I don’t want to ____, but….

Ok so this started because I did a ride yesterday that I’d been looking forward to doing for a while, there’s a part of the great wall that you can actually ride your motorbike onto.  I just couldn’t miss out on something like that.  A friend has done it twice before, and it’s detailed on some of the motorbike forums in China.

I posted some photos up on Chinese social media, and I instantly got a whole bunch of people commenting, ‘wow that’s great, how can I go? I really want to do this too…’ etc.
From both Chinese and foreign riders alike.

So I posted the information on one of the motorbike groups for Chinese and foreigners using WeChat (Chinese social media)

For example, you can’t look at this and not be intrigued:

15.pic_hd copy


31.pic_hd copyAbsolutely amazing views, and such a hidden and interesting ride, and on top of it all, nice to get out of Beijing and do something that not many people have done.

Most people were just like ‘wow…yes…I’m doing that’

And then you always get one, one person that feels it’s his/ her duty to stand up for those that didn’t ask standing up for… and just generally to be ‘the voice of reason’ when reason was not called for…or actually constitutes ‘reason’

Which….starts me off on a rant about such douchebags.

So what was actually said:

Some dude:
-I don’t want to be a dick so I’m only going to put it out there. You think riding a bike on an already crumbling world heritage site is a good idea? I’m all for exploring and I’ve ridden out that way many times but for me I’d rather hike it than bike it. [Awkward]

-Just saying.

-Yeah it’s a good idea

-Like many Chinese friends have said to me, you think too much

I dislike these comments so much because there’s too many things to pull apart and analyse and to shout at this person at, that you inevitably end up just stating such a brief point, like ‘is it a good idea….nanh nah nah?’  ‘yeah it is’   translation- shut the hell up you moron.

“I don’t want to be a dick, but…”
“I don’t want to do ____ but…”
Well we know you’re instantly going to do whatever ___ is.
“I’m not racist, but…”    You know whatever comes next is going to be racist right?  Oh what and because the person has clarified up front, it makes it instantly acceptable?
No, it means the person stating this shit is unsure how its going to be taken….

“Just saying”

How about you have some adventure and if you think the Great Wall is worth saving how about you complain to the gov that’s been destroying it through ‘restoring it’ for the last 20 years or so??
Mr fucktard?

” I prefer to hike it than bike it”

What?,  you think because it rhymes it adds strength to your argument?
No, fuck off.

“Do you really think it‘s a good idea?”

Yes, motherfucker I do.

Did I mention Baam !

And its crumbling because
1. It was built with shit materials in some parts… and
2. Because people have been stealing bricks for centuries to make walls for their farms etc. Because guess what?
They were too poor to get normal materials.
And who’s fault is that?
Because they decided to park a motorbike there decades later?
No. Fuck off.
Learn some real history and some modern happenings.
And don‘t let your Chinese wife influence your opinion with her propaganda tainted mind.

All those propaganda tales that the government came out with, like documentaries stating ‘oh yeah you can see the great wall from space’

‘The chief engineer in charge of the wall at the time calculated down to the brick just how many bricks were needed for the completion of the wall’
‘it really showcases the prowess of Chinese construction knowledge’

What? ??

Just think about that for a moment, instead of doing the usually Chinese thing and just believing it straight away. First of all …you’re American, you don’t have the fall-back excuse of a crap education system that doesn’t teach ‘why?’ or critical thinking.
In fact if you don’t apply critical thinking….that’s just dumb.

You can see it from space?    Bitch please… you can’t even see it from the horizon, there’s too much pollution, or ‘fog’ and its way too deteriorated anyway; its not a wide wall, most of the time its as wide as the width of 3 cars parked side by side.

Can you see cars from space?
Then you can’t see the fucking wall, can you?

See…. Critical thinking.

You can….probably….probably see the mountain range… , but that’s not the wall is it?

And ‘the Chief engineer calculated it down to the last brick just how many bricks were needed, and as proof he made one extra and then placed it on top of the wall in a certain area to showcase his achievement’

That kind of claim is just so beyond stupid, it’s so beyond trying to understand it, it’s so ignorant to the history that is the Great Wall…. that to recite something like that makes me feel sad.

Sure, lets go with ‘he calculated it’    Sure, but he could have just calculated it incorrectly. That way you can still claim that you ‘calculated it’

That’s like…

quick mathematics

you can claim something, but other should looks carefully at what you’re claiming.







As beautiful as this is, and it is beautiful, do you really think these ‘bricks’ were part of the whole ‘calculation’??

Oh yeah and the history of the wall…. it wasn’t built in one go, it was built over dynasties, in irregular locations as well.

How do people believe this kind of obviously fake claims?

Americans… well I guess they have a fall-back of some rather dodgy public school systems too.





Profound questions

“If a tree falls in a forest, but no one is there to to hear it, does it still make a sound?”

Yes.     Next one.

“What does a one handed clap sound like”

Bart Simpson’s one handed clap
[from S02E06 Dead Putting Society]

“Can something exist without being perceived?”


