When was the last time that you had an argument with someone? Did either you or the other party end up changing stances by the end? Probably not. More than likely, this is what happened instead:
1. You introduced stance A.
2. They introduced stance B.
3. You provided a fairly sturdy argument for stance A.
4. They provided a fairly transparent argument for stance B -- even if, on the surface, it appeared to have some solidity to it due to its use of platitudes and memorized, regurgitated phrases.
5. The both of you went back and forth for a while, neither budging. Despite their stance being obviously flawed, you couldn't find a way to really hit them over the head and wake them up to this fact.
6. Finally, you introduced a poignant, concise meme which crushed the opposing argument directly and explicitly. The absurdity of the other party's argument was subsequently quite out in the open.
7. The other party replied with "You're starting to frustrate me. Why do you have to overanalyze everything? Can't we talk about something nice for once?"
8. The argument ended abruptly with no resolution and the prospect of such growing vanishingly small. The other party then appeared uncomfortable and confused.
What has just been described, I hypothesize, is the result of terrible parenting. The other party participating in the argument realized, in some recess of their consciousness, that your logic was sound, but another, more biologically beneficial part of their mind interceded.
What happened? Well, during childhood, your conversational partner had probably participated in similar conversations that went something like this:
"Dad, why can't we see god?"
"I don't know, son. That's just the way it is."
"But how can we know he's real if we can't see him?"
"He's testing us. It'll all make sense when you get to heaven. You'll be rewarded for waiting so long!"
"But... how do you know that?"
"Look, he's just real, okay? What's with these questions all of a sudden? I'm trying to watch the news. Why don't you go outside and play ball with the kid next door?"
Upon encountering the problematic "foreign object" within a logic chain, kids are programmed to switch routines and do something personally rewarding or pleasurable. Because our society is relatively affluent, everything from happy meals to high tech video games is almost always a few seconds away from the grasp of children, so there is zero incentive to do "the right thing" when immediate self-satisfaction can so easily be substituted in its place -- with no consequences or scoldings.
The mentality birthed during this period of development apparently carries over into adulthood, where it germinates until it becomes a contributor to the monstrosity that is our current situation.
This is absolutely unacceptable for adult humans in this day and age. We cannot continue to act like children.
Showing posts with label human value system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human value system. Show all posts
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Suffering sucks -- "objectively," Part I
This one is long overdue, I think. To avoid having to repeat myself, I've attempted to make this entry adequately elaborative and encompassing. Hopefully, I've succeeded.
In order to appreciate just how relevant negative feelings are to sentient organisms, it is perhaps necessary to start by defining how analysis of physical qualia should work, then defining which individual qualities, in the abstract, are worth applying the process of pragmatic selection to. Based on my own observations of physical reality, and on the confirming observations of others (even if I must always observe that a person has observed something myself, making all observation slightly suspect, but that's a separate topic), I've found that the quality of sensation is inherently negative, as it could not exist in the absence of discomfort or perceived deprivation (more on this later). However, this premise warrants further analysis if we are to properly convey that such sensations are, in effect, "bad" according to a well-defined and organized value system; otherwise, we'll wind up with people saying, "So what if things hurt? Your assertion that pain is bad isn't based on anything empirical!"
Most children grasp why such statements are bloated and borderline pretentious on a raw, intuitive level, but rarely are they equipped to actually deal with the slew of contrived counter-arguments in support of the idea of the "subjectivity" of suffering. Let's see if we can help.
Firstly, I cannot honestly claim to still support the dichotomy of empirical/a posteriori knowledge and mathematical/a priori knowledge. Math only appears "unempirical" because it is a raw abstraction, meaning that it is a mental conception of a general principle without any applied context, making it data rather than physical information. However, both data and information are essentially the same thing; it's just that data, again, lacks context, and, in being rather non-specific, cannot be useful until it has been properly interpreted and stored or acted upon as information. Math and empirical phenomena, then, are part of a unified continuum, just as data and information are, because math is essentially data, and empirical information is, well, information.
What role does logic play in this? It can be applied to both empirical information and math; claiming that logic is somehow synonymous with math, while empirical information is in a realm entirely separate from logic is blatantly fallacious. Of course, logic itself could be said to be taken a priori, but given that I always refrain from making truth claims of any kind, this isn't so important to note.
