Rhetoric Rants - Daily Musings and Social Commentary

Rhetoric Rants: 2011

Sunday, February 27, 2011


I will be postponing putting up new posts for now.  It has been a while since I've had any new content, and I am sorry to my readers.  I will be posting things if I have the time or inspiration, but both are fairly low at the moment.  Sorry, and thank you for all your support thus far.

Friday, February 18, 2011


I am getting sick and tired of seeing all these pink items for breast cancer.  Why does it have to be breast cancer?  I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with focusing on a cancer that is more susceptible to affect women than men, but why can't we just support curing cancer in general?  I'm pretty sure cancer is cancer regardless of where it forms.  What are your feelings?

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Prostitution Part 3

While watching Taboo, I pondered about something.  What is the difference between pornography and prostitution?  Obviously, one is legal and the other is mostly illegal, but why?  Prostitution involves one party, usually the male, to pay the other party a certain amount of funds in order to receive sexual favors or other erotic stimulation.  In pornography, both parties, or all parties involved, are paid to preform sexual acts upon each other.  Are the only differences who's getting paid and who's purchasing, or is there something more to it?  Pornography is made to be recorded and distributed.  Prostitution on the other hand is not, but there are cases where it was recorded for ones own personal pleasure.  It seems to me that there really isn't a truly distinguishable characteristic between the two, and that both should either be legal or illegal.  Any argument against prostitution can be used against pornography.  Is the decision literally just a proverbial line in the sand based on some sort of social moral or stigma, or is there more to it?

Monday, February 7, 2011

Prostitution Part 2

I stated in my previous post about the lady who was completely against prostitution.  Besides always being violent, she claimed that prostitution allows people to objectify women.  Well, according to her logic, then everyone that you pay money for that is willing to do a service for you can be objectified.  If I were to hire a dog walker to solely walk my dog, I would be objectifying that dog walker as I would be using them to my benefit.  Essentially, they would be an object, and not a person because I was "using" them.  So, the service industry should be renamed the objectify industry, since these people offer service which we use so in essence, they are a tool or object.  By this point, you are probably realizing how ridiculous this all sounds.  Objectification does happen, but not for a majority of cases.  What makes prostitutes so special that they can be objectified, but not other service related professions?

Sunday, February 6, 2011


I was watching Taboo today on National Geographic Channel, and an interesting topic came up.  A lady against prostitution was saying that prostitution, either illegal or legal, was violent in all cases.  Well, if prostitution truly was violent in every single case, then why is prostitution so rampant across the globe?  I understand that some people turn to prostitution as a last resort, but not all people.  Also, if prostitution was violent in all cases, then why does it flourish in the few places around the world where it is legal?  Truly, if such conditions were as violent as it is claimed to be, no one would ever choose to be in this profession.  Violence occurs in every aspect of life, but what makes violence prominent in prostitution?  It is the same things with drugs, it is because it is deemed an illegal act and therefore individuals are more willing to engage in violence because they won't get turned in.  Think about it, if you were to get beat up while selling some illegal substances, would you be willing to go to the authorities and say "I got mugged while I was selling dope"?  Of course not, and people know this.  I'm not saying that I'm for or against prostitution, all I am saying is that there is violence innately built into "illegal" acts and through legalization, it is easier to monitor and control all parties involved.

Thursday, February 3, 2011


According to the dictionary, justice is "the upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law".  When people think of justice, they think of "bad guys" getting what they deserve.  So if someone where to kill another person, then that person should either be locked up for an inordinate amount of time or themselves be killed.  I don't know about you, but that sounds an awful lot like revenge to me.  Even though there is no real person extracting the revenge, the entities know as society and government are the ones extracting revenge on these individuals.  Does justice really exist?  If someone where to murder your entire family, would putting them in jail get your family back?  Absolutely not!  Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that people who break the rules of society should get off scotch free.  People who break the law are making a decision, a decision that some governing body has deemed dangerous for whatever reason they see fit.  If you look at legal systems across the globe, it seems that justice can be equated to punishment.  Is justice really just a connotation of punishment, or does justice actually exist beyond legality?

P.S.  If there is anything that you guys would like me to discuss, please feel free to make suggestions.  Although I have plenty of things I could divulge on, I'd like to hear some input on what interests you.

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Mother Nature Hates the Midwest

As some of you might be aware, there is going to be tons of snow that will shower down upon the Midwest.  It's official, Mother Nature hates us.  It's always fun to see the idiots come out in droves to supermarkets and other retail outlets in order to "survive" the storm.  The storm is supposed to only be here for a few days before it lets up, and I'm sure most everyone has enough food and water to last them 2 days.  Not to mention how people all flock to gas stations.  I mean if the weather is really going to be that bad, do you think you are going to be driving?  I mean, you just bought enough food, water, and other pointless amenities that will last you for days.  Nothing says survival like driving around in a blizzard with food, water, and candles because you're too hard core to be stuck at home.  Besides a failing economy, the Midwest, or at least Michigan, is know for having inordinate amounts of snow, this is nothing new people.  Relax, don't be so idiotic, and try to coup with the actual reality.  This storm will probably not even bee that bad.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Human Evolution; Extinct? Part Three

