Minor premise: We’re more likely to support stupid arguments if we agree with the conclusion.

Conclusion: It’s not nice to torture cute little kittens.

Agree or disagree? Discuss.

I did however have a series of epiphanies today. Does that happen to normal people? Do you ever just stop what you’re doing, wherever you are, and consider an idea that strikes you?

I was reading a book in a cafe and I just stopped, set it down, and thought for a few minutes. (I didn’t have a notebook with me or I would have written to help me think.) I feel this kind of quirk makes me very cool. Which is ironic because most of the time the thoughts I stop to think are about how I’m not very cool.

Just some fire, you say?

Why you dirty, hell-bound heathen. Only a despicable atheist could deny the plain fact that it is none other than Pope John Paul II taking a break from eternal paradise to give a little wave. Gregorz thinks so. But don’t take his word for it—both his brother and his sister agree!

See?

And that’s not all! He was joined by his favorite dog, the late, great Squiggles.

Can’t argue with that. It’s not like I took the first image of fire from Google, thought it kind of looked like a dog (or maybe a Chinese dragon), and then found the first picture of a dog in the same general pose (because none of the dragons fit right) and stuck the pictures next to each other to suggest any kind of connection. It’s not like that. It’s just common sense.

Don’t even try to convince me otherwise.

In my K-12 education, I don’t recall ever discussing practical logic in a meaningful way (other than the scientific method). There were what seemed to be token attempts at encouraging real thought—those “Reflection” questions at the end of chapters in history books: “Would it have been possible to ratify the constitution without the Bill of Rights? Why or why not?” But these were more attempts at encouraging opinion than thought. It would be considered in poor taste to tell students their thinking was wrong (which would often, inevitably be the case).

My main evidence for this claim of non-thought is the best-seller status of this douche bag, Kevin Trudeau. You’ve probably seen his infomercials on late-night TV.

He is truly despicable. His existence could only possibly be justified as a classic example of fallacy-laden, con-artist scum, to be taught as such in classes on scum. He’s the guy telling diabetics to stop taking their insulin, sunscreen causes cancer, and a certain type of calcium cures cancer. Oh, by the way, he just happens to sell this type of calcium, call now!

Well, that’s not actually true. He doesn’t sell it anymore. Because he was sued by the Federal Trade Commission for making false claims. He settled by paying $2 million, and was banned from selling any products on infomercials ever again (although, the way he tells it in interviews, the FTC “dropped the charges”). Thanks to our effing constitutional right to free speech, however, he’s allowed to sell books, which purport to contain the hidden secrets that the massive worldwide Government-Pharmaceutical-Food Industries conspiracy is keeping from you because they want you to be fat and in pain, but these secrets aren’t technically in the book (which has been censored by the big, mean FTC who have been persecuting poor Kev for years when his only real crime was wanting to help people!), but the book directs you to sign up for his monthly internet newsletter, which really contains the cures, for a nominal fee, of course.

He is vile beyond words. Think about it.

It puzzles me that those who shout “Think for yourself!” the loudest are simply repeating what they’ve heard from others before them, and with a distinct lack of applied thought. It should tip us off when both sides of a debate are telling the other to think for themselves. What does it mean to “think for yourself”? How could you not think for yourself? If no one is thinking for themselves, where are all these thought coming from?

With few exceptions, every opinion you or I or anyone has is essentially repeated from some other authority. Whether it’s our parents, religion, political pundits, some YouTube video, or our favorite movie star, we’re just repeating stuff. And that’s fine. That’s how it’s should be. If we had to begin for ourselves at Socrates and work through 3000 years of contemplation, we’d be totally immobile. The worst thing we could do is “think for ourselves.”

The trick is—to parrot another party line—”Test everything. Hold on to what is good.”

I’d like to further thrill and terrify you with the announcement of Experiment II: The Bitch is Back. This time, it’s for real.™

Seven days and seven nights of non-stop daily blog posting (by which I mean, once a day).

