that there is such bullying to a President? Who agrees to exclude himself to others should be exposed as an enemy? Trump says it, journalists say it, López Obrador says it.

The sun can be covered with a single finger? The right hand does not know what the left hand does. The last straw is praising the total lack of respect for the obvious interest in discussing the indisputable among police violence, lacks, ignorance, covid, or news media.