Fundamental Differences Between Babies and Animals
The idea of using human babies for the things humans currently use animals for is not necessarily a bad idea. In fact it is actually a pretty decent idea. While there are some pretty obvious differences between babies and animals when it comes down to it they are not all that fundamentally different. Because of this it is completely feasible to use human babies to replace animals for what humans use them for.
There are two main things that humans use animals for. Their meat and their skin. Human babies lack neither of these and if you have ever touched a baby you know well that their skin is fair soft. As for the meat all you have to do is ask a cannibal what they taste like, and really you do not even have to do that, I mean, they must continue their cannibalism for a reason. There is also the nice little fact that since we would be using human babies instead of animals PETA would have nothing to complain about and go away.
Animals are usually raised to maturity on farms and require care and attention. Babies however are already sometimes grown from test tubes and only have to age a little before they can be used for their resources. The other option is to create farms that just have large numbers of women who are just eternally pregnant. That could even be doubled for use as a milk farm or used to sell the baby products at higher prices due to them being all natural.
Possibly the best reason to use babies instead of animals is that instead of having to protect all the endangered and even the non-endangered animal species out there we can just let them die off or even help the process along. This means no longer having to dedicate valuable resources to protecting these animals or their habitats. This means humans can have the whole planet to themselves. This leaves us free to expand even more as a species and eliminate the risk of overpopulation for a while longer. Of course, the fact that we would also be using babies for food and clothing, among other things, would also help with population control.
Due to babies having all the necessary elements for what humans use animals for, as well as easily and relatively quickly being able to be grown in farms or test tubes, removing the need to maintain other species, and helping limit overpopulation it is perfectly feasible for humans to use their babies for what they currently use animals. In fact it is actually quite logical to do so.
Filed under Miscellaneous | Comment (1)The Day Fox Broadcasting Company Died
It was announced today that Fox would not be bringing Dollhouse back after its second season. It’s better than what they did to Whedon’s Firefly a few years back. Firefly was canceled mid-season for low ratings that were Fox’s fault. Dollhouse is being allowed to finish its second season and Whedon was warned before hand so he can prepare an actual ending for the show. Dollhouse‘s finale will air January 22, 2010.
Fox will not actually die today. They have till the end of the season to prepare. Till then there will be uproar about it but on that day they will fall.
Dollhouse isn’t the first scifi show Fox has canceled this year. In Spring they canceled Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. That show they didn’t even give a chance to end itself, it just stopped in the middle of the storyline. Firefly released a movie after its cancellation to finish up the series and the unaired episodes were released on dvd.
Fox is trying to avoid another Firefly incident. Well, you cancel a good show and guess what happens, people get pissed. Whether or not it’s the second good show from the same writer you’ve canceled. Fox was never that great, it’s just big, and they are going down the drain, fast. After this they will probably lose almost all scifi fans, especially the cult ones as viewers. Alienating their viewers is them hurting themselves. Maybe, just maybe, the viewers and ex-viewers need to hurt them a bit too.
Filed under Countdown, Guest Contributors, Miscellaneous | Comment (0)xkcd: volume 0 (Review)
The following are the personal opinions of one Fizzzard. Sir Benjamin personally has no idea what to make of these things because he doesn’t own the book, and quite frankly probably won’t anytime soon.
As you know or will know by the end of this sentence xkcd released its first book on Tuesday, entitled xkcd: volume 0. Personally I ordered my copy as fast as I could. I did not however pay $17 extra, almost the same amount as the book itself, to get it signed. They said to allow 1-2 weeks for shipping so I was quite happy when it arrived only 4 days after I ordered it.
However, once I opened the box I noticed an immediate problem. Though it had been shipped with some packing paper as protection against harm the paper was all crammed to one end of the box, not protecting the book. Dented books are not cool, at least not when they’re dented before I get them. The book also appears to be somewhat warped, I don’t know why, it just is.
The choice in strips to include is a bit weird. The first to entries of the journal series are included but none of the ones after Megan takes his hat are. On the other hand some of the not so good comics are included, including the ferret in a plane, Donner party of four, and the Penny Arcade parody.
In the blag post announcing the book’s release it was said that there was going to be extra comments in the margins of the book. Well there are, but only on about a third of the pages, and some of the ones that are there are in some sort of code or other that makes no sense to me.
Oh and to top it off there are several misprints through out the book. There’s a red dot in the middle of one of the comics. There a some small red lines across some white space the probably shouldn’t be there. Oh and one of the scroll-over comments has the lower half of its text to the left of the upper half of the text.
I’ll probably buy volume 1 if it’s released but mostly only because it exists. Unless you have money to spare don’t bother buying the book, just read the comics online.
Filed under Guest Contributors, Miscellaneous, Reviews | Comment (0)Girl
They travel in packs, I swear. They are never alone. You want to talk to one of them? Nope, you’re talking to the group. Why not avoid the need to talk to them? You are male and straight most likely so good luck avoiding that. They are girls. They are always with their friends.
Currently I want to ask one out. Well I’d rather not do it in front of a group. So she needs to be separate from the group. When does that happen? Well to figure that out exactly would require stalking, and stalking doesn’t go over well. So take a guess, maybe when she is at her locker after school. Say that works. I finally have a chance, but what do I say? “Hi, I’m the guy that sits in the corner of your 7th period who never talks, want to go out sometime?” Well maybe that would work but it’s a little risky to try. Maybe: “Hi, you know me right? Would you like to go out sometime?” Well that sounds okay, I guess I’ll go with that.
What she said yes? Hurrah! Hmm, where to go….. um…..
This is gonna be so much fun….
-Fizzzy
Filed under Guest Contributors, Miscellaneous, School | Comments (7)Would You Like to be Limited?
Woot! First time actually posting something I’ve written. No more having Timmy do it for me. Anyway, once again my Modern World History teacher has given me a chance to mess with him. And yes I enjoy doing this way too much so by all means enjoy.
Limits to Cultures
I believe there are no limits to cultural relativism because if there are limits then it is not cultural relativism anymore, at some level there is a logical reason for everything, and a lack of a thing that would determine limits if there were limits.
Dictionary.com defines cultural relativism as a noun meaning “the concept that the importance of a particular cultural idea varies from one society or societal subgroup to another, the view that ethical and moral standards are relative to what a particular society or culture believes to be good/bad, right/wrong”. By that definition it is impossible for cultural relativism to involve any limits while still continuing to be cultural relativism. However if that definition is believed to allow limits in another culture then there might be some conflict because by that definition they are allowed to think that way and can’t have limits imposed on it. If this definition is looked at as a fact though then there is no way to impose limits on a culture for whatever reason.
Some cultures kill a twin baby. They do this for a reason unbeknown to me, but there is a reason for it. Now it’s fairly likely this reason is also not acceptable within our culture. However if you keep looking at the reasons behind the reasons you’ll almost surely find a reason that is also a reason for something in our culture. How odd we find them killing that baby is how odd they find us not killing that baby.
Nothing exists that would determine limits if they existed. One culture can’t determine limits because all cultures have the same rights. To impose limits on a culture the imposer must be better than the culture and according to the definition of cultural relativism no culture is better than another and therefore can’t impose limits on another.
I have stated my reasons for there not being limits on cultural relativism. There are many other reasons for and against there being limits. None of these beliefs are right or wrong, everyone has their reasons for what they think, and deep down the reasons are all similar. I believe my way, you believe your way, and Bob believes something entirely different.
-Fizzzard
Filed under Guest Contributors, Miscellaneous | Comment (1)