Drawing of a dogs irrational fears. Live recorded and dedicated to LVbian Synic.
I know it´s not the best drawing I ever made, but well...

Video response to LVbianSynic "What Do You Fear?"
My fear is pretty common, but it doesn't change the fact that it's my biggest fear/phobia. I realize it's irrational, but I haven't gotten over   more...it as of yet.
Anyway, here is what I came up with as my video response.
BEST VIEWED WITH SOUND ON.

Sorry for the typo in the cartoon drawing section. It should have said "height" instead of "high". lol  less

REAL MIND CONTROL ak1rd Narcissistic Irrational ak3rd

911 TV Fakery PORN Guilt and the Irrational Flagellants of SEXUAL Repression

While truth is an extremely valuable concept, things are usually not totally true or totally false, and we may or may not be able While truth is an extremely valuable concept, things are usually not totally   more...true or totally false, and we may or may not be able to judge the truth of a statement with much confidence. Still, some things are very true and others are very false, and it is often important that we can make good judgments about which is which and when we don't know. In mathematics (which includes formal logic) it is reasonable to consider some statements to be perfectly true and those which are not perfectly true to be utterly false. We should be careful to recognize that real world statements tend to become useless if they are held to such an extreme standard, since few things are totally true or totally false.

If there is a question about the truth of a statement, it might be because there is a misunderstanding about the meaning of the words, or it might be because there is a disagreement about the predictions implied by the statement and what evidence would tend to confirm or deny it. It is important to recognize when a dispute is about definition rather than substance in order to avoid a great deal of irrelevant debate.

Some philosophers, particularly those identifying themselves as "postmodernists", assert that truth is not absolute, but depends upon the individual point of view. They regard truth as political - what's true depends on your political ideology. Science is regarded as just another belief system. I don't see this as a viable point of view. If I tell a blind man that it's safe to cross the street, and he gets hit by a truck, it isn't valid for me to say "it was true for me that it was safe for him to cross the street." He was depending on a kind of truth that is more than just a point of view.

Postmodernists' views seem more reasonable when applied to things like art and morality, where there are no widely agreed on ways to determine what is true. Even in these areas, we can benefit by gaining a better understanding so issues of truth are better defined. In traditional scientific areas, postmodernists correctly point out that there is always an element of opinion and bias in scientific work. While this is so, scientific methods are carefully designed to keep such biases to an absolute minimum, which would not normally be the case when using emotional or political or religious methods to reach conclusions.

We can consider all knowledge as having a probability associated with it. Do I know that the floor of my house will support my weight, because it has in the past? I feel that is extremely probable, but there is some tiny possibility that something has recently undermined it. I am very confident that the world is roughly spherical. I am pretty sure that eating fatty foods increases my risk of heart attack. We often think of probability as only applying to the future, but as long as we have some doubt about the answer to a question, the concept of probability can apply to the past and present as well. If we deal one card from a deck of playing cards to a friend, the probability of it being an ace would be 4 in 52. As far as we are concerned, the fact that the card has already been determined does not affect our judgment of the probabilities. If we then also deal a card to ourselves and see it is an ace, the chances of our friend having an ace is now 3 in 51 (three out of the 51 cards we cannot see are aces), while if we don't have an ace the probability would be 4 in 51. When we learn more about a situation, the probabilities of certain facts change accordingly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xObRAk2YoHg  less

There are more than two ways to look at any issue, just as there should be more than two political parties. Creating a false dichotomy is really lame; there are few issues that have an answer that can   more...be expressed in booleen.  less