I have a Dream

In honor and reverence for Doctor King, I have written about my own dream, albeit condensed.

I have a dream...

That one day,  people of all creeds, colors, sexualities, opinions, ideas, morals, ethics, values, nationality, ethnicities, and all other factors not otherwise stated will get the right to justify and explain their thoughts and actions in the context of their respective lives. Not just the legal right,  or the Constitutional granting thereof, but the societal  right, acknowledgement, and expectance.

Where personal condemnations, though they be damned with their existence, are not held against the fellow man, but that judgement is based upon personal merit and fitness for the task at hand.

A land where sentience and sapience - subjectivity and objectivity - exist in a blissful balance.

That is my dream.

And I will fight for it.

Republican Wet Dream

Pretext: this is something I've written for class. The subject was about Andrew Jackson's presidency and his policies, namely that of the rights of Native Americans (or lack thereof, in this case). All that being said, you should still take offense to this.

I believe the action (the Indian Removal Act) of the Government is for the good of the people? Why? Because the addition of another group of peoples would only make things more complicated.

First of all, that's another group that demands right. I mean, c'mon! Another one? Women and slaves are bad enough, but another group of people who should justifiably get the same rights and equal treatment; that's so sensical, I can't help but deny it! If we let them keep their land and become actual citizens of these God blessed United States, what's to keep them from getting their fully endowed Constitutional right? Like marriage or voting? They'd already get their right to follow Christianity, and hold it as the ultimate Truth and foundation this country was built on -- but legal recognition? Then we'd get slightly less tax money!

And another thing: they follow their own belief system. Who does that? Not real Americans, that's who! We fought them Brits for the right to do things out own way, and because of that, we have our own country. A country where we do things democratically and everyone (as long as they're white and male and straight) gets an equal voice! A country where we do our own thing. A country so great, everyone should follow its example. I fact, we should go help all those other countries, even if they didn't ask for our help. We love Jesus that much! Imagine if we ever accepted another belief or value as our own? That'd be like the president -- our dear King Jackson -- changing colors or something.

Finally, they're always fighting one another. There's, like, a dozen different tribes. None of them get along. It sounds more like the tagline for a reality show. But here in America, it's a mandatory to get along. That's why they have to be kicked out: they aren't like us, and slightly altering anything so it's mutually beneficial is too much work. No one in the 50 (or about that, what time period is it again?) has ever has a disagreement, discrepancy, debate, dissented, or differed on any issue. Ever. That is a fact. No need to look it up. That whole "Civil War" thing was just over which side toast lands on when dropped. And it wasn't so much of a war as it was a "Nation Wide Tea Party" where all the tea got switched for black powder and the cups switched for rifles. That's all it was.

I support equality. I support Jackson.

God bless America.

No Small Children

Do you know what stem cells are? If your answer was something along the lines of "in between the root and leaf cells" then congratulations, you have no problems with the following rage. If you said something along the lines of "THEY ARE TO NEVER BE USED," "IT IS A SIN," or "we should kill all the babies and harvest them," then you, sir and/or (I don't judge) ma'am, are -- in the kindest words I can muster at this moment -- a fucking twat.

Let's set something straight right now: I am a pro-baby-shooter. That's right, Kyle likes when things live. Go ahead, write that hate comment. I'll wait...

Done? Good. Right about now, maybe half of you are all "Kyle is one of us! Fight the good fight!" and the other half are something like "Are you that stupid and insensitive, Kyle? Why should someone be forced to <insert the line I hear every single time about why I should be pro-bortion>?!" And here's my message to the latter group: Shut up. My message to the former group: Shut up. Just because I support one side more than another means nothing except for that I have the capabilities to make a decision on my own. I could spend a whole rant about why I take the stance that I do, but that's not why we're here today.

Today, we're going to talk about stem cell research. For those of you who don't know what stem cell research is (i.e. the plant analog group), then let me explain it a bit.

