Type of friend

People change, but friends do to.  They say true friends stick together and look out for each other.  However, popular advice is if you are irritated with your friends, ignore them and eventually find new ones.

Intervene-r:
This friend looks out for your interests.  Rather than change themselves, they want to change you.  Say both of you guys were good students with no criminal records.  Then one day you start smoking pot which escalates to shooting up on heroin.  You start tattooing yourself and get really depressed.  The intervene-r will shake you up and get you into therapy.  They will visit you regularly as you detox.  They are with you during the thick and thin.  On the down side, you can't easily get rid of this friend.  They choose to change you, not you change them.

Concede-r: In the same situation, they will accept that you have changed and will not intervene.  They follow internet advice.  If you are annoyed, find new friends.  Don't stick with your annoyances.  They are the people who look out for themselves, but realize you probably do/should do the same.  Thought line:You guys are friends for laughs, not for the sake of butting into each other's business. If you do drugs, it's your business not theirs.

Who makes the better friend in the end?

lingering thoughts of distaste

I know I have anger management issues, so I signed myself up for therapy.  I've had one session so far, but I have my doubts on its effectiveness.  It's not like teaching mindfulness.  My psychologist just asks questions. The whole healing process, according to her, is just getting it all out there, but I have a problem with that.  I have told my friends, her, and you (if you continue to read about it) about my gripe with this fucking old bastard (neighbor kinda), but rather than eradicate his existence from my mind, expressing my thoughts put him at the top of my consciousness priority list.  Also, this psychologist's suggestion of a solution was to simply try avoid the annoyance.  There was no attempt at either seeing this as a problem with myself and there was no stress reducing solution.  Lastly, if the old man left, and another annoyance came in, given her suggestions, I should leave the building.  Basically I am taught avoidance tactics in therapy.

Arguments, from what I've read, spring as fearful reactions to perceived threats and from the arguer's sense of arrogance.  Funny.. fear and arrogance.  I know for a fact that he fears me, but I am irritated by the fact that he still maintains his arrogance.  I know I am right, but does that make me arrogant? But I also know I am wrong about a few things.   I quickly admitted that I misused something, and that I will take care of it right away.  He should've left then with "problem solved" in his mind, but he didn't because he hates me.  If there is no reason to be near your annoyance, then there is only feeling.  I know for a fact that what he says is factually wrong.  Some of this factually wrong information comes from persisting with two opposing pieces of information during the two times I have confronted him throughout the entire confrontation.  First, he blows up a situation with all the little details he criticizes me for.  Then, when I address all the little details he talked about, he says "all I wanted was..."   To add to my irritation, the first day he said he pays me and mentioned sanitary issues which were in a contract he signed.  I signed no contract and I am not his leaser and at the the time, I had no idea why he was mentioning something to me.  Something I could not respond to, because I simply didn't know about it.  When I addressed the contract (on the second day/confrontation) and legal issues after reading about it, he says that he was only asking me out of "common courtesy" and that he didn't mention the law at any time .  I said "you mentioned money and contract.  This = law/agreement."  He said "I know the law, and I was asking you out of decency."  However, if this old man really knew the law, then how can he simply change what he said on the second day I confronted him ?  How can you keep this arrogant douchebag (redundant I know) to his word?

My feeling is like the frustration Einstein might feel while arguing with the average male.  A man is stereotypically more logical than a female.  He would say all his facts in front of Einstein (without knowing who he is), and Einstein would reply logically.  Einstein's opposing statements would directly relate to the issues presented by that average man.  The man would reply as logically as he can back.  For whatever the man does not understand (of what Einstein said), the man would reply with whatever ridiculous "fact" that he can come up with (if he be douchebaggy) without checking the validity of what he said.  In order to "win" (seem more valid), the man would raise his voice when replying to Einstein.

I know I can't do anything for revenge no matter how sweet it would feel.  I suppose I can find a way to publically shame him, but doing so will probably just give him more publicity (like it did Fox) especially when he fronts an ironic organization supporting a culture that has no listed or easily perceived correspondent or leadership of that culture (like an all white board supporting Nigerian dance) .  Also, publically shaming has the possibility of looking like defamation to the law when I am really just exercising free speech.  Revenge can also look bad on me, and as consequence I might lose the respect of my friends and the people I work with. But I can't live without any sort of release.  I need to find a way just as many recent jailed gunman need a way to completely forget about their annoyance while they are being annoyed and throughout life (to prevent stress buildup) that is neither bottling up anger nor having miniature explosions every time I am mad. I realize when a person is mad it has to show.  Otherwise it's as though "mad" was never programmed into him.  Whatever has made him "mad" has to be made better.  I was searching for "kindness begets kindness" and channeling negative energy into creativity, but after trying to be kind to my neighbor, he goes ahead and complains to his leaser on a list of things that he's been keeping tabs on for a long while.

