mAtteR 0f Ch0¡cE

Quoting the film Trainspotting from the British screenwriter John Hodge:

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home.
Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourselves. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?

Despite the heroin thing, this last sentence was the heroin talking, I think that there is a lot of truth in this text. I'm not sure if it is something argument-able or the kind of thing you learn by experiences (so it depends on perception).

There is a kind of paradox here, because I think that it is actually possible that this choosing thing could be chosen in its own. In fact, this is a reasonable way (among a lot that I might not know) of understanding life, so it is possible to choose it among the rest. At least there is the destiny way, which assumes that you are not the one who makes de choices, they are already made for you.

Thinking about my choosings,

• I choose to choose choosing as the way of life (not mine, every).
• I choose to choose life and I choose it.
• I choose to try to be happy (meaning it).
• I choose to believe in logic.

What does choosing choosing and choosing to be happy means?

Most of the people know that, more or less, everything has connotations (to us), well, you can voluntarily change the connotations that we get from anything. If you see a bottle half-empty and half-full, you can choose to give more importance to the fact that it is half-empty, this is to be optimistic.

For example, about long-lasting relationships, you really never know if it would work for ever or not, so, in order to feel stable, you have to choose to believe that it will last. Of course, it is a risky bet, but not doing so may lead to insecurity and jealousy. Now think that somehow you have doubts, then you have to explore your feelings, but if you have no clues, you may have to choose, taking risks, of course.

This post could have been named Life is a matter of taking risks.

HundReD tHoUgHtS c0m¡c

A comic that's worth a hundred thoughts

Source: goComics

Life is a matter of choice, you can choose not only upon your acts but upon your perceptions, similar to choosing whether the bottle is half-full or half-empty.

I beL¡eVe ¡N L0g¡c !

I know a few people in the world with whom i cannot argue, there are probably a lot more that i have the lucky not to met. There are two kinds of these people, the ones that doesn't know how an argue works (i listen, you listen) and doesn't listen to your arguments, so it doesn't worth trying, and others that i didn't knew why but they listen and keep track of the arguments, but don't get the conclusions, even if the arguments where truly good.

I'd like to think about this last few, i recently understood why is it that, despite following a good argument, the conclusions doesn't convince them. I think that the problem here is that they don't believe in logic, i.e., they don't think that taken some hypotheses and manipulating them by means of logic rules, the logical conclusions derived are true whenever the hypothesis hold.

These non-believers find hard to argue with people that have different points of view than their own. They usually don't like to discuss if it is not for something they think important, they hate arguing over "silly things" (i personally think that everything worths arguing).

They may probably don't know what is the problem with them while arguing with s'body and they won't be aware of its relation with the problem of learning logic-ruled sciences like maths, physics or chemistry.

The ones i know seem to have everything pretty clear, but they are unable to defend most of their ideas to the end (i assume an idea to be a decision taken from some premises, which are the ones that are truly chosen; and to defend an idea to the end is trying to convince s'one of your ideas till it comes a matter of choice, that is, a matter of premises) and the ones they do, are because they are learned ideas (that is, s'thing that s'one convinced you of).

So, thinking about this topic, i realized that logic is a matter of believing-ness. It is not required for a human being to believe in logic in order to live, he has the means to think, but he can chose not to believe in the logic conclusions he take if they don't match whatever he chose to believe true. This can be the quid of fanatic and not so fanatic religious people, since they believe something or somebody to be true and if any product of thinking leads them to a conclusion in a different direction, they refuse it, even if the premises where true for them!

I think that the believe in logic may have a lot to do with relativism, since believing in logic imply that every point of view should be taken into account and hence are equally valid, here comes the argue whether a premise is admissible or not. For example, a forever-fixed premise should be that human life is over any other thing and a non admissible premise should be that there are races better than others (in fact, there should only be one race taken into account, the human race).

Despite i have always being proud of claiming that i have no blind faith, i now have to admit that i have one: logic rules! I have finally found my path, LOL.

I believe in logic!

fUck¡N' BeEf bUs!

What an awesome expression! I know two meanings for beef bus, according to the urban dictionary it is a cock (it actually says penis) and it illustrates the meaning with an example: "Parking the Beef Bus in Tuna Town". But the meaning that made me ROFL is bus of beef, taken literally, well... not that much. Don't think of a bus made of beef.

Think of a huge guy, like a human mountain and you'll get it.

While watching a tv series called Dexter (not Dexter's Lab, XD) which is about a killer, one of the characters (Deb, Dexter's sis) exclaimed that expression when she saw a guy named little chino.

