jump to navigation

To Be Torpe June 15, 2007

Posted by Martin in : General Rants, Weird Crap , 6comments

[Non-objective Entry]

 

By now you’ve probably noticed the gigantic label saying “Non-objective Entry” hanging above some of the past articles. Well, if you inferred that it means that the article beneath it is not objective, then I congratulate you, for you have inferred correctly.Hitherto, there has been no distinction between objective and non-objective writings. For convenience’s sake, I’ve put up these warning labels to warn you, apparently. This particular topic is labelled as such, insofar as it is a culturally relative term and condition. However, we will try to be as objective as possible.

——————————————-

“To be torpe” – What does this statement mean, exactly? Without any context to work with, the statement does not seem to point to any state of affairs as it is; hence, we ought to put some context in there.

We will construct a question from which we will base our ponderings on, that is, the question of “what is it to be torpe?”

Let us first define to the best of our abilities what torpe means. However, you must understand, dear reader, that torpe in the context of our culture cannot be found on any credible dictionary, be it hardbound, paperback, or electronic. The Spanish language defines it as “(desmaņado) awkward, clumsy,” or “(necio) dull-witted, stupid”.(1) Either way, that is not what we search for. Torpe, then, must be considered as Philippine slang for a shy guy.

To be a torpe, however, does not mean that one is a de facto shy guy, although casual observation shows that there is a strong correlation between them. To illustrate, one can be thoroughly outgoing yet be a spectacular cretin when faced with a desirable woman. Therefore, in order to make a sufficient distinction between the two concepts, we must make the definition of torpe more concise.According to the Triumvirate, a recognized and credible intellectual body located in the Philippines, torpe, when used as a noun, is defined as “One who is pathologically incapable of efficient interaction with eligible members of the opposite sex; one whose communication skills with the opposite sex are relatively low in comparison to the majority of society.” Obviously, torpe in its noun usage is defined as one who has the qualities of a torpe.

The die is cast, so to speak; we have a definition of what a torpe is. However, we must address the societal implications of this phenomenon. a) What are its causes, if any? b) What are the consequences of being classified as such? More importantly, c) Is overcoming this irrational social precept worth the effort?

Let us deconstruct these inquiries one by one, so that we may proceed with this discourse in an efficient manner.

a) What are its causes, if any?

To be specific, we speak of putative causes, that is, the principal causes of the phenomena in question. We admit to having no rigorous answer to this question, but the Triumvirate has a few theories.

Please take note that these theories are not mutually exclusive; an individual’s behaviour can be accounted by a combination of the theories.

b) What are the consequences of being classified as such?

The consequences that we will speak of here are not those of public perception, rather, we speak of how being a torpe affects one’s function(s) in a society. There are numerous consequences of being a torpe; hence, we will mention only the most common ones in this article. A general ramification of this would be the unfulfillment of desire, which may include a relationship, a friendship, a date, or even a decent conversation. Regardless, a chronic unfulfilled desire can permanently harm and worsen one’s already debilitated self-image, perhaps resulting in social withdrawal. Also, work and study inefficiency may occur when one is assigned tasks that include women in the roster. Communication breakdowns are common as well.

See, this isn’t exactly the epitome of an objective article.

c) Is overcoming this irrational social precept worth the effort?

We don’t normally deal with questions involving ought, should, or any other moral term, since the standards of which are fundamentally different for each individual. Nonetheless, we persevere. Rationally, overcoming torpeness is indeed worth the effort, insofar as alleviating the above consequences is involved. For most people, societal productivity, along with living life to the “fullest” is a principle in living; hence, in the context of this, it is worth the effort. The time wasted in daydreaming or whatnot can be put to better use.

 

There you have it – the social concept of torpeness neatly illustrated, along with a few answers to some pertinent questions rooted in the implications of torpeness on the individual.

Perhaps this has served to enlighten and/or entertain you; I would be satisfied if I were to inspire at least one of the aforementioned feelings in you, the dear reader.

 

 

In posterum, ave atque vale – ‘Till the next day, hail and farewell.

 

(1) Torpe – Spanish-English Translation and Pronunciation, Yahoo! Education. 2001. Accessed June 15, 2007. http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dict_en_es/spanish/torpe


Are You a Fundy? June 6, 2007

Posted by Martin in : Religion/Atheism , 1 comment so far

Believe it or not, we evil atheists have a little chain mail of our own going on, too.Let us cut to the chase, so as to avoid capture by the Thought Police.

I hereby present to you the Top Ten Signs You’re a Fundamentalist Christian, taken from some obscure electronic mailing source.

————————————-

10. You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9. You feel insulted and “dehumanized” when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8. You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7. Your face turns purple when you hear of the “atrocities” attributed to Allah, but you don’t even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in “Exodus” and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in “Joshua” including women, children, and trees!

6. You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5. You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4. You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs — though excluding those in all rival sects – will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most “tolerant” and “loving.”

3. While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in “tongues” may be all the evidence you need to “prove” Christianity.

2. You define 0.01% as a “high success rate” when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1. You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history – but still call yourself a Christian.

————————————-

There you go. I imagine that at least some of you would find the list unsettling, and this is understandable, since this was probably created with American fundamentalists in mind. Nevertheless, it still holds ground in our – dare I say sad – Philippine context.

Please understand that the list is primarily dedicated to Christian fundamentalists, which you are probably not a member of, since most Filipinos that I know of are what we would call moderates, i.e. those who don’t go preaching and babbling about the gifts of faith to those who do not wish to hear them.

Fundamentalists are formally defined as those who believe that the bible is “literally inerrant, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record.” (1) However, contemporary usage has deviated from this, and has been used more loosely to refer to anyone who holds a strict adherence to any somesuch set of principles without regard for its veracity. In the words of the American Heritage Dictionary, Fundamentalism is “a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.” Therefore, when the word “fundamentalist” or “fundy” is used as an invective directed to an individual, it usually implies the target’s closed-mindedness, hypocrisy, arrogance, and an amazingly irritating tendency to create tens of unsupported assertions without any evidence at all when it fits the situation.

It would be most fascinating to see what you Roman Catholics have to say about this; I imagine replies containing obscure apologetics dealing with the semantics of “triune” and other theological terms.

Do tell if you’re a fundy.

 

(1) Fundamentalism – Wikipedia. 19 June 2007 (Last modified). Accessed 05 June 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism