Are you looking for examples of logical fallacies? Search no further! In this volume, you can find multiple examples of all of them.
I would like to p...moreAre you looking for examples of logical fallacies? Search no further! In this volume, you can find multiple examples of all of them.
I would like to point out that, when I read (most of) this sucker, I had no firm "opinion" about what our climate was doing. I was still trying to make my way through the different positions in the discussion. I'm a contrarian, so I would've been ecstatic to have one more anti-establishment position to be smug about! Alas, this P.O.S. could've been more accurately titled A Non-Argument Against Global Warming. Among the classic non-arguments present:
1. Scientists are just saying there's global warming because there's so much money to be made by telling people to stop consuming!
2. Some parts of some ice floes are actually getting bigger! Thus, no global warming!
3. Something something, liberal media something, Al Gore owns a big house, hahaha!
So, it's less of a "guide" than a "rant," much like this review. I enjoy carrying around books that might offend those around me, probably because I'm so emotionally well-balanced. Unfortunately, carrying this one around eventually made me quite embarrassed. When asked at one point what the book's "argument" was by a friend, my response was, "There isn't one."
The sad fact for those wanting to "refute" climate change is this: if you want to refute SCIENTIFIC FACT, the only way to do it is with better supported and clearer SCIENTIFIC FACTS. Insults and accusations about double-standards some random-ass celebrity holds will not counter scientific evidence, so stop telling me how many gallons of petroleum Leonardo DiCaprio's airliner uses when he flies to his Earth Day after-party or whatever. I really don't care. (less)
That's my review of the book. What I'm really here to talk about is the movie, and this is going to have...moreI like these books. The third was my favorite.
That's my review of the book. What I'm really here to talk about is the movie, and this is going to have spoilers like you wouldn't believe. Just warning you.
We just returned from watching the Hunger Games movie, and the experience was deeply disturbing. It should be disturbing, of course: we watched a movie about teenagers being forced to kill one another for the entertainment of a wealthy, lucky few. So, it's not disturbing that the movie itself was disturbing.
What was REALLY disturbing, though, was the audience. As one teenager beat another one to death--a large male beating a small female--the audience burst into cheers because the girl was essentially a badguy. The girl was, at most, 13 or 14. The actress looked the appropriate age. The cheering didn't even stop when her small body was dropped into the grass and the camera focused in on her lifeless face.
We're sitting in a huge theater, watching a film where 24 children are required to fight to the death against one another. There is a mild amount of romance mixed in with all of the carnage, and the kiss between Peeta and Katniss was enough to get a large part of the audience whistling and squeeling with delight.
It was like they were watching an entirely different movie from the one Joy and I were watching.
I remember reading some reviews of the book pointing out how many reviews focused entirely on the half-assed romance story, ENTIRELY MISSING THE POINT OF THE SERIES. It wasn't until seeing the audience reaction to the film that this really sunk in. Are these people entirely oblivious that THEY are the audience to the Hunger Games? Do they really not recognize the Capital is a slightly exaggerated version of us wealthy first-worlders? Granted, we don't take two tributes from each district. We tend to attack people outright, police their countries, and then replace their political structures with something more to our liking. But, a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
The book attempted to challenge our expectations, and the movie tried to as well. The violence constantly felt WRONG. Each death gave me the same queasy, emotional feeling I get when I watch The Lord of the Flies. Instead of casting the teenagers with a bunch of attractive twenty-somethings, they actually chose children, most of whom did not look ready for combat. They made a point of showing you children who were dead, but not giving you the twisted satisfaction of drawn-out and exciting fight scenes. This movie had much more brutality than action. And the scene with Cato breaking down at the end was almost perfect, although his death was more drawn out and difficult to stomach in the book.
But it doesn't matter what Suzanne Collins writes, or what the director directs, if the audience is oblivious to anything challenging their world views. I suppose if you're looking hard enough for an 'action' movie, you can find one in The Hunger Games. And if you only care about which boy Katniss ends up with in the end, you might totally miss the fact that YOU'RE THE FUCKING CAPITAL, and BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO THE CAPITAL.
We've decided to just rent the Hunger Games movies from here on out, because they're troubling enough without having to deal with the audience as well. (less)
I mean, let's really think about these guys for a minute, because the whole idea of zombies is where my problems with this...moreCan we talk about zombies?
