Dear readers, I have noticed that I have not been updating my blog as frequently as I would like. So, to push myself I am introducing a new segment: Food Friday. Ever Friday I will talk about some kind of basic ingredient or something and how I can prepare it. This week I will be talking about…

Trying new things.

Tonight sister01 mentioned that Eve was not Adam’s first wife; Lilith was. She was reminded of it because of a show she had seen yesterday, but was first taught this in Bible school when she was little. She claimed that therefore it had to be true. A claim that something is true always grabs my attention. I would like to use this post to illustrate how my mind starts working from there.

Boyfriend01 and I sometimes discuss our wedding. We know we should technically get engaged yet and ask officially, but we are not really one for rules. At least I am not. So, we frequently find ourselves discussing facets of the wedding and how we wish to plan and execute it. Since I do my best thinking when I am writing, here are blog posts discussing the subject matter.

Today I want to do a short piece about the amount of weddings.

If it were completely up to me, I would probably have about five weddings, for a complete week of wedding madness. This gives us the possibility to try five different styles and get married in five different ways. One day could be completely traditional and we would invite most of our family and colleagues to that. One day could be our own spin on traditional and we would invite just our family to that. One day could be extravagantly expensive (think Cinderella carriage in Disney) and we would only invite very close family for that. One day could be completely in anime and gaming style and we would invite most of our friends and family to that. One wedding could be done nudist/Roman style, in the privacy of our own home, just for the two of us (and MAYBE some very, very close friends).

Obviously, this would make for a week we would never forget (if only because afterwards we would have to live on bread and water for a few months). The organization would be atrocious because it is five times the work. I would be completely exhausted at the end of the week. It would also possibly leave some fighting over who was present at the ‘actual wedding’.

To solve that last piece, I would just go to city hall two weeks earlier and quickly get the legal stuff taken care off so that at the actual wedding we do not have to worry about all that stuff. I also know that if we will do that, at least four family members will get unforgivably mad at me. Which of course is not the plan at all. However, it is our wedding and we get the final say. If we really want to do it like that and have good reasons to do so, I would feel very uncomfortable if they start demanding we adjust our wedding plans to their expectations.

In the end it will largely depend on both budget and available time. There are a lot of things I would not like to spend money on (like flowers or a honey moon), which Boyfriend01 finds very important. They key to having multiple weddings would be a very tight budget and it will simply not work unless sacrifices are made. The question we will have to answer once we start really planning, is whether those sacrifices will be worth it.

I am often reluctant to say exactly why I do not believe in god. It boils down to the fact that there is no evidence for him, but this does not satisfy a lot of people, especially once I claim that lack of evidence is the same as evidence. In that light, I would like to take a shot at proving that god does not exist.

Imagine that I am holding a stone. When I will drop that stone, will it fall to the ground, or will god miraculously lift it up? This is a silly question to start with, because it is ludicrous to assume any god would prove his existence to just anybody, or take such a direct route (god likes faith, after all), or whatever other legitimate excuses can be imagined.

My point is not that the stone does not miraculously lift up, it is that we expect it to fall. Not because it falls some of the time, but because it always falls down, unless there is another systematic reason why it would not (like magnetism). The universe works according to a set of laws that can never be broken. This is why science uses Methodological naturalism: the assumption that everything has a natural cause. When a window is broken, first all natural causes are examined without claiming it is a ghost who has broken it. And you know what? Methodological naturalism works. All sightings of supernatural behavior have turned out to be… not magic.

Let this sink in for a moment. Every single place we as a human race have looked, the world looks exactly like it would if there was no god. We never have to take into account that there is a 5-10% percent chance that god will intervene, because god never does. When looking at prayer, it only works in relieving stress of the patient. If the patient is not told that he is being prayed for, then the praying has zero effect. Given all this, it can at least be shown that if there is a god, that he never interferes with the human world.

Given the two options that there either is a god, or there is not a god, it is highly subject that the world looks exactly like it would if there was no god at all. Is it not the easiest explanation then that there really is no god?

You might feel the need to object at this point, because there are still reasons why there could be a god. Realize that these justifications could all be used for the invisible pink unicorn as well and that, without good arguments, you can not say it is still probable a god exists without also claiming that it is probable that the invisible pink unicorn exists. Still, it is irrelevant for the point I am trying to make.

That is, imagine a person who knows all of the above. Then, imagine this person hearing every additional argument that there is for a god existing and this person realizing that they are all faulty in some way. This person at the very least does not accept these arguments. Is it then not normal for him to not believe in god? And also, for this person to say that he knows there is no god, just like others will say that they know there are no dragons, elves, or invisible pink unicorns?

Dear readers, I have noticed that I have not been updating my blog as frequently as I would like. So, to push myself I am introducing a new segment: Food Friday. Ever Friday I will talk about some kind of basic ingredient or something and how I can prepare it. This week I will be talking about…

Bolagnese sauce

I have a sneaking suspicion I am going to offend all Italians and anybody who has ever made a pasta sauce… but I will try to talk about my experiences in making this sauce.

In my youth, it was always very easy. We had a package of herbs that was combined with water and thrown into a pan with baked minced meat until the sauce had thickened. Add spaghetti and done. We were even very particular about what package of herbs were used. My mother in law uses a different one, which is also very nice.

At one moment I was reading about tomato sauces and someone claimed making your own bolognaise sauce was incredibly easy. For the record, outside Italy any tomato sauce with meat is referred to as Bolognese sauce, even though it actually refers to a specific recipe. Anyway, I tried throwing some canned tomatoes into a pan with baked minced meat and threw in some bouillon powder and a mix of Italian herbs. I always season to taste without using exact measurements, making the exact flavor a recurring surprise. It went pretty well and, since it was cheaper than the original way of using a package of herbs, it quickly replaced the old ways.

I try to add some veggies, whatever is cheap and available. Sweet corn is a personal favorite, but mushrooms are a nice addition as well. Lately I have been adding a little bit of milk as well and have been experimenting adding a bit of curry powder. Add a pasta, usually spaghetti or macaroni for me cause they are the cheapest, and cover with grated cheese.

This is actually the only way I eat pasta lately (not counting noodles for Asian dishes). I like a pasta carbonara (Knorr package of herbs with milk, mushrooms and bacon), but Boyfriend01 cannot stand it. He literally cannot; he is somewhat lactose-intolerant. I do make lasagne frequently, either using the above sauce, or more lazily by using a Knorr package of herbs. I really need to find a way to make the former taste as good as the latter…

Boyfriend01 and I sometimes discuss our wedding. We know we should technically get engaged yet and ask officially, but we are not really one for rules. At least I am not. So, we frequently find ourselves discussing facets of the wedding and how we wish to plan and execute it. Since I do my best thinking when I am writing, here are blog posts discussing the subject matter.

Today I want to talk about the music Boyfriend01 and I will want to hear at the wedding. It will include a lot of example youtube clips. Also, inspired by this blog post.

I consider myself somewhat of a pacifist. Most disputes can be solved with negotiation and with patience, tolerating and respecting one another’s autonomy. There comes a moment though that this is not enough and that we need to use violence. As a society we have chosen that the government has the monopoly on using violence to deal with extreme situations (murderers, thieves, abusers) and we call it criminal law.

One interesting question though, is where do we draw the limit? At what point does it become impossible to talk and do we need to take up arms? Sure, that point can be as simple as ‘violated a contract’ when the government is doing it. But, what does a government have to do before they have crossed the line. Quoting from the source that provoked the thought:

"Tell me something. What does a government have to do, what do the voters have to do with their democracy, what do the people of a country have to do, before I ought to decide that I'm not on their side any more?" (Chapter 62).

This particular question is asked in a Harry Potter fanfic where a more rational Harry asks Dumbledore about Azkaban, a ‘prison’ where wizards are sent to be tortured to death. As a tangent, that is one marvelous fanfic. Rowling has given us a fantastical world and some people have done amazing things with it. I have read Checkmate earlier, which is better than the original seventh book (though that could just be because it is one of the only truly romantic and realistic gay stories I have read in a long time), and now Harry Potter: Methods of Rationality. It is brilliantly written, incredibly funny and highly addictive. I started reading on Monday afternoon and finished Thursday evening. That is quite a feat considering it has 84 chapters (and counting), while I also had other obligations.

Back to my original point, there comes a time when the government crosses a line that should not be crossed. I hear this being said about Azkaban, and I think about all the harsher punishment our government is dishing out to criminals and how no politician can afford to say “Well, I think asking for more jail time for a man who tortured and murdered a few dozen people is a bit excessive. What is wrong with the jail sentence he has already been given?”