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells. This means that they've yet to take on a specific role; they haven't specialized yet. They're like hopeful actors who've yet to get type-cast and be stuck in a miserable position until they die. Thankfully, they're children will follow in their footsteps and try to fulfill their parent's dream, and which point the process repeats. Anyway, these cells are highly valued because they can become any sort of cell they're placed around. A good amount of bad mojo could be curable with the use of stem cells. There's just one catch:

These cells usually come from unborn fetuses. True, they can also be located in bone marrow, but those stem cells are harder to get to and not as flexible.

Do you see where this is all going? Right along the fiery hell path that leads to baby land. Er... baby lovers versus baby haters? Baby obsessors over realists? Hell, I don't know. Let's put it terms I'm most comfortable with (those being insults): "Anti-choice and Baby Slayer." By the way, if anyone can give me better insults, it would be much appreciated. Anyway, there's the whole debate on whether it's moral or not to harvest said cells for medical research. But, like all great debates, people are too stupid and pig headed to come to a compromise about it.

So let's go with the great equalizer: Myself. Here's the plan: let's not purposefully kill whatever-you-want-to-call-it (I prefer nutrient parasite). However, if the (through whatever reasons, be they natural or otherwise) nutrient parasites weren't making it anyway or were micarried (but the cells still viable) then we can agree it's alright to do.

Side note: we can still get stem cells from developed humans. Even corpses! So really, if everyone stopped being  Jesus freaks/little bitches/whatever might insult you and donated some stem cells, then we might not even need to eradicate the vile womb infester! True, it hurts a lot, but can we all take one for the benefit of our entire fucking species?! You know what, I take the first part of that last statement back; donating stem cells is like giving blood, you little pansies. Just take this in for a moment:

Not a wimp.

This man can do it. Why not you?! There is legitimately not a reason why the general populace can't take a day to go donate something they hardly use so that research on a ground-breaking field of medicine can move further along without any of the moral disagreements that come along with the job. It's a win-win situation; the baby lovers keep their babies (for now) and the fetus abusers get their most holy of holy cells.

Stem cell research is an amazing field of study and one that, while I may not condone where some of the cells come from, it is one that I fully support. The possibilities of it are amazing and shouldn't be passed up just because a few people don't like the idea (which could be a rant of its own). Can we all just figure out how to compromise now?

What might cause others to hesitate, might stimulate others to ejaculate.

As the wise words of Anon have requested, this rant shall be about gay marriage. And I'll be good Guy Kyle and tell you this now: there probably won't be anything here that hasn't already been used in an argument before. And yes, this title was totally stolen from Daniel Tosh.

"So what is your stance on such debauchery, Kyle?" You will ask from your shallow, Republican face-hole. Personally, I think they should be given equal rights.

"Are you sure, Kyle?" You'll tempt like devil-spaw. See below image for just how sure I am.

Just how sure I am.

Message across? Good. Now let's start with actual supporting evidence.

The Constitution.

This is mostly thrown towards American, my home land. I'm not quite sure about other countries (except for Australia, which allows it. Woo Aussies!), so best not to even go there. 

Anyway, the central document of our country says some pretty cool stuff (even thought there are plenty of typos) that lets us -- as legal citizens of the country -- do some pretty cool stuff. Some examples are:

• Not to be killed
• To express your opinion
• To practice your religion
• To pursue happiness, unless you can't be taxed for it
• And a bunch of other things

Now, I've actually found something interesting on that page I linked. I'll quote it here so you don't have to look for it: 

Note that there is no right to marry or bear children included among any of the rights listed above. It is not a "natural" right, because natural rights are only rights of individuals, and exercise of a "right" to marry, without the consent of the other, would be an assault. Since consent is required, it is a matter of contract, and contractual rights are created by the community, even if it is a "community" of only two persons. Since the community is normally a larger polity, and since all legal contracts are agreements not only between the contracting parties, but also with the entire community, therefore the community has the power to regulate marriage and childbirth, and has exercised that power since time immemorial, for the benefit of the community.