I honestly can say, I am not hoping for the best for him.  I am hoping his organization dies.  His organization was never beneficial to society in the first place.   I know he didn't do anything heinous, but I am so irritated by the way he thinks.  He is the epitome of "first world problems" which he complains about with his sense of entitlement.  The only thing I see him contribute to this world is a sense of arrogance.  I think he is a waste of space, and I say this because he is so easily replaceable.  

Women leave the church!!

Sexism is one thing male chauvinists have in common with the Church.   Sure everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this is a matter of ideology not just the idea that Churchgoers and atheists are both people.  If in death, both men and women are equal in the face of oblivion and if people never had the choice to choose to be a man or a woman, then people are alike all over.  I bring this point for sexist atheists (aka the amazingatheist on youtube), not all atheists.  While I do agree with some things he says, I do not agree that "physical" differences/processes such as menstruation makes a women any less capable then a man in the work force.  I also do not agree that you can generalize feminism in such a narrow way to mean "man-hating."  This is by no means true, and it is by the amazing atheist's mouth that influences others to generalize groups.  (i.e. American's are loud and obnoxious).  Really, it is only the loud and obnoxious ones you hear about.

One thing that organized religions (particularly Christianity) does is provide information on some passages, then leave it closed for comments or ratings.  Only "thumbs up" are allowed thereby going against the philosophy of the first amendment, the market place of ideas.  By not allowing articles to be evaluated, they are are narrowing their thoughts for other possibilities such as allowing women to be pastors.

http://carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders
I was looking at the above in particular.  Matt Slick claims
 "There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men  However, it isn't gifting that is the issue, but God's order and calling."
This implies that a man can have a calling, but no skill at preaching and still preach.  A woman can be a prophet and having preaching skills, but will never have a calling.  God calls no women for the job of preaching.  But what is a "calling."  Is it a voice inside a person's head, an urging?  If it is as I say, then what validates a man's calling over a woman's?  

 I looked for an inherent quality of men over women that allowed only men to be pastors.  I found none.  The fact of the matter is, a vast majority of us are afraid of public speaking.  A man can be tall, but then he'll have to be taller than other men to have a voice over other men.  The fact of the matter is, the inherent quality of a pastor cannot by any means be a quality of gender, because assuming men are the more charismatic gender, that man will have to speak above other charismatic men.  Also, we obviously know there are charismatic women and quiet men in this world. 

 Matt Slick claims that man was created first.  First of all, the premise of entire idea of Adam and Eve is creationist.  There's no evolutionary "Lucy" there, nor is there an assumption life could exist beyond Earth and Adam and Eve.  Also, by mentioning the bible's Adam and Eve, Matt Slick abandons any claims for science, and therefore, any piece of information he takes from published empirical results should be scrutinized, assumed to have come from a particular agenda / biased, or his word abandoned all together. Also, another problem with mentioning chronology is that animals were created before humans.  By Slick's reasoning, that would put animals above man as being more qualified than man to be pastors.  Why then do Christians eat meat thereby killing God's creatures?  Why would the chronology of man before woman only matter for the creation of humans and not all things?

Matt then says regarding female pastors:  "are they submitting to the word of God or are they making the word of God submit to their desires?"  In my opinion it is a desire.  God is a desire for the mental stability of man, so male pastors also preach for their own desires.  Everything a person does is inherently selfish anyways.  Also, Matt Slick should also definitely answer to why he can say this when  a lot of male pastors all say vastly different and possibly contradicting (gay churches) things in different churches and lead very different religions all across the world.   He must answer if his goal as a believer is to help and not abandon non believers, and for the sake of his credibility. 

I'll admit the article is well documented and logical in that it does follow a source called the bible.  The problem is translation, interpretation, and the ideological contradictions it has with a ideologically changing society today.  I won't agree with many Church leaders when many more women attend church than men do:  http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men/  .   Possible solutions are to demand a legit reason for sexism in church or to abandon the church entirely.  We cannot ask a church to change their doctrine because an opinion is an opinion protected by the first amendment, and here in America, we have freedom of religion.  

