Jump to content
Banner by ~ PrincessPriscillaPT
Guidelines

Brony Number 42

Writing Contest Winner
 View Profile  See their content

  • Posts

    4,516

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Blog Entries posted by Brony Number 42

  1. Brony Number 42
    I read the latest MLP comic Feats Of Friendship. Warning Spoilers! It is a simple plot so far, but it made me think. First, a brief summary of the plot. The Young Six are going to participate in a series of games called the Feats Of Friendship. They need a 7th team member so Twilight introduces them to Swift Foot, a female earth pony. It turns out that she is evil (because of course she is) and wants to turn the characters against each other.
    She talks to each one privately. She tells Silverstream that Equestria didn’t save the Hippogriffs when Storm King invaded. She tells Gallus that the Griffons and ponies didn’t get along, and Gallus should be the leader of the group. She tells Yona that Yona learned to speak pony, but nobody learned Yak. She told Smolder that the school doesn’t serve gems for dragons to eat. She tells Ocellus that the ponies made the changelings change their way of life just to suit the ponies. And she tells Sandbar that he treats is friends better than they treat him. This makes all of the characters mad at each other.
    I will address each of these points from minor to major. Sandbar is upset because he feels unappreciated. I don’t see this as a major issue. He will get over it. It does not present a big personal problem, nor a problem with pony/non pony relationships.
    Gallus has a big ego and it is reasonable to believe that he should feel like he is the leader. But he needs to realize that their group has no leader. I don’t see this a as a big problem. He needs to learn how pony society works if he wants to live there, even if temporarily. This is a minor personal problem, and might reflect some issues for Griffon/pony relationships.
    The Hippogriffs. Why didn’t Equestria defend them? (Because plot.) We don’t know. I think Equestria should have, if they could have. But for whatever reason that didn’t happen. You can’t be mad at someone for not helping, or not helping enough, when you have problems. What do the Hippogriffs want? Reparations for something that Equestria wasn’t a part of? Do they want help rebuilding? That might be a good idea, but not because Equestria owes them anything. I think the Hippogriffs make good allies. It seems that they get along well with the ponies. The Hippogriffs should work to build an alliance, not feel bitter about what happened to them.
    Yona feels like she is making an effort to fit into pony society by learning the pony language. But what else does she expect? She is visiting Equestria, of course she should learn their language. You don’t go to a foreign land and expect everyone there to speak your language. I never liked the Yaks. They are violent and threatened war. I don’t think Equestria should appease that kind of behavior. Sure, they can make some effort for peace, but don’t compromise their values. Equestria should always be ready for war to defend its way of life. The Yaks make unstable allies. The only reason I would negotiate peace with them is that war is expensive. I would not have peace “at any cost.” I think that if the Yaks had a superior military then they would attack Equestria.
    Smolder’s problem is similar to Yona’s. Should she expect to eat gem stones in Equestria? I don’t know how hard it is to obtain dragon food. Presumably it shouldn’t be that hard. I think she has a valid complaint, but nothing worth getting mad about. A minor personal problem, but a reflection of a big dragon/pony problem. I see the dragons as worse than the Yaks. The only reason that the dragons have not invaded Equestria is that Ember doesn’t want to. What happens if she is replaced? Can the ponies really trust the dragons? Do they share any common values? I don’t think so. I would keep a strong military as a deterrent against dragon invasion.
    The Changelings. The ponies changed the Changelings’ way of life just to suit the ponies? Duh! The Changelings invaded Equestria. The ponies had every right to do anything, including wiping out every last Changeling, to save themselves. The Changelings should be thankful that they still exist. The ponies and Changelings could not live in the same world. Their existence was mutually exclusive. One might ask, “Where were the hippogriffs when the Changelings invaded Equestria?” Fortunately for Equestria, the Changelings are no longer a threat. I do think it is a good idea to have an alliance with them now that they are not a threat. But what happens when Thorax isn’t in charge anymore? Hopefully the change is permanent.
    I believe that Equestria represents the superior culture in the land. At the very least, they should take a stance that protects their way of life. We could get into cultural relativism, with an attitude of “well, everyone thinks they are the best.” Sure, when the unreformed Changeling is eating your energy, you can think that. Or when the dragon is roasting your village, or when a diamond dog has you in chains, you can talk about how every creature is equal. Taking a cultural relativistic philosophy is pointless at best, self-destructive at worst.
    It is significant that it is Equestria that has a school devoted to inclusiveness. It is Equestria that accepts all points of view. It is Equestria where creatures from other lands can be given a fair chance. Not Yakyakistan, not Dragonland (awesome band), not the Changeling Kingdom, not Griffonstone. Maybe the Hippogriff lands. It is cultural suicide to think that every other creature believes in freedom the same way the ponies do. Equestria should spread its beliefs and culture. I’m not saying it should invade other lands. I’m saying other lands should adopt the same concepts of freedom that Equestria has. If they don’t, then Equestria needs to have a strong defense. Being ready to defend yourself is not aggressive. Having strong values and beliefs means nothing without the firepower to ultimately back it up.
  2. Brony Number 42
    It looks like I never explained how I got into MLP, so with the show ending I figured now is a good time to do that. I will also explain what the show means to me and try to understand why it has become a phenomenon.
    I think the year was 2012. I know I had gone to BronyCan in 2013 after going to BronyCon, and I don’t remember how many BronyCons I had been to before that. But I guess the exact year doesn’t matter. I was visiting with a friend in Baltimore (of all places!). I had brought 2 other of our mutual friends with me. One guy wanted to show me something funny on YouTube. He started playing Friendship Is Witchcraft. I don’t know if I was even aware of FIM. I knew of the old My Little Pony. I might have been aware that there were still toys, and if I was aware of the new cartoon then I would have dismissed it as a show for little kids. Ironic, since I love cartoons of all kinds, but at any rate, the show was not on my radar. We were watching Friendship Is Witchcraft and I found it hilarious. It was well written and acted. We watched all of the episodes at that time and even were singing the songs.
    The next day, my friend sat me in front of the computer again and queued another video, this one from the real show. He had explained that the real show was good, so I was curious, but I still had no idea what to expect. The video he played was the Smile song. Pinkie Pie, who I had seen from the spoof show, started singing about smiling. About half way through I could feel something inside of me change. By the end of the song I was holding back tears. I had to sit for a minute to compose myself. I knew my life had changed but I didn’t want to talk about it at that time. I had to pretend like nothing was wrong. It was some time before I got a chance to actually see the show, and I don’t even remember that moment. But I’m sure I watched it on Netflix alone, the way I usually watch my shows.
    The rest is history. I fell in love with the show and everything about it. I had gone to every BronyCon since and every time I was there it felt like coming home. As I have mentioned before, it felt like the whole year didn’t matter and everything lead up to that weekend. I had never felt so happy. I felt like I belonged.
    But why? Why can a children’s cartoon have such an effect on such a diverse group of people? I would expect to see the usual con crowd: fans of anime, video games, pop culture, things like that. But I had seen a truck driver in his 60s, men in the military, grandmothers, you name it. It makes no sense. I have been thinking about this for years and I have a few theories. First, look at the common fans. Most Bronies seem to be fans of other “nerdy” things, like I have mentioned. So maybe that 60 year old truck driver is also a fan of anime, for example. There is no way to prove it one way or the other, but it just doesn’t seem likely to me. Then I thought about the “nerd culture” over the recent decades. Perhaps in the past there just wasn’t much of an outlet for those kinds of people. There were comics, and that’s about it until maybe the 1960s. I suppose a “nerd” personality can be born in any time period, but it is only recently that such people can feel comfortable about it.
    But does that hypothesis make sense? It assumes that these people would also be fans of other things. As I said, I have no way of proving it. But is there something special about MLP? I like other cartoons and hobbies, but nothing has the same magic that My Little Pony does. There are much bigger, non pony conventions, like Comic Con. But do people break down in tears when they have to leave? To this day I still cannot get through Smile without tearing up.
    I think being a Brony is the ultimate symbol of cultural freedom. It’s like you can say, “I love a show about magical ponies, and I am not ashamed. There is nothing you can say to me that can hurt me.” Deep down everyone wants to be happy. MLP allows people to embrace that innocence and joy that they might be afraid to face. Fear keeps them shackled. Fear about not being tough, manly, or grown up enough. It’s like a guilty pleasure that you are too embarrassed to admit. But MLP shows that you don’t have to be embarrassed about how you are. It teaches you to love yourself, which means you don’t have to be afraid any more. There will always be a place where you can be you, and nopony will judge for it. That’s what My Little Pony means to me.
  3. Brony Number 42
    Monday. Up at 5:30, out the door by 6:30. On my way to Louisville, KY.
    13:17 getting an oil change outside of Louisville, KY. I stopped at a Game X Change and got some games. Going to eat soon.
    16:10 Went to some video game stores. Got some Sega CD and Atari Jaguar games. I like getting tshirts from game stores too.
    20:04 Eating pizza. What a day. Lots of video games and used books. I found the D&D 2nd edition Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monstrous Manual, 1st edition Monster Manual, and Dungeon Master's Guide Premium reprints by Wizards for $25 each. I have them all already, but I can resell them for way more. 
    Tomorrow I will do some shopping in Lexington, KY. I love hitting the game and book stores when I travel. I should be really close to Baltimore, MD by tomorrow night.
    Teusday 8:00 Going to more game stores in Lexington.
    12:40 Eating sushi. Got another Star Trek book to my collection and a couple more video games. I spent so much money and I haven't evem gotten to the con yet. But things make me happy. I found out that Gwar is Kickstarting a card game, so I got that too.
    Wedsesday 7:00 3.5 hours away. Going to go a couple more game and comic stores. Bougjt more games.
    15:34 At Hilton. I'm so excited!
    19:32 Got my badge. Now what?
    Thursday 8:00 I will be having breakfast with the gang at 10.
    10:00 Had brunch with some awesome bronies.
    18:00 Played Are You  Changling, stood in line for the vendors, spent a few hundred $ on awesome stuff. I got pretty much everything I want.
    There is a cartoon convention (will get the name later). I talked to the guy who is running it and told him how much I love cartoons. I unlocked a secret and he gave me She Ra posters!
    I collected more TSSSF cards. I unlocked another secret and one guy selling some gave me a card he didn't have for sale. He also had me autograph the Raven Pony card for which I wrote the text. That was cool.
    I love this convention.
    Played Changling until 1 am.
    Friday 7:30 Awake and now waiting in line for autographs, which starts at 11:00. I will be here all day.
    19:30 With the help of @Twilight Luna I got 6 autographs. I need a few more tomorrow. 
    21:00 Playing Changling.
    Saturday 12:00 to 1:30 Sang in Rock Band.
    Sleep
    7:00 Awake
    7:30 In the autograph line.
    Wow, what a day. Thanks to @Twilight Luna I have all of the autographs. Saw a TSSSF panel and unlocked a few bonus cards. Bought some beautiful prints and shirts. Saw Michelle Creber and Black Gryph0n perform later I will see the purlesque show.
    Sunday After 3:00 Purlesque ended. Went to sleep. 
    8:00 Awake. Bought some posters. Got 3 final autographs from Price, Fleecs, and Richard. I almost forgot about them. Sang in Rock Band. Closing ceremonies are in half an hour and I am trying to keep myself together, but I know I will lose it when the ceremonies start.
    I got more people from the forums to sign my book. Thanks you guys.
    Monday Travel. Went to a couple game stores and bought more games. Because that's what I do.
    Tuesday Travel. Bought more video games and books. I like used game stores.
    Wednesday Just like Tuesday. Finally got home Wednesday night. Now I catalog my haul.
  5. Brony Number 42