Quite a mouthful, correct? Not that your moth can fit a lot; as specified before, it's quite shallow and Republican.

"Ha!" You shout at your monitor, thinking you have foiled me once more. "It says in there that the community can regulate marriage!" Congratulations, you're correct!

And congratulations, you don't understand what a community is! It is not, and I can't stress this enough, it is not the government or judicial system. You see how big and bold and italic and underlined that word is? Let is burn itself into your mind for a moment. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Took you long enough. Thoroughly implanted now? Good.

"But just what is a community then, Kyle?" You'll ask me, finally realizing the futility of arguing with me through the internet and my own post. Well, it could be as little as only two persons, as said in that paragraph. Of course, it could also be a neighborhood, or a church or something. "But wait!" Your morale has risen. "Jesus will save us!" And again, you get another point. Damn, you're on a roll today.

A church, no matter how large or small (see those dirty Catholics), does have the right to regulate who marries who within their boundaries. Fair enough, the independent beliefs decide who they wed in a spiritual sense. That all makes good sense. However, religion does not rule law. Or at least not anymore. Thus, though separate belief systems may prohibit homosexual unions, there can be no justifiable reason to discriminate the right to marriage (an extension of "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness") on legal grounds. And yes, religious nut-jobs, a judge can marry you. To another person, that is. Though don't let that stop you from marrying a judge.

Family Matters

Here's another big one: how homosexuality would re-define what a family is. As always, I'll be trusting dictionary.com for all of my definition-y needs:

fam·i·ly

[fam-uh-lee, fam-lee]noun, plural fam·i·lies,adjective

noun

1.

a.

a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children,considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not:the traditional family.

b.

a social unit consisting of one or more adults together withthe children they care for: a single-parent family.

2.

the children of one person or one couple collectively: We want alarge family.

3.

the spouse and children of one person: We're taking the family onvacation next week.

4.

any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents,children, uncles, aunts, and cousins: to marry into a socially prominent family.

5.

all those persons considered as descendants of a commonprogenitor.

Check out that first one there. Mm. Sure doesn't seem to include anything about heterosexual couples only. But that's not even the tip of the ice berg. Oh no, some people have gone so far to say that "children do better in a heterosexual parent household," to which I just have to drop the science on and prove everyone wrong. That's just what I do.

Another argument on this matter is as thus "Then why can't I marry my dog? I love her a lot, so why can't I?" Not kidding, a friend of mine said that. I pray to Cthulu he was only kidding. But my response is -- and this is earth-shockingly devastating, so I suggest sitting down if you aren't already -- dogs don't have legal standing! That's right, they can't agree to any form of social contract, which marriage is! Mind blowing, right? this also applies to any non-sentient beings and objects.

Finally, people claim that legalization of gay marriage would lead to group marriages, which doesn't really make much sense, and actually commits the slippery slope fallacy.

God said so!

No. No he didn't. In fact, if we were to take a literal interpretation of the Bible (which a lot of people seem to do for some reason), we'll get the several verses about homosexuals, a good bit of which seem to actually condone such relationships an encourage them.

And the ones that do talk negatively about the subject, are ever only about gay sex. Big difference between marriage and sex. Pretty sure about that. HIV positive about it.

And the point about how "God made Adam and Even, not Adam and Steve" is possibly one of the most ridiculous and idiotic premises I've ever heard. I mean, really? You think the creator of everything ever doesn't know how basic biology works? Seriously? At this point, it's pretty safe to call you a dumbass for saying that. How the hell else were they supposed to reproduce? It's basic fucking math, for Christ's sake! Get that shit right!

Sorry, got a little heated there. Anyway, this was for you Anon. Hope you enjoyed.

