2/22/2014

2/07/2014

Blocking an ex online lover as an act of kindness

I strongly recommend taking the step of blocking somebody on Google+ (or another social network) with whom you had an online relationship with, that didn't work out, for whatever reason. Here are the benefits:

1) It establishes to both parties that  you have a sense of self - worth and confidence. If the other person really cared about you, they would have contacted you by now. Since they have not, it shows that they aren't dealing with the situation in a mature, adult manner, or that they really didn't care about you as much as you thought. Either way, it's time to say goodbye and the way you do that is to *cut off all contact*.

2) Often, people who are involved in online relationships that fail attempt to relegate the relationship to the "let's just be friends" level. They will follow you around like a puppy, making you emotionally miserable because they still think "you are a friend". They simply won't "get the message". Make no mistake - if you've been romantically involved with someone and it blows up like this, you've been FRIENDZONED.  Blocking in cases like this is an act of kindness - both to yourself and to them.

3) It's just good business practice. When the offending party has been blocked, you don't have to worry about them reading your content and you are free to move on with an open heart. It may hurt for a while, but it will go away.

Been jilted by someone? Try my solution. You'll thank me later!

2/05/2014

Nye vs Ham, Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design

The widely publicized debate between "science" (Bill Nye) and "religion" (Ken Ham) led me to make sure I understand my terms. I have no issue understanding the scientific basis for evolution; there is an extensive fossil record. But the "religion" side may be a bit murkier. You really have
Creationism vs Intelligent Design here.

Creationism comes in different varieties, from the strictest biblical literalism, which says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, to the theistic evolutionism of the Catholic Church, which accepts evidence that the Earth is millions of years old, and that evolution can explain much of its history—but not the creation of the human soul. Between those, there are the "Young-Earth" and the "Old-Earth" creationists, who differ over the age of the planet and the details of how God created life.

The limited scope of Intelligent Design theory actually makes it compatible with a wide range of views. Some ID theorists do believe in evolution — or at least that different species can change over time — and many believe that the Earth was created more than 10,000 years ago. But there are also ID theorists who believe in a 100 percent literal reading of Genesis and stick to it.

Young-Earth creationists criticize the Intelligent Design people for encouraging a "loose" reading of the Bible, and the design theorists say that ID represents at least the "partial truth" and that it is, at the least, the best available tool for dislodging what they see as evolutionist dogma.

When all this is said and done - and I found this debate really boring and designed mostly for publicity - I think the real question we should be asking ourselves is whether we are teaching our chilldren the critical thinking skills they need to be mature adults in a changing world. If we can say that we've done that, they should be perfectly capable of making up their own minds.