Onision-Vegetarianism-argument against

I know he probably regrets this.  But without repercussions, a kid won't learn how to behave no matter how good and pure his ideas are and if he did learn, then he's just gonna have to live with his mistakes.  In order to be effective he has to be logical, and stop using words like "stupid", "bad", "good", and any word that is overly connotated in one direction or another.  It's because of Veggie reps like him (and PETA), that people'll turn away from try it. 

Here's what I disagree with:  

He doesn't murder anything, but he murders ants on the ground, the costs of animals to raise a society such as ours.  As a society hazard, he causes people to want to hurt other things.  He's the pinnacle of violence that perpetuates violence.  

"God" is faith.  Onision wants meat eaters to murder themselves, but this is against their own religion.  Religion can't justify anything, yet some religions sacrifice animals.  The whole purpose of his argument is to save animals.  This isn't happening, so Onision doesn't believe in freedom of religion.  He believes everyone should make the following lifestyle choices: vegetarianism and atheism.  

Also, a person can like certain animals and dislike other animals and not care for other animals.  Are we not animals?  A person who eats can like another person in society.  Therefore a person can like animals.  If you mean other animals.  This is still possible.  Some hate sharks and spiders, but they like bunnies and dogs.  The meat eater who likes bunnies and dogs and cats and birds, but don't eat any of them are just generalizing their love for animals on specific types.  

The beings who kill other beings is not even a directly related argument to the comment he is referring to.  Just because I like eating meat, doesn't mean I like eating humans.  Some species of animals eat their own types, but there are carnivorous animals that don't eat their own kind.  Dogs don't eat their own kind, but they still eat meat.  

Onision doesn't feel sorry for meat eaters losing an arm or maybe even being murdered.  Any remorse for shootings or bombings are gone from his empathy.  I think this is just something he said in rage.  Can we really take this seriously?  If we can't, then can we take his other videos seriously?  I don't think so.  If he will refute every little idea that disagrees with him, also say he changed his mind in another video, and say "Do you think I really meant that?" then how can we trust his words?  How can we as viewers hold him to his words and ideas? The answer is: we just can't!   He says things expecting the viewer to take everything he says conditionally without warning the viewer.    

Religion doesn't make a point pointless in the topic of vegetarianism because religion is a culturally/ socially implemented thing, and often times it connects to the consumption or murdering of animals.  Asking a person rudely to change on one issue is asking them to change on another sometimes.  

Vegetarianism also comes with health risks for those who start off.  It is not easy  and it can be pricey to make this lifestyle change.  Initial change will mean limited choices on menus and at parties.  Eager beavers will approach vegetarianism without caution--unbalanced.  Then, newbie vegetarians will have to get rid of preexisting meat: presumably by throwing it away, and E.B. White said wasting food is a sin.  

It is an opinion.  It really is.  Some vegetarians don't eat meat simply because they don't like it.  Their intentions just have a moral consequence of saving animals and does not make them any more saintly than the meat eater.  

Depends are you deterministic?  The cost of food is expensive.  Some people who were born poor and are subject to injustices of society ended up poor for life.  How can you expect them to buy fresh vegetables instead of fast food?  

Also, why deprive people of a pleasure in life?  According to adults it is the second most thing that gives them pleasure.  Meat is being a type of food with its own flavor is a type of pleasure.  So are drugs, yes, but eating meat is less self destructive and less addictive.  Also, you can't compare eating meat to drugs because meat eating isn't as excessive when compared to addictively taking drugs.  

"People can eat meat if they like eating meat."-- in addition to what is above, the rebuttal comment from Onision is not a good analogy because eating (cow, chicken, other bird) meats doesn't harm other humans.  Rape and Cannibalism does.  Within a human society eating non-humans is benign compared to those things.  

The alternative to walking around:  The commenter was justified. Why? --because Onision makes his claim for the animals which are "dumber" than people.  Nothing should also justify killing that bugs are also "dumber" than people.  Asians eat bugs as a snack.  This I simply don't know.  According to Onision are bugs allowed to be eaten while vegetarian?  If no, his statement crumbles to the ground.  If yes, his statement lives: there is no alternative to walking on the ground because bugs aren't animals.   Although, if he says, "yes", I won't agree because I think bugs are animals.  

