Lauren

I've looked past the excess of grammatical errors and other issues in the Yahoo News writing until now, but today Yahoo posted an article so profoundly ignorant that it has compelled me to search for a new site to look at my news. I already read reason.com, but I want a site that's not purely political. If it has a good comments section (there are always a few insightful or witty comments on Yahoo articles) that would be fantastic.

To any wondering, the article I mentioned is titled "How an Introvert Can Be Happier."

I'm going to be pulling an all-nighter tonight because I have an insane amount of work to do despite having worked all day. There's also no coffee in the house and caffeinated tea doesn't affect me so that's out. :/

Is there anything I can eat or do that'll help me stay awake?

So let's say God exists and created...I don't know...a flower, for example. If He gave it some sort of meaning upon creation, would that meaning be considered objective or subjective?

Considering that time can be bent by gravity, it's clearly not what we usually perceive it as, because if it was then it would have to be linear. So what exactly IS time?

At the Beginning of the universe (Big Bang or whatever came before it) a chain/domino reaction began, since the universe interacted as dictated by the laws of physics and what not. I think the only way for this chain to be broken would be for chance to exist. I want to know because if it doesn't, then that would have to mean we're still a part of that domino reaction, which I think would mean in turn that we don't have free will.

So, is there proof that true chance exists?

"You think you're always right" is something I've heard others say, and have had said to me. However, I can't seem to understand it. When thinking conceptually, doesn't *everyone* always think they're right? No one says, "I'm atheist, but I think I'm wrong and that there is actually a God" or "PCs are better, but I think I'm actually wrong and that Macs are better." If you think you're wrong then you wouldn't believe what you do in the first place! Moreover, this accusation is often directed at people who don't change their opinions. However, even if they DO change said opinions, then their new belief is, "o.k., I was wrong before, but NOW I'm right." So, they still think they're right, regardless of change in opinion. Lastly--and most importantly, I think--aren't the people making this accusation insulting themselves as well? I mean, they're likely arguing their own point as vehemently as the other person, so they think they're always right as well (by their standards) considering they're not backing down either.

Is there logic here that I'm not seeing?

He was hurrying along at a pace trademark to city-dwellers: the half-jog, half-walk of a man late but unwilling to spill Starbucks on his coat sleeve.

It's mostly the "trademark to" that I'm iffy about.

Is a 'soul' or the idea of a 'soul'...

...different from consciousness and/or personality? If so, how?

...purely spiritual/religious in nature, or can it be organic? both?

...subject to or separate from the nature vs. nurture debate?

Lastly, do you believe it exists?

I'm asking because there seem to be a great many differing opinions on the subject, and I want to see those opinions explained/expanded on. (I want your own thoughts, not a dictionary definition.)

Can a person *genuinely* recognize and accept their own ignorance but still remain arrogant about their intellect?

It's said that the wise are modest because the more someone knows, the more they're aware of how much they don't know. I'm curious as to whether someone can become enlightened/aware in that way but still retain an arrogant way of thinking.

After hearing so much about the show I thought I'd give it a try. Which Doctors/series do I start with, though? I heard there are many.

I was just checking my answers on Y!A and noticed that tons of the questions have been deleted. I've never seen so many deleted at one and I can't think of why they would have gotten taken off. Did the rules get stricter or something?

I got a message on gmail saying that a friend had sent me a private message. When i clicked on it I was asked for my password, but RIGHT as I clicked to log in I got worried and looked at the URL and realized it was a phishing site. I changed my password immediately afterwards, will my account be okay? Is there anything else I should do?

From what I've seen, it seems to be assumed that all atheists refute necessitarianism. I understand (to an extent) that the concept of God plays a large role in the theory, but it seems to me that this is only the case because there needs to be a necessary substance from which modes (everything else) is conceived necessarily. So, couldn't necessitarianism coexist with atheism as long as the necessary substance was not considered to be God but instead some unknown entity or thing, considering we have to take into account when thinking in philosophical terms that we don't know everything?

I'm still ignorant to the technicalities of necessitarianism, though, so if my understanding of it is wrong please point out my mistake.

I'm looking for books or websites that cover the basics of a very wide range of differing and contradicting philosophies so I can find which ones I want to research further. The one thing I DON'T want, though, is a book on different religions.

I'm entering an art contest that says, "Entries must be received by December 21st." Does that mean I have to send in my art today, or can I send it in tomorrow ON the 21st?

A sentence in my essay. Can the comma before "revealed" be there?

Though Brendan thinks that his connection to Emily will be revealed,—which would likely lead to his death—he does not attempt to run away from the scene.

I've been using them in my essay as if they're synonymous but I'm worried that might be incorrect.

So this kid introduced himself to me the other day, and apparently it was because he has a crush on me--ever since I talked to him that first time he's been talking about me all the time to my friends and very nervously coming over to say hi in the hall when he sees me. I feel really bad, though, because he seems nice and all and I'd like to be friends, but I don't want to go out with him. He asked me to hang out after school tomorrow and i said sure, but i'm worried that he'll ask me out. Should I only tell him how I feel if he does, or should I talk to him about it right away before he has the chance to? I don't know what would make him feel better.

I asked my friend about it and she said to "just go out with him, if you think he's nice" but I don't believe in pity dating.

The poem:

http://ll-c.deviantart.com/#/d5fd7ss

I gave the deviantart link (no account needed) because i'm 80% sure that Y!A would mess up the formatting.

Can you give me constructive criticism and also say what you got from the poem about Sam? I want to see if I successfully got across what I meant to, as it was more clear in the first draft but I decided to make it vague.

So here's the poem:

Streetside Artist

Will you paint me a paper sky?

Sweep your brush across the page—

light this void with reds and yellows

to make an acrylic sunrise.

Please give me graphite wings,

and sketch them open wide—

I want to fly above this city

and leave all these charcoal lives.

I commission you a heart of ink,

with lines drawn dark and bold—

I need permanence that never shakes

and black to hide the scars.

I beg you, carve me wooden legs

and make them thick and strong—

for mine were born of cardboard

and they have corroded long ago.

Sir, I ask you not for sky,

nor wings or heart of ink.

But please, sir, I have a brush—

will you teach me how to paint?

It's basically done, except I feel like "permanence" breaks the poem's rhythm. I chose it to link the ink concept--permanent ink--to what this person needs to resolve their problem--a firm resolution and the strength to go through with it. But I guess the word doesn't work.

What would be better? tenacity, and then i could change shakes to fades so i'd still link back to ink? hm.