    She Ra ideas

    By Brony Number 42,

    She-Ra And The Princesses Of Power season 2 is starting soon. I like that cartoons in recent years have story arcs that go for an entire season. For shows in the past each episode would be a stand alone story and there was little or no development. The new She Ra has interesting characters and a story line that keeps you coming back. This means there must be an ultimate end and wrap up of the story. How long that can go on is the question. Here are my thoughts on how the show could go for the next few seasons.
    We saw at the end of season 1 that Catra has been promoted to second in command under Hordak. I think we should see a major offensive by The Horde. They could win a major victory by the end of season 2, leaving a cliff hanger. We learn more about the First Ones. Maybe they fought The Horde in the past.
    Season 3 shows the Rebellion fighting back, gaining ground, and defeating The Horde. Catra quits or is kicked out of The Horde. She blames Shadow Weaver. The rebellion uses First Ones technology to gain an edge.
    Season 4,  Catra bums around the Fright Zone and mopes. She visits seedy bars and gets into fights. Eventually she forms her own group of pirates who are not allied with any group. They steal from targets of opportunity. All the while Catra and Adora cross paths and we see character development. This is the season where Catra tells Adora "I love you." But Adora tells Catra that she, Adora, only loves Catra as a friend. This pushes Catra deeper into depression. Meanwhile the war between The Horde and the Rebellion continues.
    Season 5 can be the final season. The Horde is finally defeated. Catra loses any desire for power or vengeance. She just wants an end to her emotional turmoil. Her hatred for Shadow Weaver increases, culminating in a confrontation where she kills Shadow Weaver. Catra makes peace with Adora but realizes that she still can't fit in with the Rebellion. She embarks on a quest of self-discovery. This could spin off into more seasons or a second show.
     
    This is what I think so far.
  7. Brony Number 42

    She Ra fan fic

    By Brony Number 42,

    I have only seen 7 episodes so far, but I had to write this scene. I hope you like it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    The transport craft’s engines whined as Adora pushed the throttle forward. There was a thump on the roof as Catra landed on it, having jumped from the dock. She wasn’t about to let Adora get away from her. Catra opened the top hatch and jumped inside, landing on her feet. She saw Adora at the front console, frantically trying to steer the craft as it sped out of control.
                    Catra lunged for the controls, but Adora saw her and tried to block. In the scuffle, Adora accidentally hit the steering wheel and the craft banked hard to the right. The wrestling pair fell to the deck. Catra was on her feet first and spun the wheel in the other direction. Since she was prepared for it, she was able to stay on her feet. Adora, however, rolled across the deck in the opposite direction and crashed against the wall. But before Catra could turn the ship around, Adora stuck out her legs and tripped Catra.
                    Adora regained her feet and tried to take the controls. The two girls wrestled back and forth for several minutes. Adora looked out the window and saw a rock formation approaching. “Look out!” she shouted and tried to steer the craft out of the way. The transport craft was not able to completely dodge the rocks. The right side scraped the rocks and took out the starboard engines. The ship spun wildly out of control and crashed.
                    The two occupants flew into the front control panel. Fortunately, the craft was not far off the ground and the crash was not as bad as it could have been. There was smoke and sparks spitting from the controls. Adora and Catra sat up and rubbed bruised shoulders and heads. They looked at each other for a moment, then simultaneously reached for the distress button. They hit the button at the same time.
                    “Ha!” said Catra. “The Hoard will be here soon.”
                    “I don’t think so,” Adora countered. “My friends are closer. They will be here first.”
                    “But Hoard ships are faster,” Catra said. “Come on, Adora. Do the math in your head. Who will be here first?” Catra grinned.
                    Adora leaned back against the wall. “Either way, it will be a few hours. We could just leave on foot and go our separate ways.”
                    “Nah, I’ll take my chances. I know I’m better off as your prisoner than you are as my prisoner. Your rebellion wouldn’t even know how to keep me. I’d escape in an hour.”
                    “And I will die before I go back to the Hoard.” Adora was very serious, and that wiped the grin from Catra’s face.
                    Catra sat against the opposite wall. The ship was tilted. Catra took a deep breath and coughed as she inhaled smoke. The two stared at each other for several minutes as their adrenaline subsided and their hearts slowed. They were both hurt and tired.
                    It was Catra who broke the silence. “Why don’t you just come back to your home, Adora?”
                    “The Hoard isn’t my home anymore. They lied to me, to both of us. Can’t you see what they are doing?”
                    “It doesn’t matter much to me,” Catra said. “The Hoard is all I’ve known.”
                    “They are evil,” Adora said. “I see that now. I’m part of something bigger now. My life has purpose. Don’t you care about what is right and wrong?”
                    Catra smirked. “Not really. I don’t really care about the Rebellion’s cause. I don’t really care about the Hoard either, but they are more exciting. As a Force Captain, I can be somebody. I have power.”
                    “Is that all you care about?” Adora asked. “Excitement and power?”
                    Catra shrugged. “I guess so.” She stared at the floor. “You were one of the best cadets. You could have been a great Force Captain. We could have been an awesome team.”
                    “That’s not going to happen now.” Adora said.
                    They were silent for a few more minutes. “We miss you, Adora. Please come back.”
                    “They don’t miss me. I was just a solider, a tool. Everyone in the Hoard is. The Hoard will use you and throw you away. I don’t want to see that happen to you, Catra.” Adora said.
                    Catra sighed. “Maybe you’re right, ‘they’ don’t miss you. But I miss you. You were the only friend I had.”
                    “Then come with me!” Adora pleaded. “We can still be together. You said you don’t care which side you’re on. Then join the Rebellion. I can promise you excitement and friends. More friends than you could count.”
                    Catra rubbed her foot on a spot on the floor. “I’d never fit in. I’m not like you. I guess I’m just destined to be a misfit. The Hoard is where I belong.”
                    Adora sighed and rubbed her head. “You’re so stubborn.”
                    Catra cleared her throat and said, “There’s one other reason you should come back.”
                    Adora looked at Catra for a few beats then asked, “What is that?”
                    Catra pulled her legs up to her chest and put her chin on her knees. “Because…I love you, Adora.”
                    Adora’s mouth hung open in shock. “Wh..what?”
                    Tears in her eyes, Catra took a deep breath and said, “I love you. I’ve loved you for a long time.”
                    Silence for a minute. “Why didn’t you tell me before?”
                    “I didn’t think I needed to,” Catra said. “I always thought we would be together. I thought about telling you many times. When we were fighting in the training room. When we were on guard duty together. One time, when we were on the balcony and staring into the night sky, I almost told you. But I didn’t. Because I’m a coward.” She buried her face into her knees. “I kept telling myself that I would have plenty of opportunities. Then you left and I didn’t think I would ever see you again. I didn’t think I would have another chance to tell you. But I couldn’t keep it in any more. I love you.” It kept getting easier to say. “Now you’re gone and it’s like a hole in my chest. I think about you every night. I lay in your bed and cry, hoping nobody catches me in my moment of weakness.”
                    Adora looked at Catra for a while, then scooted across the deck to the other side of the craft to sit next to her friend. Adora put a hand on Catra’s shoulder. “I wish you would have told me sooner.” She put her arms around Catra.
                    Catra curled into Adora’s arms. She had fantasized about being in Adora’s embrace so many times. But now was bitter sweet. Now they were enemies. But in this moment Catra forgot all of that. She leaned her head against Adora’s chest and listened to her heart beat. “I’m sorry,” she said.
                    “Why?” Adora asked.
                    “I’m sorry for making this awkward for you. I’m sorry that you had to leave. I’m sorry that I can’t go with you. And I’m sorry because I know you don’t feel the same way about me as I do about you.”
                    Adora rested her chin on the top of Catra’s head. “I love you…as a friend.”
                    Catra tensed. As a friend. It was like a knife in her heart. She felt like such a fool. Why did she tell Adora how she felt? She should have just kept it inside. What purpose was served by spilling her feelings to Adora? On the other hand, it felt like a weight had been lifted. It felt good. “Do you mind if I tell you again?”
                    Adora kept back tears. “You can tell me anything you want. If that is how you feel in your heart then you can feel comfortable telling me.”
                    Catra smiled and whispered, “I love you, Adora. I’ve loved you for so long. I admired your strength and courage in battle. Your confidence. I would watch you from the corner of my eye and think about being in your arms. I would watch you sleep in your bunk and wish we could just run away together. I cherished every moment alone we had. I wish this moment wouldn’t have to end, Adora.”
                    Tears fell down Adora’s cheeks and dripped onto Catra’s head. “Just come with me, Catra.”
                    “I can’t. Not now. Maybe some day.” She lifted her head and looked into Adora’s eyes. “Will you promise me one thing?” Adora nodded. “Always remember that I love you. Any time we face each other in battle, know that I fight you because I love you. I would never hurt you. I just want you back.”
                    “But if I went back, the Hoard would imprison me. They would hurt me. Is that what you want, Catra?”
                    Tears flooded from Catra’s eyes and she put her face on Adora’s shoulder. “No,” she sobbed. “I just don’t know what else to do. I have to fight you, but secretly I keep hoping you get away. And you always do. I just have to figure this all out.”
                    “I promise I will always remember that you love me, Catra.”
                    They held each other for a long time. Then an alarm sounded on the panel. They jumped up and ran to it. “It’s a Hoard ship,” Adora said. “They’ll be here in a minute.” She looked at Catra. “This is it, isn’t it?”
                    Catra was scared. She didn’t know what to do. She looked around and saw a rip in the bulkhead that revealed a hole that Adora could hide in. “There,” she pointed. “Get in there.” She grabbed Adora and pushed her toward the hole in the wall. Adora squeezed into the tight space and Catra closed up the torn bulkhead. “Just be quiet.”
                    The roar of a Hoard ship grew louder. It stopped over head and there was the sound of boots landing on the roof. Two soldiers looked into the hatch on the roof. “Force Captain Catra?” one said. “Are you alright?”
                    “Yes, I’m fine.” She said
                    “Where is Adora?”
                    “She…got away. Maybe if we leave now we can catch her. Hurry up and get me out of here, you fools!”
                    From the crack in the wall where Adora was hiding she saw Catra climb up a rope that the soldiers had lowered down. Catra cast a final glance toward Adora, then disappeared out of the ship. The roar of the Hoard ship’s engines faded as it left.
  8. Brony Number 42
    Assertion: Irrational numbers have decimal digits that do not repeat, nor do they have a pattern of digits that repeat.
    An irrational number cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers. 
    Proof by contradiction. Assume that the irrational number does have a repeating pattern of decimals.
    First, consider an assumed irrational number x = a1a2•••am . am+1•••am+l•••x1x2•••xn•••x1x2•••xn•••
    Where the digits a1a2•••am are the part of the number greater than one. Note the decimal point. The digits am+1•••am+l are a possible sequence of digits after the decimal that precede the repeating pattern. We will first show that we can eliminate these non repeating digits.
    Multiply the number by 10m+l which gives
    10m+l x = a1a2•••amam+1•••am+l . x1x2•••xn•••x1x2•••xn••• 
                 = y + 0.x1x2•••xn•••x1x2•••xn•••
    Where y is some whole number. We can rearrange

    10m+l x - y = 0.x1x2•••xn•••x1x2•••xn•••
    At this point we have reduced the problem to an assumed set of repeating decimals. We see that m or l could be 0, making for a simpler problem. Continuing, multiply by 10n
    10n (10m+l x - y) = 10n 0.x1x2•••xn•••x1x2•••xn•••
                                = x1x2•••xn.x1x2•••xn•••
                                 = w + 0.x1x2•••xn•••
    10m+l+n x - 10n y - w  = 10lx - a1a2•••amam+1•••am+l
    On the right we have rewritten 0.x1x2•••xn••• in terms of x. In other words, we have written just the repeating part in terms of x. Note that a1a2•••amam+1•••am+l is a whole number, call it u. Algebra gives
    10m+l+n x - 10n y - w + u = 10lx
    x = (10n y + w - u) / (10m+l+n - 10l)
    Where the numerator and denominator on the right are both whole numbers, and therefore x is rational. This contradicts our assumption. To see this more simply, consider a case where x < 1 and does not have any decimals that are not part of the repeating series. This means m = l = y = 0, meaning all the a = 0.
     
    Ok the super scripts don't work so I will try to fix this later.
  9. Brony Number 42
    I am working on a hypothesis that horror movies suck. Even fans of horror admit that most of the movies suck. To support this idea, I have compiled scores from Rotten Tomatoes . I plotted the movie score vs release year. I wasn't able to get the movie titles on the charts, but you can cross reference the year with the movies listed in Wikipedia. So far, I look at Friday the 13th, Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and for a comparison Star Trek. I then list what ratio of the movies got a score greater than or equal to 50%
    Friday the 13th, 12 movies with 2 greater/equal to 50%, or only 17% of them.

    Halloween, 11 movies with 3 greater/equal to 50%, or only 27% of them. Note that this counts the 2018 movie, which probably shouldn't count because it is too new. But even counting it improves the ratio.

    A Nightmare on Elm Street, 9 movies with 4 greater/equal to 50%, or only 44% of them.

    Star Trek, 13 movies with 9 greater/equal to 50%, or 69% of them.

    This preliminary analysis shows that the top 3 horror movie franchises don't even have half their movies with a score over 50%. But Star Trek, a series that is often made fun of, has the majority of its movies with a score greater than 50%.
    Further analysis could show score vs year, and the effect of reboots. But for now, I think I make a good case that horror movies suck.
  11. Brony Number 42

    RPG Rants

    By Brony Number 42,

    Random Stat Generation
     
    I do not like games where you randomly determine your character's statistics. Dungeons and Dragons is the most famous example of this, and that is the game I will be talking about for the most part. There is a fatal flaw in creating a character this way. The problem is you could end up rolling a really bad character. Who wants to play a character with bad stats? Some will claim that this is not a problem because you could also roll a character with really good stats. But just because you have the possibility of rolling well doesn't justify the case when you roll poorly.
     
    Let us review the concept of averaging over many rolls. Consider rolling for an attack. Sometimes you hit and sometimes you miss. This doesn't matter as long as you win on average over many attacks. Failing the roll a few times doesn't matter that much. If you miss this time, you know that you will hit at some point in the future. But this is not the case when rolling your initial stats. For these rolls, you get one chance. Therefore, there is no averaging process. Over the course of many campaigns perhaps you play many characters. In this case then maybe you have some weak and some strong characters. Maybe only in this situation do you find consolation in an average. But who plays with the philosophy, “It's ok to have a crappy character this time because maybe next time I will have a better character”?
     
    Some people have said that they like playing flawed or weak characters. They claim that the characters are more interesting to play. This makes no sense to me. I'm not talking about a personality flaw. I'm talking about a weak stat. So I'm talking about the numbers. Perhaps I can understand someone having fun playing a character who can't lie. But what is so fun about playing a character with a low wisdom score? I think someone claiming that this is fun is simply justifying a bad game design. For example, consider a game with a point-buy system. Players are given a certain number of points to assign to their ability scores. Would you decide to throw away one or more points in order to purposely make a weak character? I can't imagine someone doing that on a point-buy system, yet someone would justify that on a random roll system.
     
    Another part of this discussion is the idea that you should come up with a character concept first, then come up with the numbers. What happens if your randomly rolled numbers don't match your concept? Why would you let random dice rolls dictate your character? I am not so interested in a character concept, as such. Meaning, I'm not so interested in a background story. Why can't my concept be that he is a fighter? If the DM tells me that I need a back story then I will come up with the bare minimum that he wants.
     
    Getting back to the idea of having a weak character, would you choose a weak character over a strong one? In D&D, the stats can range from 3 to 18. If the DM told you that you could choose your stats, wouldn't you choose all 18s? I see no reason not to. The older editions of D&D are notorious for being difficult and deadly. Having a maxed out character does not really make the game too easy.
     
    Combat Without A Map
     
    Put simply, it can't be done. More accurately, it can't be done well. Of course people play this way, but the combat has to be simplified. You can't have more than about two enemies attacking each character. Any more than this and it would be too awkward to keep track of where everyone is. You also can't employ advanced tactics. For example, one strategy is to know what your range is on a ranged weapon, the distance to a target, and the target's movement. You can put yourself at a distance such that the enemy can't reach you in his next turn. You can also flank, calculate area of affects for spells, environmental effects, and other things. There is no way you can do these things without keeping track of character positions.
     
    Having high detail in combat does not preclude role playing. People have used the term “theater of the mind,” as if this were inherently better than miniature combat. I think this is a cop out. You lose too much when you can't employ tactics. A game, by definition, has rules. The rules are meant to adjudicate actions. How can you have a situation where the DM just makes it up as he goes along?
     