A visualization might look something like this:
Logic=>Math; data
||
\/
Logic=>Contextualization; qualification; processing; interpretation; understanding (what it is)
||
\/
Logic=>Information; understanding (what it entails, concludes in, etc.)
I apply logic to all three steps; it should be applied not only when converting data to information, but also when gleaning data, or when understanding information after it has been interpreted.
With the above in mind, is it not likely that all "logical" claims are predicated on some kind of empirical observation via the senses? 2+2=4 is data, but two apples being combined with two other apples to form a group of four apples (or one group, depending on abstraction level) is an empirical phenomenon which requires repeated observation and peer review, just like anything with which we physically interact. 2+2=4, therefore, could not exist without the myriad claims similar in content to "Two apples plus two apples equals four apples." The bottom line: It's all empirical; in order for math to exist, we have to be able to first test things which provide empirical evidence of the existence of quantity.
But what kinds of empirical information are there? Are there any divisions that we can make in order to bring coherence to our worldview? Well, the most obvious and fundamental of all empirical divisions appears to be into analytic and synthetic statements, as originally proposed and defined by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason. In this work, Kant quite accurately proposes that there are two kinds of concepts: subjects and predicates. The logic goes that all syntax structures can be fundamentally divided into these two parts, with the latter being necessary in conjunction with the former if a syntax structure is to qualify as complete and independently functional. In essence, subjects define what a sentence is about, while predicates affirm or support the subject in some way with additional information, usually conveyed via verbs. Additionally, subject concepts can subsume predicate concepts, or contain them; in such cases, the subject can be defined by the ensuing predicate, making the statement as a whole an analytic statement. The inverse, of course, is when a predicate concept is not contained in a subject concept, making the statement as a whole a synthetic statement.
If the definition of "circle" requires that things must be round in order to qualify as circles, then roundness is part of the subject concept of "circle." In a sentence, if additional clarification is provided after a verb, and the information presented is inherent in the definition of "circle" ("...are round"), then that second half of the sentence is not only the predicate half, but is also contained in the subject itself. Where a quality is not inherent in the definition of "circle," however, like when stating that a particular circle is eight inches in diameter, the quality can be said to be a supporting predicate concept independent of the subject concept. To put it simply, "All circles are round" contains a subject ("...circles") and a predicate which is inherent in the essence of the subject ("...are round"). "This circle is eight inches in diameter" contains a subject ("...circle") and a predicate which is independent of the concept of a circle, meaning that not ALL circles must, by definition, possess the predicate quality ("...is eight inches in diameter").
Bold though it may be, I am, here and now, claiming that "bad," "needs to be fixed," "should be avoided," "needs to be reduced," etc. are predicate concepts contained in the subject concept of "suffering," making "Suffering is bad and must be reduced or eliminated altogether" not only an empirical statement (due to all logical statements being derivatives of some kind of empirical experience), but an analytic one as well.
Part II will include more on how I view the process of qualitative analysis.
In order to appreciate just how relevant negative feelings are to sentient organisms, it is perhaps necessary to start by defining how analysis of physical qualia should work, then defining which individual qualities, in the abstract, are worth applying the process of pragmatic selection to. Based on my own observations of physical reality, and on the confirming observations of others (even if I must always observe that a person has observed something myself, making all observation slightly suspect, but that's a separate topic), I've found that the quality of sensation is inherently negative, as it could not exist in the absence of discomfort or perceived deprivation (more on this later). However, this premise warrants further analysis if we are to properly convey that such sensations are, in effect, "bad" according to a well-defined and organized value system; otherwise, we'll wind up with people saying, "So what if things hurt? Your assertion that pain is bad isn't based on anything empirical!"
Most children grasp why such statements are bloated and borderline pretentious on a raw, intuitive level, but rarely are they equipped to actually deal with the slew of contrived counter-arguments in support of the idea of the "subjectivity" of suffering. Let's see if we can help.
Firstly, I cannot honestly claim to still support the dichotomy of empirical/a posteriori knowledge and mathematical/a priori knowledge. Math only appears "unempirical" because it is a raw abstraction, meaning that it is a mental conception of a general principle without any applied context, making it data rather than physical information. However, both data and information are essentially the same thing; it's just that data, again, lacks context, and, in being rather non-specific, cannot be useful until it has been properly interpreted and stored or acted upon as information. Math and empirical phenomena, then, are part of a unified continuum, just as data and information are, because math is essentially data, and empirical information is, well, information.