Onision must also not be for cutting down trees.  How can he live in a civilization that depends on trees, water, oil, and other resources from nature.  Cutting down the nature cuts down on the homes of animals and creates pollution.  Living in civilization and thereby creating this demand for our own selfish needs indirectly murders animals either way.  

Then midway he says "meat eaters for pleasure."  Damn-it.  He should've said this earlier, so that all this tirade can be specified.  He targets pleasure seekers directly.  This means religiously eating meat and sacrificing meat is okay with him.  This means that eating meat because you are poor is okay.  

It is true though.  I have a garden and the food keeps on growing and growing back.  However, the food growth rate is slow.  My mother's water bill was skyrocketed to the point where the water board called her regarding it.  In the end, we had to kill off the garden.  Having a garden is expensive.  A community wide change is needed for a wide scale conversion to vegetarianism.  Also, there will have to be more farmers.  A community wide farm is needed for cheaper food.  This IS ideal.  Here, I presented a solution and a deeper problem whereas Onision did not.  

Onision assumed everyone has angry and murderous thoughts as they eat their chicken noodle soup.  That's excessive.  

They are opinions.  "Go fuck yourself" ,"Murder", "complain" instead of "said"  

They are not facts.  Vegetarianism is a "good" idea.  It saves animals.  What makes you think "saving" animals is a good thing.  What logic gives humans the obligation to save animals? 

Over the years the viewers continue to question the validity of his statements.  AND WHY NOT?  Freedom of speech allows you and me to have an opinion.   Youtube is a medium of opinion through comments and videos.  The market place of ideas is a fundamental philosophical basis of the 1st amendment that calls for the survival of the idea that survived rebuttals.  Complaining and whining is also protected and cannot be stopped.  Also, they might not even be intended as complaints.   It is Onision that perceives the complaints.  

I commented on one video without watching others, but why not?  A video is a stand-alone piece of media.  If it connects to something, then it should simply be longer.  Otherwise it should be listed as an episode.   

Also, eating meat is unhealthy, but it is not extremely unhealthy.  Drinking and driving, drugs, war, sugary things, and raping are worse things to do.  

Also, if you truly disagree then do what he told you:

Just press pause.  

And unsubscribe.  

Here's a way better argument: 

Oh yeah.  I think I'll write on feminism next week.

The Third Wave--- What's your opinion?

According http://www.feminist.org/welcome/mandp.asp  (casual quotes, everything's abridged)

Mission

• " to advance women's equality, non-violence, economic development
•  empowerment of women and girls in all sectors of society. 
•  reproductive rights and access to reproductive technology" 

Principles

• "promotes equality between women and men and girls and boys
• supports safe contraception/ planning/ Medicaid funding and access for minors.
• dedicated to achieving civil rights for all people/ people of color.
• supports LGBT
• no discrimination of any kind.
• no more violence in world.
• preservation of the environment.
• pay equity, and the end of sweatshops.  "   

what is the third wave of feminism. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism

• Focus is basically to bring feminism to other cultural groups, religions, races.  
• maternity leave and motherhood 
• rape. 
• derogatory terms
• in my opinion: women's representation in media  
• pro-choice.  and birth control.  
• some international work for women's rights.  

What actions have been taken.  (list of various actions)

Scholarships, conferencing on empowerment and issues, slut walk, probably some lobbying.  Individuals supporting specific issues like Sandra fluke,  Roe vs. Wade, killing us softly (video), and women's publications: magazines and books.

------
This is intended to be non-biased information.  Just the facts of what a group claims.  
My opinion will be in a second or third post.  This is just so readers and writer can both be informed.   I actually know the publication magazines, books, yahoo answers responses, roe vs wade, killing us softly, other women's publications, and the slut walk.  I also know about the women in physics conference which may not be directly tied to the feminist groups  (not exactly sure).  (But I don't know about feminist conferences which may kill any of my arguments if you will kindly cite them for any argument in my next post. I also know about dissenting opinions and injustices against men specifically on youtube and on yahoo answers.  I also didn't read too much into LGBT, but have heard the opinions of a LGBT community in real life and online.  If I'm not lazy I'll write a second post just for information on LGBT rights.  I'll also try look more into injustices in male rights because they obviously exist especially when it comes to jail time, their stereotypes as subpar parents and emotionless robots, and family courts.  If you have good sites, i would like to know them.   :)