    Wizard: “I target my fireball so that it hits the orcs but misses my allies.”
    DM: “Um, ok, I'll say that your allies are out of range.”
    Archer: “Wait, if I'm out of range of his fire ball, then am I still in short range with my bow?”
    Thief: “But I'm at the door trying to pick the lock, wouldn't that put me in the blast radius?”
    DM: “Um, I don't know.”
  12. Brony Number 42
    I was reading some old rpg books and they had this rule: if a monk hits he has a 75% chance of stunning his target and a 25% chance of killing it.
    This is a grammar and math issue. The conjunction "and" means both. Therefore if the monk hits then he rolls % dice to see if he stuns. He then rolls % dice again, regardless of the results of the stun roll, to see if he kills. So he rolls the % dice two times, and determines the stun and kill rolls separately.
    How does the math work on this? Is it better to roll one time or two times? If the rule said the he either stuns or kills, but not both, then it would have said, "if the monk hits then roll % dice. A result of 1 to 25 means he kills. A result of 26 to 100 means he stuns."
    In that case he is guaranteed to either stun or kill. If you roll separately then there is a chance that you will fail at both rolls. Let us calculate these probabilities.
    In the case where you roll once, this is easy. 0.25 to kill and 0.75 to stun, with no other possibilities.
    In the other case there are 4 outcomes. Stun and kill, no stun and kill, stun and no kill, no stun and no kill. The probabilities for these are, respectively
    0.75×0.25 = 0.1875
    0.25×0.25 = 0.0625
    0.75×0.75 =0.5625
    0.25×0.75 = 0.1875
    Adding these up gives 1, as it should. Assume that a kill supersedes a stun and is more desirable. In other words, a stun and a kill results in a kill. The probability of stun and kill, or no stun and kill is = 0.1875 + 0.0625 = 0.25 which is the probability of getting a kill in the alternate situation discussed above.
    The probability of getting just a stun is 0.5625 as opposed to 0.75 in the alternate situation, and the probability of getting nothing is 0.1875. So this sitauation is worse than the case where you roll one time.
  13. Brony Number 42
    I had a bad cold the past few days and I lost my sense of smell and taste. But I learned some things, for science! First, I ate some jalepeños. No taste but I felt the hot. The next day, I ate wasabi. I could not taste it but it still burned my nose, which is weird. Then today we unloaded ammonia at work. I could not smell it, but it definitely burned when I breathed some. Then, at home, I had a bottle of organic vinegar, which is supposed to be good for you. You're supposed to drink a little of it but it is gross. But, without a sense of taste, I could drink a lot. It caused me to gag and burned a little, but I drank like 5 times as much. So far these experiments have been interesting.
  14. Brony Number 42
    There is a British TV show called The Undatables where people with physical or mental disabilities are trying to find a date. It’s kind of sad and I feel sorry for these people because I know what it’s like. Specifically, there are a few people who were good looking but then they had some kind of accident or illness that left them disfigured or disabled.
    These people talk about how they had no trouble getting dates until their illness. There was one woman who was beautiful, then she had most of her nose and lips removed. Then should couldn’t get dates any more. This proves that looks do matter. I am so sick of people saying that looks don’t matter and it’s all about personality and “confidence.” The people in this TV show have the same personality before and after their accidents. So then why can’t they get dates after?
    It is an insult to tell someone that they can have a girlfriend/boyfriend if they just had “confidence.” That is the word I would hear all the time. It insults my intelligence. I am going to assume that there are men who feel the same way I do. Maybe some women too, but I’m not sure. I think most people who are unattractive know that they are unattractive. I know I am. I’m not stupid. I know what I look like. I know what good looking men look like, and they don’t look like me. I know the kind of guy that women go for.
    Good looking men get good looking women. That’s how it works. Don’t lie to me and tell me that I can have that attractive woman if all I do is blah blah blah. Like there is some magic word I have to say and that is going to trick this woman into falling in love with me. Some people are attractive, some people are not. That is the reality. Good looking people have the luxury of sitting on a high horse and claiming that they chose their bf/gf based on personality. But whenever I say that I want a good looking woman, I’m accused of being shallow.
    We are all shallow. Sure, you can find some examples here and there that go against my theory, but the vast majority of cases are exactly how I’ve described it. Don’t insult those of us who are “aesthetically challenged.”
  15. Brony Number 42
    Logic And Society
    Let us review some problems in logic. If it is assumed that “society” must provide a service to a person, then how far must society go to provide that service? Also, if a person is entitled to something, then do they have an obligation to society? How do you determine the limits of that obligation?
    Take, for example, providing health care. How is health care defined? Must minor injuries be treated, or only major conditions? Go back to basic logic, meaning, model the situation in basic components. Go back to the simple village situation. What happens if there is one person who is a doctor? If every person is entitled to health care, then this doctor must provide that care. This doctor might be busy 24 hours a day. This might seem like a far-fetched situation, but logic must apply in every case. You cannot ignore the consequences of the logical system that you have set up just because they lead to ridiculous results.
    If your base principle says that you are entitled to X, then there must be a way for X to be provided. You cannot simply say, “A tax will go to pay the medical bills.” This assumes 1) that enough taxes will be available, and 2) enough doctors will exist. What happens if 1 or 2 are false?
    Mathematics is the pure expression of logic. Something that is mathematically proven must be true in all cases, no matter how extreme. For example, can I prove the assertion that all odd numbers larger than 2 are prime? Look at the first few primes larger than 2: 3, 5, 7. It looks like my assertion holds. Surely, there is no need to go to the next odd number, 9, and check if it is prime. This would be such an extreme case that we can ignore it. Thus, we will operate under the assumption that all odd numbers are prime. When we operate under a false assumption, we get unwanted situations.
    If our health care assumption leads to unwanted situations in extreme cases, then there must, logically, be a flaw in our assumptions. If it fails at the extreme, then how far back do we pull away from the extreme until we find a regime that seems to pass? If 15 is not prime, but we pull back to 13, this seems to satisfy our assertion. Perhaps we can modify our claim and say all odd numbers less than 15 are prime. 11 satisfies this condition. So we are good on the low end of 3, 5, 7 and on the high end of 11, 13. Surely, 9 must also be prime.
    What we have done is compromised our logic. We wanted something to be true. Then we modified the conditions to try to make reality fit what we wanted. But logic is a stubborn thing. When you have a patchwork system then you no longer have a logic. If you don’t have a logic then you can do anything and end up anywhere, even places you don’t want to go.
    If we insist on sticking with our assumption that everyone is entitled to medical care, then we must do things to satisfy that condition. Perhaps we encourage people to become doctors by paying them more. This means higher taxes. But following logic, what happens if we still don’t have enough doctors? What happens if a doctor has been over worked and he decides he wants to take a day off? What happens if someone is injured during his time off? In order to satisfy our assumption, it would be logically valid to force the doctor, at gun point if need be, to help someone. Explain to me how this would not be permissible? Logic demands that it be so.
    But perhaps you invoke another assumption. Namely, that a person has the right to decide what to do with their lives. But this assumption contradicts our first assumption. We have assumed A and also B. But, using logic, we have found that B implies not A. Formally,
    B →~A
    It is a logical contradiction to have A Å ~A. So what we do is cross our fingers and hope that we never end up in the situation where B →~A.
    But once we cross the line and go into the regime of contradiction, then we can justify anything. If I ask you to justify taxation to pay for some convoluted health care system, you cannot declare that it is because everyone is entitled to it. We have proven, logically, that this assumption leads to a contradiction. Unless we drop the assumption that people have the right to do what they want with their lives.
    It is unlikely that we will get these kind of systems if we build them logically from the ground up. Instead, these kind of systems are built in a hodge-podge manner. We have touched on this briefly, but let us explore it more.
    Many people believe that anything, including the complexities of human interaction, are subject to scientific investigation. Physics, as a comparison, is a science built in mathematics. The Holy Grail of physics is a theory that explains every sub field of physics with one unified theory. One set of assumptions and equations that can explain anything. One can image physics as a web. Everything, ultimately, is connected to everything else. If you are at the edge of the web, then perhaps you can change some assumption and it won’t affect something further along. Maybe I change Plank’s Constant and this does not change my calculations for the orbits of planets. The problem is that we have only a few assumptions and they are at the center of the web. If you change something deep in the web, then this will cascade outward. You cannot arbitrarily change something and expect no consequences. What you are doing is establishing your conclusions and trying to justify them by back-working to some premise.
    Society is, indeed, a complex web. A system that is not founded on logical assumptions is not a coherent web. Rather, it is a disjointed collection of islands. Each of these islands is an issue or problem. You decide what a solution should be because it seems like a good idea and it seems like it should work. In math, once a theorem is proven it can be used to establish another theorem. Each idea is a brick that builds the structure of math. There is a solid chain of logic, going all the way to the base principles. But if one “theorem” is not valid, it leads to other invalid ideas. Eventually the entire structure collapses.
    When you look at a problem in society and you establish a solution that is not logically founded, then you have laid another brick in the road to Hell. The road to Hell is paved by good intentions and the bricks crumble under your feet.
    Getting back to our health care example, we have looked at it as an isolated idea, not connected to a foundation. We want the conclusion that health care must be provided. We do not care what logical principles lead to this conclusion. Thus this idea becomes a foundation of its own. As we have seen, logic dictates that force must, not may, be applied, if necessary, to satisfy this principle.
    We can build corollaries to this “theorem.” If health care must be provided, then it logically follows that actions can be taken to control a person’s health. Prohibiting a person from smoking would, in some way, statistically improve their health and thus reduce their burden on the health care system, which leaves more care for others.
    What we see here is the “system” is more important than the individual. At no point have we established the value of the person. It may seem that entitling a person to health care does this, but logic shows otherwise.
    The reason for this can be found by following the premise backward. There is a flaw in the logic. An entitlement to health care logically requires that someone else take action to give it to you. This is a logically inescapable conclusion. Can you explain to me how you can be entitled to health care without someone else taking a positive action in order for you to have it? These things do not fall from the sky.
    This “bad brick” leads to things like bans on smoking or bans on junk food. These things would seem ridiculous by themselves, but they are the logical consequences of bad premises. How far can you go with this? It can easily be argued that it could be economically feasible for officers to come into your house and look through your cupboards. This has already been proposed in UK. It may seem impossible, but why should it be? It logically follows that such a thing could legally happen. What principle would be violated?
    When every issue in society is viewed as a case by case basis, there is no consistency. Without logical consistency anything can happen. A logical chain, starting from a bad premise, is supported by “studies” and justified by “the common good.” It requires a faith in “the system.” You cannot follow a path down to a base principle. What mathematical theorem is not supported by a series of logical steps, founded on base principles? What physics theory would survive if it could not be traced back to fundamental ideas? The only thing you have is the system because anything simpler than that falls apart immediately. The system is irreducibly complex.
    This point is very important and bears repeating. A system (of laws in a society) that is not based on principles and build up logically is a system where anything can be justified. You can pick any issue or problem, decide that action X seems like a good idea, and do whatever you need to carry that out. That isolated island in the web is justified by any reason whatsoever. All you need is some “positive outcome” and you have justified the action. “The government has the right to do X because there will be some positive outcome Y.” This island rests on one flimsy justification, yet will go on to support a gigantic system. Much like a religious practice that is based upon some quote, taken out of context, in an old book.
    But what are the base principles of a conservative libertarian? They are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
    There is a lot here, but there is a lot more to explore once we understand this. These ideas are not arbitrarily pulled from thin air. They are the summary of an entire philosophy. Let’s example each part of this.