I mean, let's really think about these guys for a minute, because the whole idea of zombies is where my problems with this book begins. I for one am not concerned about the zombie apocalypse. And, if it happens, I have complete faith we can kick the asses out of some stupid, slow versions of ourselves.
We'll start with the basic idea of a zombie. Theoretically, these are corpses that get up, walk around, bite people and infect them. Great! Those will be really scary for a little bit. But what is causing them to rise? Is it a disease that only affects humans? Okay, lets assume it is. IF THIS IS THE CASE, all of the dead bodies that are ALREADY dead will NOT be attacking anyone. Thus, we have to contend with people who are infected and dying in the present, and who will decompose. After all, there's no logic to the assumption that zombies just don't decompose. Do maggots not want to eat them? Are they impervious to the elements of rain, wind, dust storms, cold, heat, and everything else that makes living people uncomfortable? NOBODY who is arguing FOR zombies can use logic and argue that any of these things could be the case. It makes no sense at all. These motherfuckers would be falling apart left and right, and after about two weeks, the original batch would be non-existent.
Okay, maybe a month.
On the other hand, perhaps the already-dead humans will raise up. As I've ranted about before, this makes no sense, because dead humans are simply decomposing matter, just like dead dogs and dead trees and the non-silicone parts of Michael Jackson. If dead humans start walking around because dead matter is getting reborn, we're also going to have dirt golems and sentient dead trees, and shit is gonna get really ugly. We'll be fighting against our own dead cells that are trying to eat our living cells, and we will simply be screwed. Thus, zombies won't even matter in this scenario. Thus, as my very scientifically grounded argument illustrates, dead bodies will not all start digging their ways out of the ground as zombies.
So we'll stick to the disease hypothesis. The idea of zombies getting up and walking around and actually being a long-term threat doesn't make sense. In fact, I think it's a stretch to say zombies are a global threat on even a short-term basis. . . zombies taking over the world requires faith in what is basically a pyramid scheme: one zombie bites three people, each of those people bites three people before they get decapitated, and eventually the hordes of zombies overwhelm the normal people. We all know pyramid schemes are bullshit because eventually some people just don't follow through with it. One group of marines or ultimate fighters kills off 90 of them. A bomb blows up hundreds. We can't say exactly what factor will keep the scheme from working, but we know from experience dealing with people--ALIVE ONES with functioning brains--that pyramid schemes don't work.
So, I have a lot of trouble buying this idea that zombies will become some huge threat if they are (a) only raised after an infected person comes back from the dead; (b) relying on a pyramid scheme to take over the world; and (c) slower, stupider versions of humans. As we have seen in many wars in the past, numbers matter less than strategery. And if there's one thing we humans have figured out how to do in our many years of living on this planet, it's kill other humans. I mean, c'mon! With weaponry from five hundred years ago we could handle any zombie uprising we come across, unless we ignore the zombies until they have swept through more than half of the human population. Since this is highly unlikely in the age of blogging and ratings-governed news coverage, I again would like to point out zombies will NOT be a problem.
When it comes to this book, though, these problems get even more accentuated. We're starting the story many, many years after the zombies first started attacking people. They're on the other side of a frickin' chain link fence, moaning and lumbering, as zombies are wont to do. Why have we not simply started stabbing them all through the head with sharp sticks through the holes in the fence? Why don't we fight their pyramid scheme with one of our own? If everyone goes out to the fence every day and stabs two zombies in the head, eventually none of them will be moaning and groaning around our village. It doesn't totally end the problem, but that's where protective body armor, helmets, and artillery comes into play. Zombies don't know how to engage in guerilla warfare, but we do. These zombies--in case you've forgotten--are trying to kill people with their teeth. Their fucking TEETH. If some random-ass dude comes at me with his teeth, I'm gonna come at him with something OTHER THAN MY TEETH. . . basically any weapon wins against teeth. . . and I'm going to win. If this person also doesn't have a functioning brain, I'm guessing that will bump my chances up even further.
So, there's THAT logical hole. Even if zombies have a heyday because of a ridiculously successful beginning--for instance, the disease starts simultaneously in several places that don't have oil, and every zombie is very diligent about biting three people before getting decapitated--they're gonna be less of a long-term threat than the Spice Girls. We're going to suddenly recognize that we ought to be killing these slow, stupid humans, and we will develop strategies for doing so.
