Beautiful people, I proclaim, I is all is imperfect. Eventually a distinction must be made, as to between the rightness and wrongness of our actions, and to the rightness or leftness of them. For convention would often have left as equivalent to be wrong. Sinistral, for example stems from left-handed, but something wrong/bad/villany is classified as being sinster.
Also, when this is pointed, a quick argument is made, an offering or rather a sacrifice is made ready for Convention, that unappeasable God, that we resort to, when we need to justify our irrationality and our judgements. The sacrifice here of course being you. That you are wrong and everyone else is right. That you are wrong and everyone else is right, precisely because, well duh, everyone cannot be wrong. And then they would shake their heads in unison and pipe, yes we are all together, and hence we are all infallible, because all of us cannot be wrong together. A more thinking type would go on to cite the argument, you say that evolution is true, if so, how could convention have survived? If it is indeed natural selection, then natural selection has selected my irrationality. Since it has selected my irrationality, ergo then maybe my irrationality is not irrational and I am actually rational.
Sadly that is not the case. There is no mass to the rightness of things. Ergo it is not as if there is a see-saw and every fucking clown on earth got on one side of it and claimed that the earth is infact on the back of a fucking tortoise and I was on the other fucking side, claiming that infact the aerth is round, then their combined mass, can make me wrong. They could build pyramids on their side and my side would still remain heavier.
Two things must be understood. Firstly, the electron is no more negatively charged than a positron is positively. What I mean is that the only fact is that electron and positron have opposite charges, but no one can claim which is positive and which one is negative, for that is convention, it is because of such a position that we realise, in textbooks, that current flows in the direction opposite to the actual drift of the electrons, and then it is said, that since we have always assumed current flow to be positive, so let us continue assuming so. Thus generation after generation goes on dissolving the same bile about holes and current flow is opposite to the flow of electrons, since we are so fucking lazy to update our standard texts. For isn’t a Landau-Liftshitz treated the same way by a physicist, much the same reverence with which my grandfather would look at the Holy Quran? And how typically human of the physicist to snicker at my grandfather for revering a book. Can the said physicist suffer the change of a single equation in his holy text? Or maybe an alternate derivation? Or an alternate definition? Then it would not remain the same book by the same author would be argued.
I am reminded of the story where a guy tries to sell Lincoln’s axe. The buyer is apprenhensive, it doesn’t look that old he says. Oh the seller replies, it was getting too old, so I had the handle replaced twice and the edge replaced thrice, but it is the same axe that Lincoln used.
Eventually we are all irrational, probably no one more deluded than me, who thinks that evolution is not an argument against, but the greatest proof that there is a God.
In the end I would reiterate, that just because more people believe in it, doesn’t make a wrong belief right. Evidently most beliefs are not wrong but left. Thus is it wrong to or is it a sin to eat salad with a pitchfork? Highly risky, and somewhat indavisable, but not really a wrong.