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” This means these are starting assumptions. They are axioms. They do not need to be proven, but this is not to mean that they can be arbitrarily replaced with anything. Speaking from a purely logical stand point, they could be. You could just as easily state, axiomatically, that white people are superior to anyone else, and then go from there. What we mean is that these principles are base, but are motivated by human history, logical consistency, and our ideas about what should be important with respect to humanity. Indeed, volumes have been written on the topic. For this introduction to the topic, we will take these ideas as well-motivated starting points.
    “that all men are created equal,” Of course “men” can be replaced by “people” and nothing more need be said on the meaning of the word, taking into consideration the meaning of the word at the time and now. This is a profound starting assumption, but there is an important point that needs to be addressed. Critics would argue that the history of the United States is full of inequalities. We will not dispute history. But there is a distinction between the ideal and the reality. No system is perfect. No country is without sin. But it is profound that this principle be written as a founding idea for a society. All of the progress toward equality (whatever that means) in Western society might be good, but it is a founding principle in the Declaration of Independence. This means that it is not an isolated island in the web of society. In fact, this idea will be explored later, in an advanced topic dealing with the justification of actions that a society can take vis a vis national defense and the like.
    “that they are endowed by their Creator” A favorite point of debate. Does a reference to a (some believe) nonexistent creator invalidate the belief system? Not at all. This is not a religious document. In the context of the time, belief in a Creator was a natural point of view. The more modern take on this idea is the belief in “Natural Rights,” meaning our rights are inherent to us as human beings. They are axiomatic, as stated. A reference to a Creator is a justification for them, but you can replace “creator” with “nature” and you get the same thing. Actually, in an advanced topic in the study of Progressivism, the rejection of God is part of the basis for the justification of the horrible actions taken by Progressives. In a nut shell the reason goes: “No God, not right, no wrong, no problem!”
    “certain unalienable Rights,” These rights cannot be taken away. They exist above and beyond any government. These rights existed before government was created by Man and they will exist long after every capitol building has crumbled to dust. No justification by Man, not institution created by Man, can take these rights away. This is where we begin to see where Conservatives place their values. Not in the institutions created by humans, but in the principles that exist inherent in humanity. But remember these ideas must be logically consistent. This means these “certain” rights cannot be arbitrary. Logic demands certain constraints in them. For example, you cannot just make a wish list of goodies that you want, like health care. These rights must be basic and logical. The point here, though, is that these rights are rock solid and cannot be taken away. But again, volumes have been written on when and how a government can abridge a right. This is an advanced topic.
    “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Interestingly, this originally read “life, liberty, and property” because property rights are the foundation of freedom. But this was changed because, at the time, slaves were considered property, and it was feared that slavery might not be ended if “property” was written as an unalienable right. In other words, these words were chosen so as not to cement slavery as a principle. In any case, these are but three examples of rights. You might ask what is meant by “life,” “liberty,” and the “pursuit of happiness”? Here we begin to debate what the fundamental rights should be. Life. It should seem obvious that you are entitled to your own life. But it is not simply the biological action of life that is important. It is not enough that a person be allowed to merely be alive. He must have liberty. But what is liberty? A catch-all term for those things that are logically consistent? Viewing this mathematically, what are all of the logically consistent axioms that we can have? One thing we can do is test each new idea to see if it fits in the system. In other words, go down the “wish list” and see which ones fit logically. We can see later, through examples, which ideas should be included. But for now, the basic idea is that you can do anything you want as long as you don’t hurt other people or take their property. You are not entitled to the fruits of others’ labor.
    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” This is the only justifiable reason for the existence of government. It exists to secure your rights. It does not exist to take my property and give it to you. It does not exist to provide you with the things you want. Before the government can pay someone a dollar it must first take that dollar from someone else. Government is a creation of people, and such a creation cannot supersede the basic rights that existed before it. A theorem cannot invalidate an axiom. How can you go to your neighbor, knock on his door, and say, “hello, I and a few other people made something called government. We are here to take your property.” The existence of government, to any level, must necessarily abridge your rights. The bigger the government, the more abridgment. Perhaps some small amount of government is a necessary evil, so the goal should be the minimization of government.
    “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Here we see where government gets its authority. Note that government can only have “just” powers, meaning it shall not have arbitrary powers. Further, these powers come from the consent of the governed. But, logically, the more people you have, the more disagreement you have. Therefore, logically, in order to minimize the abridgment of your rights the government must be kept to a minimum. Furthermore, you cannot surrender your consent to an elected official. You cannot say, “well, it’s ok for government to take your property because you voted for your representative, and thus you vicariously agree with his actions.” This would be tantamount to voting for your slave master. Your rights still rest with you, and they cannot be watered down and passed along the food chain. It would be like declaring ketchup to be a vegetable since tomatoes were killed in the making of the product. In fact, the government did this very thing. Foolish, because we all know that tomatoes are a fruit.
    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” The people have the right, and perhaps the duty, to abolish a bad government. This goes beyond merely voting for new slave masters. Given the fact that rights exist independent of government, it follows that government is only a human creation, and thus has no inherent authority. History is littered with examples of tyrannical governments. Building a government from scratch is the last ditch, turn the power off and reboot, method of stopping tyranny. History is also littered with revolutions and the creation of new governments. I am not an expert in history, but, as far as I know, the US declaration of independence is a very modern, forward thinking, philosophy of humanity. There have been ideas before, like the Magna Carta, that talked about the idea of government not being all-powerful. Various, mostly Western, societies, like English common law, toy around with the ideas of citizens having inherent rights. But all of these still carry the baggage of the preexisting governments. The US Revolution was novel (as far as I know) in that the foundation of this government was starting from scratch, in a legal sense, yet still based on a history of a certain philosophy. In other words, they took the idea of the individual human being sovereign and decided to base a society on that. What would happen if you, as a free human being, had the right to do whatever you wanted with your life, as long as you didn’t infringe upon other people?
    “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;” They did not take this revolution lightly. They tried working in the system, and that failed. I don’t want this to be a history lesson, so I’ll move on.
    “and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” People will get used to tyranny. It is easier to put up with the tyranny than to risk everything for freedom. Especially when people are kept content. In the Roman Empire it was bread and circuses. In the modern world, it is “free” health care and “free” education. Consider China, which we can agree is not the most free country. But there are a lot of people in China making money and living a nice life style. Would a typical Chinese person risk a good job, a house, and a first world life style for some esoteric ideas of free speech? Is it really worth it for the right to criticize government? It is a lot easier to just go along to get along, and argue about whether taxes should be 10% or 15%.
    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” Here is the justification for a revolution. People have the right to decide they don’t want to be ruled by a distant empire. Why should someone, living in a palace, on the other side of the planet, dictate to you how you live your life? What is the logic in saying that you, as a human being, are subject to the whims of some other human being, no matter how benevolent that person claims to be?
    Remember that all of this is founded on much philosophy that came before it. But I believe you don’t have to be an expert on Enlightenment philosophy to understand the principles of freedom. You should also not confuse freedom with perfection. For example, a society with a lower crime rate is not necessarily better than one with a higher crime rate. You could make any number of parameters and rate a society on these, and then declare a “best.” But this is all irrelevant if you don’t reference base principles.
    A comparison to religion comes to mind. Perhaps this would appeal to someone’s anti theistic proclivities. I have had the experience of arguing with theists about the existence of god. I assumed that I could appeal to logic and lay out the basic nature of thought, the universe, and how one could understand the universe. I thought that someone could accept the premises and follow the logic. What I found, instead, was people would stare blankly, think for a moment, and then declare that none of that mattered and they still believed in god. It was as simple as that. It did not matter what I said because they already made up their minds.
    I find this same response when trying to explain the concepts of freedom, natural law, and individual sovereignty. A part of the problem is the lack of common understanding of the words. I assumed that people would know what I mean by freedom. Further, I assumed that people would agree that freedom, as I knew it, was a good thing. It turns out that both of these assumptions are not true. What is most disturbing is when I find people who actually oppose freedom.
    Usually I would try to explain the concepts of freedom, the base principles from which these ideas arise, and then the person would say something like, “Well that doesn’t matter because it is still right that we provide free (health care, education, welfare, whatever) for people.” People are not interested in believing in basic principles of right and wrong and then following the logic from there. People much prefer to take things case by case, regardless of the consequences.
    It would be like teaching a math class, proving the Pythagorean theorem, and having someone say, “well I just feel like this right triangle’s sides should be 3, 4, and 6.” How do you argue with someone like that? We are no longer in the realm of teaching and explaining. We are not in the realm of, “oh my god, this person is allowed to handle sharp objects!”
    Theoretically, a limited government, free society would allow for people to believe whatever they want. You can believe in stupid, destructive things, but it doesn’t affect me. But a government with more power needs to try to appeal to people by pandering to their misguided beliefs. In a limited government, people can want your property, but the most they could do is try to steal it from you, and you have the police or your own defense to protect your property. But in a big government, politicians will try to appeal to these people by promising to steal your property on their behalf. So now you are in a position where you have given these people the ability to affect your life.
    Would it be right to take everyone in a neighborhood, pool their incomes, and then elect a 3 person committee to decide how that money will be spent? Seriously consider this idea. In most neighborhoods, the income is probably within a narrow range. Let’s say you make $100 k per year, while other people make between $90 k and $110 k. This committee will decide what car you can buy, how much you can spend on a TV, groceries, or anything. Would you say this is outrageous? What if the money is merely split evenly among everyone? I bet the person making $90 k would approve of this. If you think this scenario is outrageous, what if only 50% of your money is pooled? What about 5%? What is the difference between a small committee in your neighborhood versus a city council, or a state government, or a federal government? Why is it so outrageous on one scale, but perfectly reasonable on the other?
    It is easy to get lost in the weeds here. You could say the difference is blah blah blah. It doesn’t matter. Remember from the discussion on logic that it is always possible to find some kind of justification for a government action. But how does this situation look when referenced to base principles? Perhaps an allegory would best illustrate this lesson.
    Continued in chapter 2.
  16. Brony Number 42
    I saw an ad for a restaurant that said it had half price appetizers from 2 pm to 4 pm. This is because that is a time between lunch and dinner, so there isn't much business. The restaurant is trying to get people in. I get that. But what if it was advertised as "appetizers are double priced 9 am to 2 pm and 2 pm to closing." In other words, the price structure is the same but it is advertised differently. If an item is $10 normally, and $5 from 2 pm to 5 pm, then why call $10 normal and $5 half? Why not call $5 normal and $10 double?
    How about when something is sold as buy 1 get 1 free? Can I just have the free one? Can I return one, get my money back, and keep the free one?
  17. Brony Number 42
    This blog is not intended to give legal advice. If you want to learn more, check your state’s gun laws.
     