My vote in the contest between smart, fast humans and slow, stupid ones has always been on the former. This is why I'm not a Cardinals fan. Zombies are a fun kind of mob for characters in horror movies to fight, and it's fun to watch these people get torn apart in hilarious ways. But when the idea of zombies is converted into a book that tries for more than just slasher goofiness, the holes in the whole theory start to pop open like holes in a maggot-ridden corpse.
Thus, I must admit I was much more critical while reading TFHT than I have been when watching Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Night of the Living Dead, High Noon of the Dead, Tea Time of the Dead, and a variety of other influential zombie flicks. However, I feel Ryan's attempt to place the events in this series quite a bit after the actual zombie apocalypse begs her audience to ask these questions about how possible this whole scenario really is.
And, following my usual pattern of ranting for a long time and then briefly mentioning the book in question, here are a couple other thoughts on The Forest of Hands and Teeth: it's appropriately eerie, and an entertaining read. However, the secondary characters are only occasionally likeable, and this is a problem that carries over into the second book of the trilogy. Although you don't necessarily want these people to get eaten by zombies, you do kind of wish many of them would abruptly depart from the storyline so you didn't have to read about the annoying things they're saying/doing any longer. And the series suffers from a thematic issue that most zombie literature is likely to struggle with: in a world where humanity has been bested by stupid, dead versions of ourselves, how can you give your reader a genuine sense of hope?
This book review has received a strong 'R' rating for disturbing sexual content. If you are eating, you might not wanna read this review right now.
DO...moreThis book review has received a strong 'R' rating for disturbing sexual content. If you are eating, you might not wanna read this review right now.
DON'T go into this book thinking it'll get you in the mood. In fact, it may disturb the mood right out of you.
Did you know? Before Viagra, guys who couldn't maintain a good stiffy would often have "stilts" of some sort inserted inside of their penis skin, and they would essentially wander through life with a half-boner that never went away so they could still bonk. Special pants were designed to make this perpetual-half-mast issue less obvious.
Also, apparently a lot of guys are turned on by putting stuff inside the skin of their penises. To me, this sounds like exactly the LAST thing I would EVER want to do. For those of you without a penis, let me remind you, tis quite sensitive. Picture putting a bicycle in your mouth. I expect that would be about as painful as putting a gerbil up your. . . I did mention gerbils are popular for this, right?
ALSO, congratulations to homosexuals. In several studies, it has been suggested that homosexuals tend to be much less inhibited during sex. They tend to take their time about it much more, to spend more time with foreplay, and to communicate more actively with their mates during bonk. Apparently, heteros have a tendency to just git 'er done, then go back to watching TV.
Because humans tend to be prudish, for many a year, all studies of sexuality were done by watching other animals doing the bonk. Unfortunately, this is a very ineffective way of studying HUMAN sexuality, since pigs and monkeys tend to orgasm in a matter of seconds and not derive a lot of enjoyment out of it.
Also, do you know about electrical dick machines? Well, now you do! You can buy a kit to build your own machine that serves the purpose of making a plastic cock gyrate. Check out the latest issue of Boy's Life, they always encourage the buying and building of random shit--I can't tell you how many times I tried to convince my parents to let me buy a kit to build a hovercraft, but they always asked, "What are you going to do with a hovercraft?" And I would inevitably respond with, "I don't KNOW, but hovercrafts are awesome!"
Similarly, electric dick machines are awesome.
AND, perhaps this is the most important and encouraging fact of all. SHORTER WOMEN (in general) ORGASM BETTER AND MORE OFTEN. There is science to back this up, and I don't remember the details, but I do remember the rule of thumb: the distance between belly button and vagina is a good indication of the clitoris's location. The shorter this distance, the more conveniently placed the clitoris, and the more action it will receive during bonk.
This was quite entertaining, and I learned a lot--some of which I didn't want to know. That said, I didn't find this one as entertaining as Stiff. Bonk is similar in a lot of ways, taking the same humorous approach to the topic, and focusing on the bizarre and fascinating. If you feel like reading something that's light, fun, and able to make your genitals suck up into your body with fear, give this book a go. (less)