What role does logic play in this? It can be applied to both empirical information and math; claiming that logic is somehow synonymous with math, while empirical information is in a realm entirely separate from logic is blatantly fallacious. Of course, logic itself could be said to be taken a priori, but given that I always refrain from making truth claims of any kind, this isn't so important to note.
A visualization might look something like this:
Logic=>Math; data
||
\/
Logic=>Contextualization; qualification; processing; interpretation; understanding (what it is)
||
\/
Logic=>Information; understanding (what it entails, concludes in, etc.)
I apply logic to all three steps; it should be applied not only when converting data to information, but also when gleaning data, or when understanding information after it has been interpreted.
With the above in mind, is it not likely that all "logical" claims are predicated on some kind of empirical observation via the senses? 2+2=4 is data, but two apples being combined with two other apples to form a group of four apples (or one group, depending on abstraction level) is an empirical phenomenon which requires repeated observation and peer review, just like anything with which we physically interact. 2+2=4, therefore, could not exist without the myriad claims similar in content to "Two apples plus two apples equals four apples." The bottom line: It's all empirical; in order for math to exist, we have to be able to first test things which provide empirical evidence of the existence of quantity.
But what kinds of empirical information are there? Are there any divisions that we can make in order to bring coherence to our worldview? Well, the most obvious and fundamental of all empirical divisions appears to be into analytic and synthetic statements, as originally proposed and defined by Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason. In this work, Kant quite accurately proposes that there are two kinds of concepts: subjects and predicates. The logic goes that all syntax structures can be fundamentally divided into these two parts, with the latter being necessary in conjunction with the former if a syntax structure is to qualify as complete and independently functional. In essence, subjects define what a sentence is about, while predicates affirm or support the subject in some way with additional information, usually conveyed via verbs. Additionally, subject concepts can subsume predicate concepts, or contain them; in such cases, the subject can be defined by the ensuing predicate, making the statement as a whole an analytic statement. The inverse, of course, is when a predicate concept is not contained in a subject concept, making the statement as a whole a synthetic statement.
If the definition of "circle" requires that things must be round in order to qualify as circles, then roundness is part of the subject concept of "circle." In a sentence, if additional clarification is provided after a verb, and the information presented is inherent in the definition of "circle" ("...are round"), then that second half of the sentence is not only the predicate half, but is also contained in the subject itself. Where a quality is not inherent in the definition of "circle," however, like when stating that a particular circle is eight inches in diameter, the quality can be said to be a supporting predicate concept independent of the subject concept. To put it simply, "All circles are round" contains a subject ("...circles") and a predicate which is inherent in the essence of the subject ("...are round"). "This circle is eight inches in diameter" contains a subject ("...circle") and a predicate which is independent of the concept of a circle, meaning that not ALL circles must, by definition, possess the predicate quality ("...is eight inches in diameter").
Bold though it may be, I am, here and now, claiming that "bad," "needs to be fixed," "should be avoided," "needs to be reduced," etc. are predicate concepts contained in the subject concept of "suffering," making "Suffering is bad and must be reduced or eliminated altogether" not only an empirical statement (due to all logical statements being derivatives of some kind of empirical experience), but an analytic one as well.
Part II will include more on how I view the process of qualitative analysis.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Explicitly defining value equations
There has been some chatter in a comments section of one of my posts lately, so I figured I'd make an official follow-up post outlining what I use to make decisions in life. This way, I'll avoid annoying people with double and triple commenting. Here you go:
As far as values are concerned,
Object A + Valued Quality X = Object B + Valued Quality X
and
Object A + Valued Quality X ≠ Object B + Valued (or not valued) Quality Y
and
Object A + Valued Quality X ≠ Object B - Valued Quality X
Choosing between two foods which your taste buds perceive in ways that are virtually indistinguishable to you, the macro-scale observer, does not require a practical decision-making process, because both foods share the quality of "delicious" in almost equal amounts and configurations. However, there had to have been a preceding decision -- the decision to eat something delicious, which was made practically based on qualitative analysis of the quality of "delicious" and its competitors. Once you've chosen to eat something delicious -- instead of to eat something disgusting, for example -- so long as what you're being presented with possesses this quality, your decision-making job is done.