Uncensored. Uninteresting. Ungrammatical. This is Conlan.

After complimenting someone on her charitable work, I immediately asked if she ever got discouraged by being unable to effect any substantial improvement in the world. It was an honest question, and not meant as anything else. For all I know, that’s how it was taken. But of course I immediately assumed she would think I was making fun of her, that my original compliment was insincere, that I’m just a asshole.

It’s just one example of many. So much is based on interpretation, and as I’ve said, I’m in constant fear of being misinterpreted.

But that’s life.

Interpret this. Some reasons you might hate me:

• I think the death penalty, in almost all cases, is institutionalized vengeance and is unnecessary.
• I think marriage—from a societal standpoint—has become a meaningless concept, and as such, I don’t care if gay people want to walk down an aisle and share dental benefits.
• I’m anti-abortion. (I think the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are at best lazy speech, and at worst signs of lazy thought.)
• I believe in marriage and monogamy and life-long commitment.

Most importantly (for purposes of hating me): with varying degrees of certitude and significance, I believe my views are correct.

This position was mostly in reaction to the use of regret by morons as an excuse for all kinds of moronity. “No regrets!” rings the clarion call before the frat boy slams a liter of homemade vodka and runs into traffic.

The simple truth is, regret isn’t that simple. In fact, it’s so complex that one could think oneself in circles indefinitely, frozen in a perpetual state of What if? One could do that. If one were so inclined. Hypothetically.

And that’s what regret is all about, really. What if? What if I’d done this? What if I hadn’t done that? How would things be different? The conventional wisdom (that of the flattened frat boy) seems to be, it’s easier to live with the consequences of your actions than with those of your inaction. It’s better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all. It’s better to regret the things did do rather than the things you didn’t.

The assumption is that knowledge is preferable to speculation, even if that knowledge is not particularly happy. Or maybe it’s some kind of humanist ideal, where if you take some action–any action–at least you’re taking part in shaping your own destiny, instead of just letting it happen to you.

I disagree.

This is actually quite scary for me. Scarier than you’d think. Being all incomplete and uncensored. You have no idea how much I censor myself. Not even for any good reason—often just out of laziness. Although probably more often out of debilitating irrational anxiety. I’m afraid of being misunderstood, or maybe worse, being partially understood.

But we’ll forget all that for now. LET THE GREAT EXPERIMENT BEGIN!!!

But I do know why. It’s because I care. Yeah, I care what people think. And it’s not in any noble, free-exchange-of-ideas sense, either. I care what they think in relation to what I think. I want to be like other people. Of course I realize I can’t be like other people, as indicated by literally the first video of a political nature I found on the YouTube homepage (something about France’s newly-elected president, let me just put one giant [sic] here to cover it):

i was very happy when sarkozy was elected the president of france… this is a good new, coz i hate france and actually france is becoming a shit country and i see it will be worse next years and i am happy for that!! =) i hate france!

And the thoughtful rebuttal:

Why don’t you get a brain Citamgini? “I haaaate France because theyyyy’re naaasty there and theyyyy’re all drunk on TV”. Such an easy, trolling, idiotic and not value-adding comment. Go back to school kiddo, we don’t need any xenophobic twat here. Furthermore, why don’t you lick my balls for that very unuseful double post of your worthless comment?

Ah, yes. What would a YouTube comment thread be without the ceremonial Licking of the Balls?

Obviously I don’t wish I was like these intellectuals. So I suppose what I really want is for everyone to think the way I think. Not necessarily with the same opinions, but with the same general approach to the world: an approach where calling someone a “xenophobic twat” and telling him to lick your balls is not even considered as a viable argument.

What’s more frustrating: I realize that, while these comments represent the real and uncensored thoughts of these individuals, they don’t correspond to the real world. I’m quite sure Citamgini, in a physical world—using a real name, and face to face with a genuine, drunk and stinking Frenchman—would be less forthcoming with his opinion.

Developing…