This is the poster of the show, I recommend it, despite it is about a killer, the argument is very interesting.

This is a screen shot of the fucking beef bus.

Googleing for this expression, I found a web page where they analyzed this episode, look what they tell about the expression I'm thinking of:

“Seriously, though, I can't even accurately describe how mastodonic this guy is.
'Beef bus' is really the best description. He is a bus made out of beef.”

This is an example of the reasons for which I like the English language, its versatility. It's amazingly easy to express quite accurately your feelings or thoughts by using known expressions or inventing new ones.

The easiness is, of course, related with the personal facility for expressing ideas, but this is off the topic, we'll have time to think about thinking.

bUt f¡RSt....R0fLiNg!

Most people know the acronym LOL (laughing out loud), but not so many know ROFL, it stands for rolling on the floor laughing or LOFL, which means laughing out fucking loud.

There are a lot more, like LMAO (laughing my ass off) or ROFLMAO, more subtle like LOTI (laughing on the inside), even really large and explicit ones, ROFLUISMP standing for (Rolling On Floor Laughing Until I Shit My Pants).

In fact, I think that you can mix them up to form new ones, like LOTIL or LOTIFL. Of course, you can invent new ones like FWMPL for fucking wetting my pants laughing or LUIWMP for laughing until i wet my pants.

So, having said that, the title ROFLING should mean ROFL-ing, i.e. rolling on the floor laughing -ing. The same as with coachball, i think this could be raised to sport, it's tiring and you use your muscles.

Among all of those acronyms I chose ROFL because LOL is so oftenly used that, for me, it isn't strong enough. I could have chosen LOFL, but the former make me smile and the later sounds to me like hypocrite.

Now, let me help you practice some sport, by posting a joke that made me ROFL (yes, you can use it as a noun!) for a while:

Three men, an Italian, a French and a Spanish went for a job interview in England. Before the interview, they were told that they must compose a sentence in English with three main words: "green", "pink" and "yellow".

• The Italian was first: "I wake up in the morning. I see the yellow sun. I see the green grass and I think to myself, I hope it will be a pink day";
• the French was next: "I wake up in the morning, I eat a yellow banana, a green pepper and in the evening I watch the pink panther on TV";
• last was the Spanish: I wake up in the morning, I hear the phone "green...green...", I pink up the phone and I say "Yellow?"...
  

c0min' up neXt...

C0uch bAll
0r the aRt of doing n0th¡n'

Let me think about this well known (but not so ancient) practice that consists in laying down on a sofa or armchair doing NOTHING! Sometimes you do nothing alone or with others, nothing means anything not productive or that doesn't requires too much thinking nor moving (so this excludes wanking). Watching TV can be a way, but not watching a movie, a TV-serial can also be. Another example can be playing video games.

The point is that at the end of the day you feel as if you've wasted all that time. Unless you really enjoyed it, in that case you feel as if it was a long time ago when last enjoyed that much.

Nevertheless, this practice has recently risen to the cathegory of sport with several names: "chairball", "sofaball", "sofaing"...

I've read that this sport is called “couch surfing”, and this is what my mind pictured out while i was reading it:

So, because of that I've decided not to use that name and "invented" a new one.

I've also read that when it involves using the remote control it's called “channel surfing”, so:

To be thought...

tH¡nK of a PeT for Th¡s bL0g aNd y0u'lL get thinky

While i finish writing my next post, let me introduce my new pet, I've just adopted it, his name is thinky:

In a few posts he will have his place somewhere in the sidebar.

The Beg¡Nn¡nG of tHe beG¡nN¡n'

Not everything has a straight beginning, but a sequence of, let's say, first steps which configure a global start point; and this web log, i hope, will have both. In one sense, this is the beginning, the very first post, but something tells me that the hole thing won't be running till i have written a few of them.

As it might haven't been clear from the header, let me explain (to my self) the aim of this blog. When i say "where i will try to pose my thoughts" i mean that i will write deep and not so deep reflections, but all of them right thought. By trying i mean that I'm not an English native speaker, so, for me it's not always trivial to think in English. This is just the point, i usually watch lots of TV series (lost also) in English, but normally i don't have the opportunity of talking (which includes thinking) nor writing in English.

Feel free to argue if you don't agree with my comments. The only thing i ask you is to do it right thinking (i mean, with good arguments).


Good arguments in the sense of M. C. Morgan, namely:

1. A good argument is logical and well-reasoned;


2. a good argument makes a detailed case;


3. a good argument is substantiated with evidence;


4. a good argument is persuasive.
   

Please, correct me in case i made any mistake, 'cause this is what it is all about.