    I have been openly carrying my pistol around town for a few months. It is legal to carry openly without a permit in this state. Years ago, I carried my gun in a different state, where it was also legal, and the city police charge me with disorderly conduct, but the city dropped the charges because they had no case But where I live now most people own guns and don’t freak out when people calmly exercise their natural right to self-defense.
     
    In one restaurant, the waitress asked if my gun was real. I told her it was. When I was waiting in line to get the Nintendo Switch someone asked me the same thing. I told him there was no point in carrying a toy gun. But I’ve been to many stores, including big-box stores, with no problems.
     
    It turns out that people aren’t so stupid, at least where I live, as to freak out by the sight of someone with a gun. Logic dictates that a criminal would hide his gun, even if it was legal to carry it openly. Someone intent on committing a crime would not want to draw attention to himself. But someone buying groceries, carrying a pistol on his hip, is not likely to use that pistol to rob that store.
     
    I started doing construction work for a major retailer. I’m working at their distribution warehouse. There is a sign that says that no guns or knives are allowed in the building. I wonder if the 1st amendment is also banned there? During the safety orientation, they told us what to do in case of fire or tornado. And then they mentioned what to do if there was an “active shooter.” I so badly wanted to say, “but how can there possibly be an active shooter? You have a sign that forbids guns. Surely, a criminal intent on murder would comply with your sign, right?” They basically said that we would be allowed to defend ourselves if we had to. But he was quick to add that guns were banned. So, in other words, we can defend ourselves in theory, but not really.
     
    As far as I can tell, businesses want to ban guns so that they don’t have liability if someone is hurt or killed. If someone hurts himself or someone else, accidentally or on purpose, with a gun, then the victim could try to sue. But if the business puts up a sign then they can declare that they are not responsible for any crimes that might occur there. That basically means customers are out of luck.
     
    I don’t understand the logic in banning guns in banks, for example. There is a bank here that says “For your safety, hoodies and sunglasses are not allowed.” First, don’t tell me what to do and justify it on this nonsense, catch-all term of “safety.” You can justify anything in the name of “safely.” Second, I can just imagine a bank robber, wearing a hat and mask, running to the bank. Then he sees the “no hoodie” sign and says, “Damn! I guess I’m not robbing this bank.” If the bank doesn’t want me to carry my gun in there, fine, let’s set that issue aside for now. But wouldn’t it be logical to let the bank employees carry guns under the counter? As a customer, I want the employees, who are handling my money, to be armed. I want the guards to have AR15s. Which sign is more likely to discourage robbery: “No hats, hoodies, or sunglasses allowed. All employees and customers in this bank are disarmed.” Or, “Employees and guards, as well as customers, in this bank are armed. AR15s provided by Bob’s Gun Shop.”
  18. Brony Number 42
    Assume it is Friday, the 1 st of the month. What does it mean when someone says, “this weekend?” Are they talking about tomorrow, the 2 nd? What if it is Monday, the 28 th and someone asked, “What did you do this weekend?” Do they mean yesterday, the 27 th? Surely not, because in one case “this” means the upcoming weekend, while in the other case it would mean the past weekend. In fact, it makes no sense to say “this X” unless you are in X.
     
    Consider the logic. If you say, “this year” you mean the year you are in. Right now it is 2016, so if I say “this year” I mean 2016. If it is December 31 at 11:59 pm, “this year” means 2016. At 12:00, 1 January, “this year” means 2017, because that will be the year we are in. If I say “this month” I mean the month we are in. If I say “this week,” I mean the week we are in. If we shrink the time window from year to month to day, saying “this” means the one we are in. Further, saying “next” means the immediate one coming up. If it is Friday, and I say, “next Saturday,” then logic demands that I am referring to tomorrow. If it is Friday and I say, “this Saturday,” then this produces a logical error.
     
    Making a comparison to computer programming, we can “cascade the operator,” or whatever the correct terminology is. Maybe we can define the rules as such: “this X” refers to the X we are in, unless we aren’t in a X. If this is the case, then we refer to the one next. In this case, if it is Friday and I say “this Saturday,” then I mean tomorrow. But saying “next Saturday” would also refer to tomorrow. Would you want “this” to refer to tomorrow and “next” to refer to 8 days from now? This could, technically, be made a consistent rule, but it would be so awkward and confusing. Let us stick to simple, logical rules. “This” means the one we are in, and “next” means the immediate upcoming, regardless of how soon or far away it is.
     
    Today.next produces tomorrow. This.day produces whatever day it is, for example Saturday. This.day.next(Saturday) also produces tomorrow.
  19. Brony Number 42
    Power gaming is defined as optimizing the rules of a role playing game in order to create the most powerful character possible. The implication is that this is done with no regard to the story of the game. In other words, the player cares about being powerful and does not care if it makes sense in terms of the plot of the game. Power gamers are often derided and ridiculed. Why? It irks me that people criticize players who do nothing more than read the rules and strategize.
     
    Power gaming, also called “min-maxing,” is particularly a problem with D&D 3rd edition it's derivatives (such as Pathfinder). The reason for this is the feat system in these games. The older editions of D&D, under TSR, did not have a feat system and so power gaming was not much of a problem. The feat system breaks the game because, for the most part, feats offer the character exceptions to the rules.
     
    The rules of the game are designed to be balanced. This means that if a character class has an ability, it also has some kind of limitation so that the class does not become too powerful. Offering rule-breaking abilities is an easy way to give a character more power. But it is like a drug: the first few times offer some benefits, but too many of them add up to a catastrophe. The problem is that the writers of the feats, especially supplementary books, don't cross reference every feat to see what the effects could be. There are too many possible combinations to test. Being able to ignore one or two rules is not a problem. But players have figured out which combinations make a character super powerful. The feat system is inherently flawed.
     
    But this is not the fault of the player. Why wouldn't you choose a combination of abilities that would benefit you the most? At what point do you say that it is too much? What if I accidentally stumble upon a powerful combination of feats? If I were playing a game and the DM told me that I couldn't pick a feat because it would make my character too powerful then I would quit the game. If the DM put restrictions on my character from the beginning then I wouldn't start the game.
     
    It is a game, and a game has rules. If a player is staying within the rules then he is not cheating, by definition. You also have to remember that a game has to take some liberties. In a novel, a Mary Sue character would be boring. But in a game, you are going to do everything you can to survive.
     
    I also find it annoying when players take on a limitation just for the sake of story or tone. For example, a player might only fight with his family's sword, even if he found a better weapon. Yeah yeah yeah, your character is so interesting because he has that trait, but screw that! I'm going to pick up that Sword+4. What do you gain by intentionally limiting yourself? A dead character, that's what. “My character hates water, so he won't get on a boat.” Why? It makes no sense.
     
    Don't blame the player for following the rules. If the game is broken then that is the game's fault.
  20. Brony Number 42
    I'm looking for new friends, people who share my hobbies, interests, values, and beliefs. I have basically turned away from my old friends, mostly because I have nothing in common with them. A couple of them are married. As some of you know when your friends get married it means they are no longer your friends. It means every free moment of their lives is dedicated to their family. No more hanging out, no more playing games, no more having fun.
     
    Besides that, none of my friends are interested in the things that I like. Also, I don't like my friends' politics, and I don't really want to spend time with them any more. I know that politics is a dumb reason to not be friends with someone, but that's just the way I feel. It's my problem, so it is what is is.
     
    I'd like to talk to some people who like what I like: video games, cartoons, Star Trek, D&D, MLP. I also like math and guns, but I am more interested in talking about the former things. There is another problem. I am not part of the “nerd” culture. You would have to read my blog about the “nerd” culture http://mlpforums.com/blog/1004/entry-11305-is-there-really-a-nerd-culture/
  21. Brony Number 42
    probability.pdf
     
    The attached pdf is the same as the post below, but with the histogram pictures.
     
    I like to do mathematical models and analyses of gaming, and I was thinking of this one lately.
     
    Dungeons and Dragons Next has what they call an “advantage” and “disadvantage” system. For an advantage, the player rolls 2d20 and keeps the favorable roll. For a disadvantage, the player rolls 2d20 and keeps the unfavorable roll.
     
    Advantage System
    If the player needs the number n to succeed, then he must roll at least one n on the roll of 2d20. The cumulative probability function is
     
    P(n) = (-n2 + 2n + 399)/400
     
    Disadvantage System
    If the player needs the number n to succeed, then he must roll n or better on each of the 2d20. The cumulative probability function is
     
    P(n) = (n2 – 42n + 441)/400
     
     
    Single Die Rolls Versus Multiple Dice Rolls
    The probability distribution function for a single die is a constant. For a die with N sides, the probability of rolling any number is 1/N. Over many die rolls, the average number rolled will be (N+1)/2. For example, the average of d12 is 6.5
     
    Rolling 2 dice produces a bell shaped probability distribution function. The probability of rolling a particular number depends on what dice are being rolled.
     
    Let us compare a 1d12 to a 2d6. The average damage done per roll, averaged over many rolls, for a 1d12 is 6.5. The average damage done by 2d6 is 7. The range of damage for the 1d12 is 1 to 12. The range for the 2d6 is 2 to 12. By this comparison, the 2d6 looks slightly better because you are guaranteed to do at least 2 damage. But the maximum damage you can expect is 12 from both situations. The average of 7 from the 2d6 is slightly better. Overall, the 2d6 so far appears to be better, but only slightly. However, considering the range and average is not enough to give a complete picture of how to compare these rolls.
     
    Consider the situation where the character is doing many hits on one creature that has many hit points. In this case, the damage done is approximately the average times the number of hits (assumed to be large). In this situation, an average damage of 6.5 from a 1d12 is close to the 7 done by 2d6. If the character does 100 hits, then the expectation value for 1d12 is 65, while that for the 2d6 is 70. These two values are not very different. So by this metric, the two dice rolls also seem to be close, with the 2d6 being slightly better.
     