Forget about physical objects; they're just convenience abstractions, mental projections of the external world. What really matters are the qualities that these abstractions harbor -- and in what amounts and configurations they exist.
As far as values are concerned,
Object A + Valued Quality X = Object B + Valued Quality X
and
Object A + Valued Quality X ≠ Object B + Valued (or not valued) Quality Y
and
Object A + Valued Quality X ≠ Object B - Valued Quality X
Choosing between two foods which your taste buds perceive in ways that are virtually indistinguishable to you, the macro-scale observer, does not require a practical decision-making process, because both foods share the quality of "delicious" in almost equal amounts and configurations. However, there had to have been a preceding decision -- the decision to eat something delicious, which was made practically based on qualitative analysis of the quality of "delicious" and its competitors. Once you've chosen to eat something delicious -- instead of to eat something disgusting, for example -- so long as what you're being presented with possesses this quality, your decision-making job is done.
Forget about physical objects; they're just convenience abstractions, mental projections of the external world. What really matters are the qualities that these abstractions harbor -- and in what amounts and configurations they exist.
Monday, December 20, 2010
What does the average person care about?
So I felt like making a list of things the average person cares about. I think it's pretty all-encompassing, but I'm sure I've left some important things out. These are great examples of why we need to reform the human value system as soon as possible.
Note: None of these applies to me -- at least, not intentionally; I like to think that they're a quick composite of the current state of society, and not targeting any group or person in particular.
I hope he doesn't know that I'm a virgin.
I better get a free sandwich because of this. This thing has no toppings!
What do you expect? He's a liberal.
What do you expect? He's a conservative.
Why didn't he thank me? That deserved a thank you.
No, I was the one who fixed it. Why don't you go ask so and so? He'll back me up. It was me, not the other guy! It was ME!
No, I was the one who helped you, remember? What has he ever done for you? Forget about him. I do things out of the kindness of my heart!
Jesus, how much do you think that guy weighs? He looks ridiculous.
Wow, look at that guy. I bet he has no friends.
Who did the dishes last? It isn't MY turn. It's HIS turn.
Did you hear about whatshername? Yeah, she broke up with her boyfriend yesterday!
Yeah? Well, at least I have a life!
What are you doing using that? That's MINE!
Public opinion is turning against my favorite pop star! Ugh, what can she do to be on top again?
You really think your favorite pop star is better than mine? Please! My favorite is WAY more real, and even writes her own songs.
Hey, I'm your FAN. No one cares more about what you do than the fans. We DESERVE something new NOW. Do you have any idea how long we've been waiting?
I know that he's controlling and a jerk to other people, but I can't help how I feel about him.
If I could just manage to talk to women and get a girlfriend, I wouldn't need anything else in life.
God, I'm so socially inept and ugly. I'm a total loser.
Our sports team won last night! We're the best!
I can't eat that. I'll get fat if I eat stuff like that.
I want a smaller nose. My life is pretty good, but if I could save up the money to get my nose fixed, I wouldn't have any worries.
That celebrity wears way too much makeup. I would NEVER look like that.
You don't have a Facebook? I didn't even know that that was POSSIBLE in this day and age.
Is this fifty percent off? Better get two, even though I don't even need one.
At least I don't drive an SUV. How much of the ozone layer do you think that guy is destroying with that thing?
My friend laughed at me yesterday for being awkward in front of his other friend. I feel really bad now, because I want him to like me.
I got a B on the final. Ugh, my GPA is going to suffer because of this.
Ew, you smoke? You ARE aware that that's going to kill you and make you stink, right?
Go a few more blocks and waste some more gas to get to the other gas station; gas is five cents cheaper there than it is here.
Did you just spill that all over MY rug?
You need to get out of the house more. This isn't good for your MENTAL HEALTH.
Only poor, fat people eat at this fast food chain. That one documentary told me that fast food's bad for your health, and it doesn't cost much, so I put two and two together.
Jeez, are you still not getting this? Sorry, but you are obviously wrong about your philosophical stance, here. Ever read a book by this guy? No? Didn't think so. Go read him; he'll change your life the way he changed mine. Maybe then, you'll understand things in as much depth as I do.
You're obviously a blahblahblah-ist. Ever considered blehblehbleh-ism? Because that's what I am.