What other brain busters have you got for me?

What is so difficult or profound about any of these questions?

Just because you can’t perceive it, it doesn’t mean that something doesn’t exist.

Before Isaac Newton came up with the theory of gravity, it didn’t mean that the laws of gravity had no effect because no one had ‘perceived it before’

…well I guess that’s ‘conceived’ actually.

Or that the world wasn’t actually round because no one had seen it before or thought about it before.  The world was still round, its just that no one knew it.

The tree falling in the forest. It’s just such a stupid question… I can barely bring myself to give it any credence.
If there’s a deaf person and a person that is not deaf standing in the forest at the same time as the tree falls, and the deaf person says… “I can’t hear anything”
First of all the other person would be like… “of course not, you’re deaf, are you only just figuring this out now?”  and then would use his sign-language to convey that actually the tree just made a sound as it crashed to the ground, in a more polite manner.

If you don’t hear anything because you’re not in a position to do so… it’s not to say that it didn’t happen.
That is not how sound works as well, it doesn’t just exist in your mind…it’s the vibration of air particles….wait why am I explaining this to you… I’m sure whoever reading this is thinking….’yeah man you’re preaching to the choir here’

And for those philosophical hippies out there… me explaining the concept of physics is not going to change their minds… they’re hippies, they are sometimes immune to logic.

“oh but you’re not thinking about the philosophical nature of the question”

Its not philosophical its just stupid, and it has an easy answer, but you’re so caught up in trying to seem profound and spiritual that you won’t even given logic a chance.

……I really … really don’t like hippies.

2001 A Space Odyssey

Can you justifiably say something is shit not just from a subjective point of view?

Have you guys seen 2001 a space odyessy?
Well first of all …don’t. Its terrible.
But it like one of those movies that people tell you you just HAVE to watch… because its a cult classic or something
I was trying to argue against a colleague, with me saying that it was shit…. or at least frustrating to watch…. and she keeps saying things like like ‘oh maybe you just didn’t understand it’
Sorry….have you seen the movie?
Well then shut up.

Its 2 hrs 29 mins long … and its slow as hell.. and its one of those kind of movies where you know that it was made for people on drugs.. like LSD or something,  but if you’re not on LSD… its pretty fucking terrible.
And like a good boy, I of course don’t want to give away too much… of why it IS terrible, but now I’m getting insulted because of a predetermination for which she thinks the movie is good because she’s seen some reviews online.

Reviews are for idiots!
Why is it that the simple reviews are never taken seriously?
ie.-  Its shit, don’t watch it.
Wait sorry, let me change my review. It’s shit because….. (people always want to know the because) it’s slow, its full of extended 15 minute scenes for which we already got the point in 2 mins, and unless you’re on LSD, I would not recommend this movie.


Here’s a friend’s review for the film…and its more like a watching guide:

Imagine a movie written by a director who thinks he’s being deep enough to create a cult following on his film. Imagine the beginning of time when monkeys roamed the planet, now a plot twist. A rectangle black rock. It appears throughout the film for zero fucking reason. Fast forward time and they will talk about deep space and bush babies. Fast forward for 15 minutes or nauseating coloured lens flares and crappy sound. Black rectangle is seen. The end.

By the way, for those that haven’t seen the film, here’s a little insight…. The first word, the first bit of dialogue is spoken after a full 26 mins.  Before that you’re just watching monkeys behave curiously.
Come on!

Note- I will concede the movie is full of some pretty basic science-fiction concepts that has fuelled ideas to shows that we all know and love, (like Futurama for instance) and of course it was pretty impressive for when it was made, 1968. You will see that I said ‘impressive’, impressive doesn’t necessarily mean good.


By the way… In terms of movies that are designed to be watched when you’re as high as a kite, I think ‘Gravity’, ‘The life of Pi’, ‘This is the end’, ‘Pineapple express’ are the ones that I know of….anyone got any others?



Headphones are better than in-ear earphones?



“oh because they’re more of a perfect fit, they look better and you get better sound quality, I mean just to name a few”

Uh huh.       And this guy?

uncomfy headphones1

uncomfy headphones2They clearly don’t fit well… why would you put a circular ear molding piece to an ear that is clearly not circular?

His ear is being smooshed into the side of his head… I mean correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s not my idea of a comfy time.

If it’s not a good seal/ fit, surely there’s sound escaping?

Also, I know not everyone wears it like this, but in this way the guy can’t go to sleep because his headphone connecting piece is preventing him from resting his head down nicely.

Unless it just a highly visible show-off look of “hey look at me, I’m listening to music… unlike all you other people that are still carrying around boom boxes on your shoulders… this music is for me.. and me alone. I’m so retro.”


common sense…religion… & idiots. no particular order

“Religious Kids are Jerks”

I read this article recently.. and as per usual, I started to get angry.
Especially angry because given the title of this article “Religious kids are Jerks” , and subsequent writings it infers that this person was wanting to make a statement against the supposed ‘intrinsic moral values’  that religion teaches, and convince people of their argument, but in my book… just a fail.