I think about people starving in other countries while we complain about being unable to afford a second iPad. Further, I think about people making millions of dollars a year, while some hardworking people have to worry each month about being able to afford good, while some have to worry about being evicted, while some worry about freezing to death on the street. I think about all the human beings (including myself) refusing to stop polluting the planet because ‘we have a right to use electricity’. I think about people excusing women being treated as slaves ‘because that is just their culture’. I think about religious fundamentalists refusing to give their children proper care because their god would not allow it.

And I cannot help but think that I want to take over the world. I want to get superpowers and make everybody obey. Or, since I am not in any position to let myself be powered up, I want to find someone who shares my ideals and help them any way I can with my a-little-less-awesome lawyer skills. The ends do not always justify the means, but if the end is a utopia and the means is non-permanent violence and intimidation, then why the hell not? What good is autonomy if people keep making the wrong choices?

I know that the above question hinges on a few less-than-perfect assumptions, but I want to ask it anyway as it is. The one thing I do want to clarify though is that people can make objectively bad choices because of selfish or idiotic reasons. Prisoner’s dilemma is an example of the former, people refusing care for their children on religious grounds is an example of the latter. I keep hearing ‘this is just how it is’ and ‘you cannot change things’. Says who? Why should we not even try? If the problem is people, why not make them change their mind? If the problem is stubborn people, why not force them to change their mind?

I used to think I was somewhat of a pacifist.

Boyfriend01 and I sometimes discuss our wedding. We know we should technically get engaged yet and ask officially, but we are not really one for rules. At least I am not. So, we frequently find ourselves discussing facets of the wedding and how we wish to plan and execute it. Since I do my best thinking when I am writing, here are blog posts discussing the subject matter.

Today I want to talk about the clothes Boyfriend01 and I will want to wear at the wedding. We are not sure what kind of ceremony or parties there will be, but we do know that we will want to wear some kind of clothing and that we are probably going to wear the same clothes until the wedding night.

One of the things we discussed was whether one of us or both of us should wear a dress. It seems like a fun idea because the big white dress is one the iconic images of a wedding and because a man wearing a dress is a nice defiance of normal gender roles. Except… I cannot help but think that it would be surrendering to traditional customs. It is not like either of us have ever expressed any interest in wearing dresses. Wearing one despite this lack of former interest enforces the idea, which I despise beyond measure, that one of the men in a gay relationship is actually a woman. In the end, how quirky it may sound in theory, neither of us really wishes to spend a whole day in a big white mess of clothing that will take up half the wedding’s budget and that we can never wear again.

One of the ideas I really liked is getting married in cosplay. Zidane and Kuja seems like a fun pairing, but there is a whole range of characters that could get hooked up. I mean, what could be more awesome than saying your vows as Jack Harkness and the tenth doctor, while family and friends are encouraged to dress up as various companions? According to boyfriend01, a lot of things would be. He is only interested in this idea if there are multiple wedding ceremonies and only one of them involves cosplay.

It does make me wonder what exactly the purpose if of the clothing you wear during the wedding. For traditional couples, the suit and the wedding dress has a very symbolic meaning in a traditional sense. It shows a certain amount of respect for the institution of marriage. The clothing is also unique enough so that the happy couple can easily be identified by others as the ones who deserve attention. Finally, by dressing up in an expensive and special suit, it helps you play the part that you are expected to play.

Firstly, I hate traditional values. I like some of them because of fond memories I have of them, but I cannot object strongly enough against the force that tradition sometimes holds. I could get married wearing baggy pants and an old t-shirt. If I am going to dress up it is because I make the decision myself to do so, not because of some arbitrary and ancient rule. It might be disrespectful, but I do not really care about that. Marriage is a note with the government allowing tax breaks and granting our relationship special rights. Anything beyond that meaning is personal and as such cannot be forced upon me.

Secondly, uniqueness can be achieved in many different ways. I could ask everyone to wear black suits while Boyfriend01 and I wear white ones. Cosplay, again, is another way to achieve this. When desperate, we could always have two lackeys following us around with big neon signs. The important thing for me is that we become noticeable in our own personal ways. That is, not just slap on a dress because people will notice that. For instance if I do wear a suit, I want to wear a bow tie.

Finally, I do think dressing the part would make it easier to act like a groom. Then again, I am not sure I really want to act like ‘a groom’. What I want to do is stay myself and dress in a way I am comfortable with. I should be used to wearing suits by then, so an expensive suit seems like a decent way to stay true to myself while still making everything seem special. I do demand though a suit that I can wear to work or other formal events; I am not spending the equivalent of two iPads on clothing that I will only wear once.