Who are you to judge me? You know what? I don't care. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about me.
Who are you to judge my favorite music artist? I'd like to see YOU make a hit album.
Hey, do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't break the golden rule or hurt anybody else.
Being sexy is important, but ONLY if you can do it without getting surgical enhancements. It's okay to spend tons of money on your appearance so long as it doesn't involve a knife.
Who are you to tell me that I can't have children? What if my future son turns out to be the next Einstein? You would have prevented the next EINSTEIN from coming into the world.
Wow, all you ever do is talk about the world's problems. How depressing! You need to either lighten up and have a little fun or kill yourself. You hate YOUR life, right? That's what you're saying, right?
Love can change the world. Love everyone unconditionally!
My life is meaningful because I am sexually liberated. Free your inner slut; you won't regret it!
Society would be so much better if we'd get rid of all of the corporations and show nature a little respect. Down with corruption! Up with sustainability!
You don't believe in aliens? Wow, talk about having a closed mind.
There are trillions of stars in the universe, so I KNOW for a FACT that aliens are out there.
We're supposed to live in a progressive society, but gays can't marry? Unbelievable.
I normally don't get so riled up about issues like this, but what can I say? This particular one is actually important to me, and is a big part of who I am.
You have a WHAT fetish? Man, you need to see a shrink.
I didn't know you liked THAT kind of music. It's not a big deal, I just never would have expected it from you, of all people.
HE didn't show up for work today? He's never a missed a day before. That's definitely not like him, the little goody goody!
He thinks that's a funny show? What, is he retarded or something? Then again, most people enjoy their low-brow humor...
I don't care if that's my responsibility. I deserve a BREAK right now, alright? Piss off.
He sleeps in until WHEN? Jesus, what a lazy guy.
Can you even spell? I'm not going to listen to anything you have to say if you type like that.
If I could only obtain the thing that I currently desire most, I wouldn't ever want anything else. I just need ONE MORE.
It's not cheating if it's online, right? I deserve affection.
I deserve respect.
I am entitled to anything I want, so long as it doesn't cause anyone physical pain. Well, maybe I deserve most of those things, too. I work hard!
I know that it wasn't my fault, but I still feel awful. Why did I do that? I regret it so much.
I can't stop thinking about that one particular event in my life that caused me and/or those around me some degree of discomfort. Screw the rest of the world; I HAVE to focus on this. It's a big deal!
I trust my senses, alright? You can keep on telling me what you THINK you heard me say, but I KNOW what I said. I'm not wrong. How could I be wrong about this?
What school do you go to? Oh...
Did you hear what happened on the news last night?
I know that what he did was wrong, but that doesn't give you any right to talk to him like that. He's a FAMILY member.
What happened to that country yesterday? Someone started bombing them? Yikes. Anyway, what else is on?
Note: None of these applies to me -- at least, not intentionally; I like to think that they're a quick composite of the current state of society, and not targeting any group or person in particular.
I hope he doesn't know that I'm a virgin.
I better get a free sandwich because of this. This thing has no toppings!
What do you expect? He's a liberal.
What do you expect? He's a conservative.
Why didn't he thank me? That deserved a thank you.
No, I was the one who fixed it. Why don't you go ask so and so? He'll back me up. It was me, not the other guy! It was ME!
No, I was the one who helped you, remember? What has he ever done for you? Forget about him. I do things out of the kindness of my heart!
Jesus, how much do you think that guy weighs? He looks ridiculous.
Wow, look at that guy. I bet he has no friends.
Who did the dishes last? It isn't MY turn. It's HIS turn.
Did you hear about whatshername? Yeah, she broke up with her boyfriend yesterday!
Yeah? Well, at least I have a life!
What are you doing using that? That's MINE!
Public opinion is turning against my favorite pop star! Ugh, what can she do to be on top again?
You really think your favorite pop star is better than mine? Please! My favorite is WAY more real, and even writes her own songs.
Hey, I'm your FAN. No one cares more about what you do than the fans. We DESERVE something new NOW. Do you have any idea how long we've been waiting?
I know that he's controlling and a jerk to other people, but I can't help how I feel about him.
If I could just manage to talk to women and get a girlfriend, I wouldn't need anything else in life.
God, I'm so socially inept and ugly. I'm a total loser.