Super-powered Freaks

"Let's have a little fun; all favoritism aside, and no partials considered, who is the best superhero of all time?" -Anon

Quite the tall order we have here, asking me to choose the best superhero. that's like asking me to pick the best Pokemon of all time. I mean, do we go by pure numbers, their overall story, or badassery? Of course, you should know by now that I'll be covering all three.

The Numbers!

Thinking about it, there's only one rational choice if we're going based purely based off of the most objective means possible, and that choice is...


*drum roll*

Superman. Yep, you should have seen it coming. The Man of Steel wins out if it's a toe-to-toe fist fight. Not Batman. Not Ironman. Their only superpowers were money, so they can't really count. No, the Kryptonian Crime-buster (if that isn't a nickname yet, it's my copyright) easily wins out. Having more superpowers than should be possible, and only being weak to a rock, it's kinda hard to argue the point. He's virtually indestructible (minus that whole rock thing) and can shoot lazers from his eyes. That's pretty much a winning ticket there.

"But, Kyle!" You begin to riot because you can't handle a differing opinion. "<insert hero's name here> would just get some kryptonite and weaken/kill Superman." Yea, I suppose you're right for once, reader. Only one problem with that logic:

Why would Superman let said person that? Sure, Superman might not kill unless it's absolutely needed, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be willing incapacitate people. Shatter their kneecaps? Depends on what canon you're using.

And don't even get me started on the time Superman became a member of the White Lantern Corps.

For those of you who don't get what I mean, I'm referencing the power rings from the Green Lantern comics. Superman was offered a Green Power Ring at one point too, but Green is nothing compared to White. The list of abilities goes on and on, but just check this out if you want to find out more. Basically, it takes the already god-like Superman and turns him into a god-like being with the ability to create things with your mind, resurrect things, and use his already awesome eye beams with a cool new light beam. That is statistically the best superhero ever.

Story Time!

I actually have no clue about this one. Seriously, there are so many different versions of every single superhero ever, that picking just one would be pretty much useless.

I can, however, say that Spider-Man has a pretty good story going for him. He was the first superhero that people could really connect with; after all, every other superhero at that time was some sort of alien or not-quite-human being. Parker was just an ordinary student in New York City when he happened to be bitten by a radioactive spider. While most of us will never get to experience the painful bliss of unstable spider venom, the vast majority (I hope, anyway) can sympathize with the student role that Peter has to carry on with. Add on the romance plot with Mary Jane (a painfully obvious euphemism for teenager's love for marijuana) and the best-friend-turned-worst-enemy twist, it could relate to teenagers on one level or another.

Badassing Beyond Belief.

This was the one I was looking forward too. I know the perfect man for this job. The Merc with a Mouth, ever an anti-hero, Deadpool himself!

"But, Kyle," you once again dare to interrupt me, "you only like Deadpool because of his game!" And I say nay! I've known of Deadpool for quite a few years now. So stick that in your juice box and suck it.

Deadpool, while not being hopped up on super steroids, still boasts a rather interesting pallet, namely having a version of Wolverine's healing factor. Originally included to cure him of his terminal cancer, the power went a little bit further, essentially making an unkillable, trash talking killer. Come one, the man can't even get drunk! That's how well he heals! Add to that the fact that his brain cells die and regenerate so quickly that he's mentally unstable and has no set fighting style, and you've got yourself a quite ridiculous idea.

But the best thing about Deadpool is his humor. Not only does he seem to get off at killing people (the more violent the better!) but he breaks the fourth wall so often, one wonders why the carpenters bother rebuilding it at all.

The Magic of Science

This is a post from my phone.

If that's not mind blowing, then just think about it: only about 5 years ago,  I  wouldn't be able to do this. Technology has advanced that much in such little time.

The famous rule is "every two years,  our computing capacity doubles." The stunning  thing is that it's generally true,  albeit with  some slight clauses that don't much pertain to this post.

Science is truly magical.