Contradictions

It is possible that I could be considered "opinionated." I have absolutely no idea what might give rise to such allegations. I like to ask questions, some silly and some profound (or perhaps slightly less silly). I like to debate, and by debate I mean argue until you are convinced of my correctness or you prove that I am utterly wrong - at which point I grudgingly admit defeat and demonstrate my superior intellect with a random fact only useful for winning Jeopardy. 

My most recent thoughts, questions, and arguments have revolved around a few issues, namely religion and politics. My mother suggests that I read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" but small talk isn't nearly as entertaining.

Another issue has captured my interest of late. I have noticed that people are full of contradictions.

Brilliant deduction, I know

These are not superficial contradictions, like girls who claim to love men who are tall, dark and handsome, yet perpetually date lithe blonde men. These contradictions go to the very core of a person's beliefs, and while I know I am guilty of the same I am amazed at my mind's ability to rationalize such differences.

One example is abortion and capital punishment. As a general trend, people who support abortion are opposed to capital punishment, and people who oppose abortion support capital punishment. I can think of many staunch conservatives who believe life starts at conception and "killing babies" is heinous, but have no problem with killing someone who committed a crime. I can think of many staunch liberals who support a woman's right of choice, to rid herself of an unwanted fetus if she so desires, yet strongly oppose the death penalty because killing people is wrong.

Apparently my thought was not original

To me, these two issues seem to revolve around one central issue: The Sanctity of Life.

What justifies or does not justify the taking of a life? Is an unborn life worth more or less than a guilty life? Does killing someone who killed someone atone for the original killing or just add to the cycle of murder? How do we define "life" and how much do we value it?

I would think that someone who believes human life is sacred and inviolable from conception would oppose the taking of human life under any circumstances. I would also think that someone who has no opposition to the termination of a young life or guilty life would have no opposition to the opposite case. 

Another example is smallpox and gun control. 

Smallpox and gun control? You may ask, This is ridiculous, the two are completely different!

No, my friend, this is where my particular brand of crazy draws a parallel.

NPR recently ran a story about the last remaining stores of smallpox, and whether or not they should be destroyed. Basically, the argument goes something along the lines of "smallpox killed more people than all other disease combined, we have eradicated it from the world, we have developed an effective vaccine in the event of another breakout, and there probably won't be another outbreak if we destroy the last live samples." And do you know what argument was used to justify not destroying smallpox? I quote: "If smallpox is outlawed, only outlaws will have smallpox."

Another group who frequently touts this phrase is known as the NRA. Countless times, I have seen the phrase "If guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns." used to oppose any form of gun control. In this instance, the statement has little effect, with many articles showing exactly why such a general statement is a logical fallacy. [Side Note: Both sides of the debate seem to forget that of the nearly 32,000 firearm related deaths each year, 61% are suicides.]

The contradiction here is that a highly generalized statement, used in two contexts, has two very different reactions. If X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X. In the case of smallpox, the statement is used to justify not destroying one of the most deadly viruses known to man, and no one questions the fallacy. In the case of gun control, many people point out the issues with the statement, and continue to push for stricter laws. The people who call the fallacy out on one side are not the people who call the fallacy out on the other. 

I could go on, but human nature is so full of contradictions that I would end up writing a novel. Humans are capable of writing symphonies, producing art, exploring science and nature and the universe. Humans are capable of genocide and destruction and death. Humans can be so engrossed in themselves and their own problems, and at the same time care about the fate of the world. Humans are so mixed up that I am utterly convinced there is a god, somewhere, laughing at the funny little creatures he made because heaven doesn't have soap operas. 

Foolish mortals AHAHAHAHA

How Old Would You be if You Didn't Know How Old You Were?

How Old Would You be if You Didn't Know How Old You Were?

"What a silly question," I thought to myself.

Then I paused for a moment of reflection.

Today, I celebrated my birth.  It is not a milestone year like 16 or 18 or 21 or 50. I celebrated with flowers and tiramisu and a mini photoshoot courtesy of my brother

Fabulous, I know. Fashion blog material?

According to Western culture, I am 17, because I made the arduous journey down the birth canal 17 years ago to the day. 

I don't always feel 17. Sometimes I feel like a 60 year old British citizen, reliving my youth by watching Monty Python's Flying Circus. I can't decide which I love more: the satire, the wordplay, or the cross-dressing. Sometimes I feel like a 8 year old with excessively vigilant parents. Sometimes I feel like a 23 year old, independent and assertive. I am happy watching a documentary film or a Disney film. I feel many ages.

That does not answer the question. If age was not used as the standard of competence, where would I be in life today? I think I would be in one of two situations.

I would be lost in a hallowed library of some ancient university. I would study all the subjects I wanted to study. I would drink coffee and listen to Tchaikovsky. I would practice wit and become utterly immersed in many topics. I would be an old soul.

Or

I would be off in some remote part of the world. I would travel and explore. I would go hang gliding and cliff diving. I would try exotic foods and meet exotic people. I would be a reckless adventurer.

Here I sit, 17 years old. I am not a scholar; I am not an explorer. I am on the brink of adulthood and the precipice of childhood. I can become an old soul or a reckless adventurer or a combination of both. I think the most valuable lessons will come through the "becoming." Life is about becoming; it is about growing and learning and changing. Life is about making mistakes and admitting you made them. Life is about people, good people and bad people and the effects they have on you and you have on them. Life is about sunsets and laughter and silly jokes and deep discussions and experiencing what can be experienced. And perhaps, just perhaps, life involves a little faith rather than a lot of skepticism. Perhaps a part of growing up is doubting everything that you were ever told was true, and eventually coming to terms with the fact that neither you nor all the scientists in the world can explain everything. Perhaps life is about discovering and connecting with God. And perhaps I haven't reached that point yet.

I digress; I am avoiding the question.

 How Old Would You be if You Didn't Know How Old You Were?

My answer? 

Any age I wanted to be.