Our sports team won last night! We're the best!
I can't eat that. I'll get fat if I eat stuff like that.
I want a smaller nose. My life is pretty good, but if I could save up the money to get my nose fixed, I wouldn't have any worries.
That celebrity wears way too much makeup. I would NEVER look like that.
You don't have a Facebook? I didn't even know that that was POSSIBLE in this day and age.
Is this fifty percent off? Better get two, even though I don't even need one.
At least I don't drive an SUV. How much of the ozone layer do you think that guy is destroying with that thing?
My friend laughed at me yesterday for being awkward in front of his other friend. I feel really bad now, because I want him to like me.
I got a B on the final. Ugh, my GPA is going to suffer because of this.
Ew, you smoke? You ARE aware that that's going to kill you and make you stink, right?
Go a few more blocks and waste some more gas to get to the other gas station; gas is five cents cheaper there than it is here.
Did you just spill that all over MY rug?
You need to get out of the house more. This isn't good for your MENTAL HEALTH.
Only poor, fat people eat at this fast food chain. That one documentary told me that fast food's bad for your health, and it doesn't cost much, so I put two and two together.
Jeez, are you still not getting this? Sorry, but you are obviously wrong about your philosophical stance, here. Ever read a book by this guy? No? Didn't think so. Go read him; he'll change your life the way he changed mine. Maybe then, you'll understand things in as much depth as I do.
You're obviously a blahblahblah-ist. Ever considered blehblehbleh-ism? Because that's what I am.
Who are you to judge me? You know what? I don't care. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about me.
Who are you to judge my favorite music artist? I'd like to see YOU make a hit album.
Hey, do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't break the golden rule or hurt anybody else.
Being sexy is important, but ONLY if you can do it without getting surgical enhancements. It's okay to spend tons of money on your appearance so long as it doesn't involve a knife.
Who are you to tell me that I can't have children? What if my future son turns out to be the next Einstein? You would have prevented the next EINSTEIN from coming into the world.
Wow, all you ever do is talk about the world's problems. How depressing! You need to either lighten up and have a little fun or kill yourself. You hate YOUR life, right? That's what you're saying, right?
Love can change the world. Love everyone unconditionally!
My life is meaningful because I am sexually liberated. Free your inner slut; you won't regret it!
Society would be so much better if we'd get rid of all of the corporations and show nature a little respect. Down with corruption! Up with sustainability!
You don't believe in aliens? Wow, talk about having a closed mind.
There are trillions of stars in the universe, so I KNOW for a FACT that aliens are out there.
We're supposed to live in a progressive society, but gays can't marry? Unbelievable.
I normally don't get so riled up about issues like this, but what can I say? This particular one is actually important to me, and is a big part of who I am.
You have a WHAT fetish? Man, you need to see a shrink.
I didn't know you liked THAT kind of music. It's not a big deal, I just never would have expected it from you, of all people.
HE didn't show up for work today? He's never a missed a day before. That's definitely not like him, the little goody goody!
He thinks that's a funny show? What, is he retarded or something? Then again, most people enjoy their low-brow humor...
I don't care if that's my responsibility. I deserve a BREAK right now, alright? Piss off.
He sleeps in until WHEN? Jesus, what a lazy guy.
Can you even spell? I'm not going to listen to anything you have to say if you type like that.
If I could only obtain the thing that I currently desire most, I wouldn't ever want anything else. I just need ONE MORE.
It's not cheating if it's online, right? I deserve affection.
I deserve respect.
I am entitled to anything I want, so long as it doesn't cause anyone physical pain. Well, maybe I deserve most of those things, too. I work hard!
I know that it wasn't my fault, but I still feel awful. Why did I do that? I regret it so much.
I can't stop thinking about that one particular event in my life that caused me and/or those around me some degree of discomfort. Screw the rest of the world; I HAVE to focus on this. It's a big deal!
I trust my senses, alright? You can keep on telling me what you THINK you heard me say, but I KNOW what I said. I'm not wrong. How could I be wrong about this?
What school do you go to? Oh...
Did you hear what happened on the news last night?
I know that what he did was wrong, but that doesn't give you any right to talk to him like that. He's a FAMILY member.
What happened to that country yesterday? Someone started bombing them? Yikes. Anyway, what else is on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)