    Now consider a situation where the character is attacking many small creatures, each of which has only 4 hit points. Let's say there are 100 such creatures. This means the character can kill a creature in 1 hit if he rolls a 4 or better. It would be nice if the character could plow through the creatures, killing a lot of them in 1 hit. Which roll, 1d12 or 2d6, would be better?
     
    First consider the 1d12. The probability of rolling 4 or better is 9/12 = 0.75. So the character can expect to kill 75% of the creatures with one hit.
     
    For the 2d6, the probability of rolling 4 or better is 33/36 = 0.9167. So the character can expect to kill 92% of the creatures with one hit.
     
    What about a 2d6-1? The average is 6, which is slightly worse than the 1d12. The range is 1 to 11, again worse than the 1d12. But the probability of rolling a 4 or better on 2d6-1 is 30/36 = 0.8333 or 83%. This is still better than the 1d12 in the situation where the character is up against 100 creatures, each with 4 hit points.
     
    Looking at the distribution curves explains the behavior. The multi dice rolls, 2d6 or 2d6-1, are bell shaped distributions. The bulk of the probability is centered around the average, which means you are more likely to roll the average than other numbers.
     
    If a weapon does 1d12 damage, it is just as likely to roll a 12 as it is to roll a 1. With bell shaped distributions, you get one result more often than others. A 2d6 will most likely give a 7 than anything else. On rare occasions you will get a 12 or a 1.
     
    Generally speaking, adding more dice will increase the probability that you will roll the average. Rolling 100d6 has a high probability that you will get the average of 35 = 3.5 * 100. More dice narrows the bell curve.
     
    I think the best way to design weapons is it use all different combinations of dice. Some weapons might do 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, 2d4, 2d4+1, etc. Maybe you want a weapon to do a 1d12, because you have a higher chance of getting a 12 than you would from a 2d6. But the drawback is that you are likely to roll a 1. The point is, you can design many different distribution functions by having various combinations of dice.
  22. Brony Number 42
    Continuing in my line of grammar rants, I talk about the phrase "digital download" or "digital content." The problem is when the term "digital" is used to mean "...as opposed to content on physical disk." For example, a movie package might say "DVD, Bluray, and digital download."
     
    The truth is DVD and Bluray are digital as well. Wikipedia defines digital as information being stored in discrete segments. People say "digital" when perhaps they should say "medialess." I have seen DVDs that say "digital copy on disc." Well I sure hope so, that's what I'm buying! DVD means "digital versatile disc." The information is digital regardless of how it is stored.
     
    In fact, digital does not imply electronic. A punch card machine is digital. Also, you can have analog electronic machines. You could say that the telegraph was a digital communications device, since it used dots and dashes.
     
    So if someone says "I don't buy CDs any more, I buy only digital," you can remind them that CDs are digital. What is a more correct term? Medialess? You could call a download a form of media. Electronic copy? A file on a USB stick is no more or less electronic than a CD. Maybe we should just refer to file type or encoding scheme. An mp3 can be on any media. You could store an mp3 on ticker tape.
  23. Brony Number 42
    I hate when people use words incorrectly. The term "head canon" does not make any sense. "Canon" does not mean "back story." The word "canon" is used in the religious context to basically mean official. Using the term for fiction, such as a television show, means that something is officially recognized by the owner of the intellectual property. The only people who have the authority to make something canon are people who own the product, or who have been officially licensed to produce material for the product.
     
    Anything created by fans that has not been officially sanctioned by the owners of the intellectual property is merely "fan fiction." Therefore, anything you come up with on your own cannot be canon. However, people use the term "head canon" when they should say "head back story." That term doesn't have the same ring to it, so perhaps a different term is more appropriate. Maybe something like "fan back story." In any case, canon does not mean back story. Stop using the word incorrectly.
  24. Brony Number 42
    Gun control advocates believe that restricting the types of guns available will have an effect on crimes committed with guns. This idea is untrue. The type of gun used has very little effect on the outcome of the crime. To understand this, we first have to understand the different types of crime that might involve a gun, and we have to understand the different types of guns that exist. Foot notes are provided for some interesting data, but for now we shall look at the argument from a theoretical point of view.
     
    The types of crimes we consider are: robberies, aggravated assaults, breaking-and-entering, pre meditated murder, and mass murder. Other gun related incidents are suicide and accidents. For the sake of completeness, we will first consider these topics before addressing the crimes.
     
    Suicide is a tragic issue, obviously. Gun control advocates claim that guns make suicide too easy and too lethal. The claim is that a person is more likely to survive suicide attempts if they use other methods. This may be true, but what does it have to do with gun owners? How can you take away an item from many people just because a few might use it to hurt themselves? Is any consideration given to the basic right of gun ownership? Not by gun banners. If we are to be concerned with suicide, then cars, medicines, rope, knives, bathtubs, and other common items should also be banned or highly restricted. The same can be said with regard to gun accidents. Nobody wants an accident to happen, but no law can make a dumb person behave in a smart way. Most gun owners understand the dangers inherent in handling guns. If someone is irresponsible enough to leave a loaded gun in a place where a child can get it, then no law will change that person’s behavior.
     
    Underlying the gun haters’ claims is the idea that a gun can do no good, and can only do harm. It is like having an open spike pit in your front lawn. From this point of view, then of course it makes sense to take it away. But the truth is a gun is like any other object: its danger lies with the person who uses it. We will leave this part of the discussion for now.
     
    It is important to understand the types of guns that exist. Guns come in many different types and modes of operation. Books have been written on single models of guns. For purposes of this discussion, it is important to know only some broad categories. Two broad categories are handgun and long gun. These are actually legal definitions with specific qualifications. Rather than sticking with the legal definition, we will instead define a handgun as something small and easily concealable. A long gun would be a rifle or shotgun, something with a long barrel and stock. According to legal definition, there are large handguns and small long guns, but regardless, we will simply distinguish between small and large sized guns.
     
    Guns have different types of actions, or modes of operation. Most gun haters don’t even know enough about guns to distinguish amongst the many types. For this discussion, we will make broad categories, rather than dwell on the details of how each type of gun works.
     
    The first type is fully automatic. This gun fires at a high rate, typically 10 rounds per second. Again, a machine gun has a legal definition. Essentially, it is a gun that fires more than one shot with one pull of the trigger. Legally, a gun that fires two shots per trigger pull is a machine gun. But most commonly, a machine gun is thought of as a gun that will fire continually as long as the trigger is held. There exist machine pistols, which are fully automatic pistols. There are shoulder held fully automatic rifles. There are also tripod or truck mounted machine guns. However, due to federal laws (National Firearms Act of 1934, et al) machine guns are very expensive and difficult to buy. They are heavily regulated federally and illegal in some states.
     
    The next type of gun to consider is semi automatic. These guns fire one shot with one trigger pull. The cartridge, or bullet, is loaded automatically. Therefore, this gun will fire as fast as you can pull, release, and pull the trigger. Typically a person could shoot 3 times per second. Both hand guns and long guns can be semi automatic.
     
    Another type of gun to be considered is the slower firing bolt action or revolver. A person could fire at a rate of 1 shot per second. A revolver can hold up to 7 shots, and a bolt action typically holds 5 but in some cases could use a detachable magazine that could hold 30 or more. Finally, the slowest type of gun is a single shot. For this gun, the cartridge must be manually loaded each time. A person could do this in about 5 seconds. The difference in the rate of fire between these guns seems great. But we will see that it makes little difference in a crime situation.
     
    Turning to the types of crime, we consider the first: robbery. This can be mugging a person on the street or robbing a store. It makes no difference to the robber what gun he has. A single shot .22 lr is just as deadly as a fully automatic M16. What robbery victim would scoff at a revolver or hunting rifle? Would banning “assault rifles” make any difference? No. When a robber points a gun in the face of a store clerk, that clerk is not going see that it is merely a revolver, and then laugh and tell the robber to leave.
     
    The same can be said for aggravated assaults, rapes, and breaking-and-entering. These are all crimes where one or a small group of criminals attack one or a few victims. In fact, many rapists don’t even use a gun at all. A large man with a knife can easily have his way with a small, unarmed woman.
     
    Consider now a mass killing. Gun banners like to think that banning semi automatic guns and so called “high capacity” magazines will make a difference. But let’s consider the truth. Most semi automatics have removable magazines that can be switched in about two seconds. The difference between one 30 round magazine and three 10 round magazines is about the two seconds it takes to drop out one magazine and load another. Now, someone could say that a few seconds can make a difference. Perhaps it can, but how significant?
     
    In a combat situation, every little advantage can mean the difference between life and death. If you are a soldier on a battlefield then people are shooting back at you. One second is very significant. The type of gun you use is very important. You might need a fully automatic, or a certain type of pistol, or a certain type of long range sniper rifle, or certain type of bullet. There is a reason why we give our troops the most advanced weapons.
     
    However, in a civilian, crime situation, the criminal has every advantage. When nobody is shooting back at him, he has the luxury of taking his time. Since victims do not wear body armor, it does not matter what type of bullet the criminal uses. A .22 lr is just as deadly as a 7.62 x 51 mm armor piercing. Some would debate the lethality of various calibres, but as was said before, nobody is going to scoff at a mere .22 lr, something that is typically used to hunt rabbits. It may be true that your chances of survival are higher if you were shot with this round, but nobody would hear gunshots and say “oh, that’s just a .22, don’t worry about it.”
     
    The rate of fire of the gun also has little effect. A fully automatic M16 with a 100 round magazine would not kill 100 people. Perhaps if the shooter were to stand in a dense crowd and rotate slowly, he might be able to get a high percentage of hits. But realistically, victims run away from the shooter. Therefore, a high rate of fire doesn't make much difference for the killer. Fully automatic weapons are normally used to lay suppression fire at a target. Spraying 10 shots into the back of a running victim perhaps has a higher likelihood of hitting, but not significantly more than taking a second to aim. A killer with the M16 and 100 rounds might take 10 bullets to hit one victim because it is difficult to fire fewer than 10 shots in one second. On the other hand, a killer with a bolt action deer rifle can kill a person with 1 shot. Thus he can kill 5 people with his 5 round rifle.
     