When a person that is supposed to be on ‘my side’; ie. the non-religion side on this case, but doesn’t argue their point correctly because essentially they’re going about it in the standard hippie liberalist kind of way by giving undeserved credit to religious folks, then it seems that they’ve lost my respect too.  Especially so considering that this writer does it whilst outlaying the initial hypothesis of the article.  Just disappointed.

“For many, organized religions like Christianity provide a moral compass. Holy books serve as guides that hold strict rules about what is right and wrong. It is only common sense to think that those who have religion in their lives are the ones with a strong sense of morals, while those who lack religious belief are left wandering in the dark, with no light to show them the right path from the wrong one. But as we have seen time and time again, common sense can be dead wrong.”

Ummm…. No. You’re thinking of ‘popular belief’. And yes that can be wrong, but common sense.. no.

Common is not meant to relate that this reasoning exists throughout the population, but that the environment that you are sensing is common.  As you can educate yourself from many definitions on the internet, it is supposed to be “independent of specialized knowledge, or training”,  it is simply “sound practical judgment- normal native intelligence”.

For example understanding how a rocket engine works cannot possibly be common sense because that environment is not common to everyone. However understanding that you need water to survive is definitely common sense, because everyone gets thirsty when they don’t have enough water.

There are things that definitely should be common sense; such as why you have to stop at a red traffic lights, that being that because the perpendicular one across from you is green, if you go when you are red, you will crash into them and be injured. For someone to not to have common sense in this means that they would actually have this environment, yet be somehow unable to figure it out. Like large numbers of Chinese people. (or perhaps they just don’t care)

However for a little boy who has grown up in a remote area of Kenya, this would NOT be common sense, because traffic lights would not be common to him.

Different people can draw different conclusions from it, and that is their belief. Common sense is therefore a generalization of how things work and it is simply a happy coincidence that many people believe the same thing given the same information, showing that many are capable of basic reasoning.

Sense- in the fact that you’re using your own basic understanding of how things work…originally from you 5 senses, to figure out how something behaves.

So anyway, this guy states that it is ‘only common sense to think that those who have religion in their lives are the ones with a strong sense of morals ‘ .  No. Again not common sense, but popular belief.  The fact that many people believe something, doesn’t necessarily make it true.

What’s more annoying is that the rest of the article is actually written pretty well. There’s a good amount of evidence quoted and its written in a generally well meaning format, however then you add the title back in, it would dispel those for who this article would have the greatest impact. –Religious people.  Atheist people and agnostic people already don’t care so much what religious people think because most of the world aren’t properly religious anymore, it’s simply a part of their culture.  Those that hold onto their religion ‘ because it teaches good moral behavior’ are clearly not avid readers of many of their own religious texts, and these are the people that are lacking common sense in terms of understanding morals.

The physical and social world generally teaches us through many situations, what we can and can’t do;  how we ourselves feel in reaction to another’s actions, which teaches us how we ourselves should act. It’s not that difficult. This environment is common. And therefore morals should be common sense.

Common sense is basically knowledge which should not have to be taught.

Yet, like it seems with some Chinese people with traffic lights, a few people just can’t figure it out for themselves which is where religion comes into fill the gap. This is great because the world becomes more ordered even if these people can’t figure it out for themselves.

Many non-religious people are already aware of all of this, so they should not be your target audience.  So who is the target audience for this kind of article?

There are basically 4 types of people for who this might be targeted towards:
1.) Religious people who consistently argue against non-believers
2.) Religious people who only care about the cultural value that religion has, and are unsure about the ‘moral value’
3) Non-believers, who don’t care what religious people think provided that they don’t harm other people, including making others more stupid
4.) Non-religious people who are only non-religious because they were raised in that kind of society and actually haven’t gone through the thought process of working out whether religion has benefits or not, yet sees a mass of proof against it.

With the way this article is written it seems it is aimed at convincing # 2 (the religious people who are questioning the ‘moral value’ that Religion apparently teaches you) but given the title, this steers them away.

The title is designed for #1 (religious people who want to argue) but the body of the text is too easy going and liberal….that’s not what they want. They want something they can argue against.

#4 they get drawn in with the ‘fighting’ title, but then fall asleep with the hippy consoling body.

#3 gets angry for the fact that the ones that need to be convinced are not because of the title.

By stating that its common sense for people to think religious people have greater morals, is incorrect.  Popular belief yes, but by using ‘common sense’ you are confusing people (religious people-the people you’re trying to convince) And saying that common sense is often proved wrong…. No. Its insinuating that the world we living in, the environment that we all share is so confusing that the conclusions we draw from what we sense will be wrong.  For those people that need religion for their moral foundation, they are already confused, they are already incapable of figuring this out for themselves; don’t give them a reason to believe that “common sense” is something to be challenged.

The basic common environment is not that difficult.  Just because a large amount of people believe one particular thing at a certain time, it doesn’t necessarily mean its common sense, it could for instance mean they’ve all be duped, or that they’re all idiots.

Popular belief isn’t necessarily common sense.