As I said earlier, I think that human evolution is done on a physical standpoint for several reasons, unless we have some sort of cataclysmic event that causes natural selection to start weeding out some of the population.  Now where does this leave humans?  The idea occurred to me that maybe we were experiencing evolution on more of a social level about 2 weeks ago, when I realized that some people were actually not having children due to their various problems.  A key example would be my friend.  She has a lot of issues, both physically and mentally.  She is determined to not have kids because she doesn't want to pass on these problems to her potential kids, as this would be unfair to them.  Maybe it is now up to the individuals to pass on their genes or not, so now maybe the "natural selection" is our own social consciousness.  Now don't get me wrong, not everyone is socially conscientious, in fact, I believe the vast majority of the populous is not.  If everyone were to be considerate and conscientious about the society as a whole, and not what is best for the individual, we might actually see a significant evolution of sorts.  This problem can be explained with a little bit of advanced economics.  There is this theory called the tragedy of the commons and to explain it, lets say that there are several fishermen and a supply of fish that they can all fish from.  The individual fishermen will do what is economically best for them, so the vast majority of them will fish.  For every fisherman that decides to fish, the total marginal benefit, or profit, decreases for all fishermen.  After a while, the fishermen will deplete the supply of fish, even though none of them intended to so as it is not economically beneficial to any of them.  If they would have worked together, the total benefit amongst all fishermen could have been achieved, and the supply of fish wouldn't have been defeated.  The moral of the story is that we as a society need to work together in order to receive the most benefit, as most individual working on their own will pick an inefficient solution that could produce a lot of harm in the long run.

P.S.  If I haven't followed you, and you have followed my blog, just post a comment and a link to your blog and I will return the favor.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011


Sorry guys for the lack of updates.  I've just been really bogged down with work, school, and my new projects.  I will post a new blog soon.  Sorry for the delay.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Human Evolution: Extinct? Part Two

Seeing from the overwhelming response of the last post, I will continue on the topic of human evolution.  It could be said that natural evolution is at the very least stunted due to modern advances in technology and medicine.  This being said, it would take some unforeseen force to continue evolution in humans at the same rate it has occurred in the past.  Now, what if people were in charge of this "natural selection"?  I'm glad eugenics was brought up in the previous post, because that is exactly what forced, man-made evolution is.  We've seen Hitler try this, and the results were disastrous. What if people were just randomly killed at birth, with no rhyme or reason?  Would this help evolution, or would it do nothing but throw a theoretical wrench into the evolution engine?

In the next post, I will discuss where I believe human evolution is going.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Human Evolution Extinct?

According to the theory of evolution, mutations occur within a species.  When these mutations are harmful, the organism is less likely to reproduce, and the gene is removed from the gene pool.  However, when the mutation is beneficial, the organism is more likely to pass on the gene and have it become a normal trait.  This is exactly how every species arrived to their current disposition.  It could also be noted that if there are no pressures or forces against these mutations, that the weaker and harmful mutations would subsequently survive and reproduce.  In humans, there are no real pressures that would wipe out these mutations in modern times.  Medical science has improved so much that diseases that would have killed people in their childhood can now live happy and fulfilling lives.  Would this ultimately make humans weaker, or will it have some other unforeseen circumstance?  Are some of these mutations actually beneficial?  Does human evolution still exist?

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

New Design

For those of you who have been here for a while, I have renovated the site.  Please let me know what you think and what I can improve on.  I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Sexual Education

My friend and I had a debate the other day on sexual education in schools.  His debate was that fat kids shouldn't get sex education because they are fat and less likely, if not completely unable, to get laid.  By educating these fat kids, it would depress them because they would never be able experience sexual intercourse.  My argument was that everybody should be educated in case they ever do have intercourse.  Some people have a genetic predisposition to be heavier, and that should not be held against them.  My friend retorted that in the case that these fat kids were to ever become skinny, that they would be instated to receive the education. In short, my friend argued to not educate fat kids with sexual education in order to keep them happy, while I argued that everyone, regardless of any issues, be it genetic or social, be educated in case that the situation arises where intercourse is imminent.  What do you think?

Sunday, January 16, 2011

Evolution Thought

It has long been thought that organisms adapt to their environment, taking up certain ecological niches.  According to this train of thought, plants would adapt to utilize an untapped niche, feces.  It could then be hypothesized that plants evolved to utilize the nutrients found in the fecal matter.  What would that mean about other organisms?  Perhaps it was the organisms that adapted to the plants.  If an animal were to excrete a stool high in certain nutrients beneficial to plants, the local plants around the animal would grow in more abundance.  This increase in plant life could have then increased that animal's chance of survival by supply some sort of benefit, such as an increased food supply.  Over vast amounts of time, this relationship could have help nudge an animal's evolution in a certain direction.  Just a fun idea to ponder.

Friday, January 14, 2011

First Blog

I don't really know what I'll be talking about in this blog, just whatever happens to interest me at the moment.  I could talk about video games, philosophical debates, movies, apps, whatever I see fit.  That's all for now.  I'll hopefully feel the urge to start writing soon.