    The other factor is time. Sure, a killer with 100 rounds in an automatic does not have to reload for a while. But he could reload a 5 round rifle in 5 seconds, and he does not have to worry about being attacked. Some would claim that a victim could rush the shooter. But how likely is that to work? The shooter does not have to fire his last shot before he reloads. He could easily fire 4 shots from his hunting rifle and then reload. If someone were to try to rush him, he merely has to raise the gun, cycle the bolt, and fire. This can be done in a second. Are we to expect victims to be hiding, counting shots, waiting for an opportunity to rush an armed madman? No, most people run away from a gunman.
     
    Let us imagine that all semi automatic guns were unavailable. Do we really believe that there will be no more mass killings? A gunman with a bolt action hunting rifle could walk slowly through a crowded place and shoot 20 or more people at his leisure. Would anyone declare that gun control has worked in that situation? Would we then say that gun laws work because the killer was not using a semi automatic?
     
    The FBI has a plethora of crime data. We can look at murder data per state for 2011 [1] . California, the most populous state, also has the highest number of murders due to firearms. But California has the strictest gun laws. How can there be so many gun murders if they have such strong gun laws? This data table is interesting because it breaks down murders due to hand guns, long guns, and other weapons. Handguns are, not surprisingly, the preferred murder weapon. But does anyone really believe that a ban on handguns would mean that these murders would go away? We don’t know the specifics on all of these murders, but it should be safe to say that, for the vast majority of these murders, the killer would have chosen a rifle if a hand gun were not available; and if a gun were not available he would have used something else. The table shows that in California there were 261 knife murders, compared to 1,220 firearm murders. How many of the firearm murders would become knife murders, if guns didn't exist? There were 101 murders with no weapon used. We can’t be sure whether or not a murder would have happened if the given weapon were not available, but it is clear that at least some people decide to kill regardless of the weapon available to them.
     
    Look at Vermont, which has very lax gun laws [2]. There were very few gun crimes (again one must consider total population). But in Vermont you can carry a gun openly or concealed without a license. But if more gun laws mean less crime, and easier access to guns mean more crime, then wouldn't Vermont, and other states with lax gun laws, be awash with blood and dead bodies? Cross referencing murders with gun laws shows that places with the toughest gun laws have the highest crime, especially when looking at cities versus rural areas, not just state by state.
     
    Chicago and Washington DC had (court rulings have changed this in recent years) total bans on hand guns, yet these are very dangerous cities. Wouldn't cities like Chicago and DC have the lowest crime rate? If you want to argue that criminals get the guns from other states, then doesn't that prove that the gun laws are still ineffective? And why do rural areas have lower gun crimes than cities? A lot of people in rural communities own guns, yet it is the city, where guns are restricted, that show more crime.
     
    A quick search on Switzerland and their gun laws [3] shows that their citizens are required to keep guns in their homes, yet they have very low gun crime. The facts bear out [4] [5] that countries with restrictive gun laws have higher, or at best, no different rates of gun crime. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to show detailed analysis on the topic. But hopefully I have shown some interesting data. Keep in mind, too, that policy is not just about statistics but also about the nature of our relationship with government.
     
    In a study done by Cato [6] reports 5,000 incidents in an 8 year period where a gun was used in self defense or to stop a crime. Some would argue that they have no problem with self defense, but that we don’t need certain types of guns for that purpose. The problem with this logic is that gun banners, both inside and outside government, are not interested in self defense. The goal of gun haters is to ban all guns for everyone, and they do it by small steps. It is easier to first ban large magazines, then semi automatic hand guns, then revolvers, then semi automatic rifles, then all rifles.
     
    We can compare the issue of gun death to automobile accidents. Data can be obtained from the US Census Bureau [7]. The data is available up to 2009. The numbers seem fairly constant, and we might assume that the numbers are comparable today. Document 1111 shows that there were more than 33,000 traffic deaths in 2009. More than 10,000 deaths were due to someone with a blood alcohol level of over 0.08. One could then say that if we ban alcohol we would save 10,000 lives every year, due to car accidents alone! Maybe a ban on alcohol is something America should think about. I can’t imagine anything going wrong with such a policy.
     
    Driving is one of the most dangerous things you can do. Of course, a ban on cars is impractical. However, what we need is reasonable car control and car safety laws. For starters, there is no need for military style assault vehicles, such as Hummers. These are trucks used by the military and belong on the battle field, not on our streets. These dangerous vehicles can be modified to be armored. Remember that the Bill of Rights was written in a time when horse drawn carts were the fastest mode of transportation. The Founders never envisioned V8 engines with fully automatic transmissions in cars that could go 180 miles per hour.
     
    Clearly there is no need for dangerous sports cars. Why does anyone need a car that goes faster than 80 mph? There are virtually no restrictions on who can buy one of these cars. A teenager could buy a used car without a background check. True, you need a license to drive a car, but not to buy a car. Someone with a criminal driving record and a suspended license can still buy a car. There is nothing to prevent him from getting on the road. Furthermore, when you get a license, you drive slowly in a modest car. There is no required training on operating large SUVs or dangerous sports cars. Again, why does anyone need a car that goes that fast? Even in an emergency you wouldn't need to go more than about 80 mph. People buy fast sports cars because they want to go fast. Nobody buys a new sports car and intends to keep it below 70 mph.
     
    Further, a restriction on when and who can drive is needed. Perhaps a limit should be placed on the number of miles you are allowed to drive each week. You could be allowed to drive to work, the store, and maybe some discretionary miles for whatever incidental things you might need to do. But there is no reason to allow anyone to drive their car at any time for any reason. It creates unnecessary traffic which makes the roads dangerous. It also contributes to pollution.
     
    To a progressive, these ideas about car control would actually seem reasonable. The issue is not safety. The issue is freedom versus control. Let us also compare the second amendment to the first. Recently we have learned that the federal government has been collecting phone and internet data an every American. Why would anyone have a problem with this? When the Bill Of Rights was written, the only forms of communication were posting flyers on posts, yelling on a street corner, or making a few dozen pages per hour on a manually operated press. The Founders never envisioned radios, telephones, Internet, and smart phones. Radio was first used by the military. There is no reason for civilians to have military style assault radios. The Internet was also developed by the military. Why would we allow untrained civilians access to a military weapon? Clearly the Bill Of Rights does not protect modern, high capacity, military style forms of communication.
     
    Speaking of military applications, video games are used by the military to train soldiers to shoot and to operate equipment. The military even endorses some video games. Further, studies [4] show that violent video games affect children’s perspective on reality.
     
    Getting back to guns, if they are so dangerous then why do we let police have them? The greatest threat to humanity has always been and always will be government. One man can kill perhaps 50 people, but it takes a government to kill millions. If free citizens cannot be trusted with guns, then why do we trust government with them? Ultimately it is some person, a police officer or soldier, who is holding the gun. Are we to believe that police are infallible and can be trusted 100% of the time? Do police never become corrupt? Some make the argument that police have special training. But what is the nature of this training? A police officer’s job is to put himself in harm’s way. He chases after dangerous criminals and runs toward the scene of the crime, not away. But does this physical training mean that the officer can be trusted? It is not hard to find stories of police corruption at every level, including up to the Department of Defense, search Fast and Furious. Considering police-states throughout history, it was the police, the armed thugs of the government, that enjoyed the greatest privilege.
     
    The very idea of the founding of the United States was that people in government are no better than average citizens. The rights of the citizenry are supreme, while the powers of government are limited and specifically defined. A police officer was merely a person whom we hire to do things that we ourselves don’t have time or ability to do. The government, and therefore the police, does not have the authority to do that which an average citizen does not have the authority to do.
     
    Most people would probably say that our cities would be safer if there were an armed police officer on every corner. But why not an armed citizen on every corner, in every store, at every school? Why can I not be trusted with a gun as a civilian, but I can put on a badge and uniform and then I can be trusted? You live, work, and interact with hundreds of people in your community. You walk past people on the street and don’t expect them to attack you. What difference does it make if those people have guns? Does the gun turn a calm person into a madman? We trust our children with teachers. The teachers have access to sharp scissors. Why would we no longer be able to trust that teacher if she had a gun? Why would you not want to station an armed police officer at the school? Some schools already allow teachers to carry their guns.
     
    It is a matter of “might makes right” when it comes to government. If you are 100% confident that government can never, will never become corrupt, then you can safely give up your guns. But a view at history will show that the level of government corruption is directly related to government power.
     
    If the problem is that we want certain people to not have guns, then this can be done constitutionally. The constitution forbids the government from stripping rights away from entire groups of people. It is unconstitutional to make blanket laws that debar people of their rights. This is contrasted with the idea of debarring rights from a person through due process. For example, it may be reasonable to take guns away from a person who has been declared dangerous, but only after that person has his day in court. But it is unreasonable to broadly declare that anyone who has been prescribed a drug, for example, is forbidden from owning a gun.
    It is a matter of philosophy. Are we free human beings, or are we subjects of a government? Where does the government get its authority? If you believe that the government’s power should be limited, then how do you ensure that limitation?
     
    [1] FBI crime data: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
    [2] US gun laws by state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)
    [3] Switzerland’s gun laws: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp
    [4] Control: Exposing The Truth About Guns, Glenn Beck, ISBN-10: 1476739870
    [5] More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, John R. Lott Jr., N-10: 0226493660
    [6] Cato study: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/7589-guns-used-in-self-defense
    [7] Automobile accidents: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html
  25. Brony Number 42
    I don't have any friends where I live now, in Canada. I took a job that pays a lot. Technically I have 5 friends from school, but I see them once in a year at most. Really there are 3 that I have seen in the past year. And even then, there is 1 that I have a lot in common with. We play video games and watch some cartoons. But I don't have any friends who would go to conventions.
     
    When I go to cons I meet people who like cartoons as much as I do. It's nice to know those people exist but I wish I had some friends near me.
×
×
  • Create New...