Probabilization

Given my current mental state (that of a sixteen-year-old), it would probably be unwise for me to ask Meghan de Anagea what is happening on the 27th. I know for a fact that I am not going back to Virginia until at least the 30th, so she can’t be excited about that. Actually, I probably don’t have to ask. I can probably go online and check for concerts in the Northern Virginia area that are taking place on the 27th, and lo and behold I will find exactly what is creaming Anagea de Meghan’s “pannies.”

Probably, but I’m not going to. Instead, I will impart on you my theory of probabilization, which I am making up just now in order to kill time while my potential professors write me nice, long, reassuring and heart-warming emails to the effect of I MUST HAVE YOU IN MY COURSE, ANDREW!

Probability is part of the theory of probabilization. That’s as much as I do know. Unfortunately for you, I don’t know a lot, so I’m going to have to tell you what I don’t know. Apparently probabilism is a doctrine in philosophy that probability is enough for belief and action (Answers.com, I love you. Marry me?). Consequentially, my theory of probabilization has to be related in some way or another to this philosophical doctrine. Luckily, as the first sentence in this paragraph will tell you, I have already succeeded in linking the theory of probabilization to probabilism. Simply put, the theory of probabilization and the doctrine of probabilism both necessarily share some connection with probability.

What is this probability anyway? My love tells me that in statistics it is “A number expressing the likelihood that a specific event will occur, expressed as the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the number of possible occurrences.” I seem to remember failing statistics, so I’m going to trust Answers.com on this one. So in probabilism, the likelihood that something can, should, is able to, may or may not happen is enough for people to do and think stuff. Basically, the motive in probabilism for people to think or act is that something will happen, whatever it is. Thanks a lot, probabilism. Now I’m even less motivated.

My theory is going to blow that doctrine away. First off, let’s look at some other words. My web fiancé says “probably” means “[v]ery likely and without much doubt.” Okay, so here is my theory of probabilization. It is the theory that people who know OF statistical probability will probably make different decisions than people who don’t know of probability, even if the actual statistical probability of each situation is not known. In fact, I’d say this theory goes even if there is no known probability of the situation whatsoever, and the person making the decision has no objective reason to act one way or another. I’d say this theory would also explain why people who actually learn statistics will make different decisions in said situations than people who only know of statistics.

I think this theory probably falls under my general spiteful theory that everything everyone knows or does probably makes them biased. Wait, that’s not a theory, that’s fact. Probably. Damn you, identity. I think the spiteful part is probably that knowing that everything everyone does probably makes them biased probably makes me biased against them. Did I mention my current mental state? I probably need to stop playing computer games until six in the morning, waking up at 10, and playing computer games until noon. Sigh, probably.

I'm Waiting for my Pets to Die

Not really, but I have your attention. The original title was "I'm Waiting for my Parents to Die," but I think they'd have a negative reaction to that. Then I was going to write "I'm Waiting for my Parrots to Die," but why should I limit myself to one subgroup of slave animals? I'm not like that though. I want my parrots to die from natural causes completely unrelated to my will for their death. Is that any different? Actually, I think it's more likely that my parrots are waiting for me to die. They're probably writing blogs right now. But these blogs are not as subtle as mine. You see, they're parrots; they can't handle subtlety. The big one's blog is entitled, "I'm Slowly Killing my Humans by Defecating in their Salad." The little one, on the other hand, wrote, "I'm Killing my Humans by Masturbating on the Furniture and Giving them Sexual Transmitted Diseases that Are Harmless to Parrots but Deadly to Human-Pig-Dogs." As you can see, parrots aren't very good with brevity either.

The little one actually does masturbate on the furniture. And this is another field where he's terrible at brevity. I often walk into the kitchen and see him humping a chair with one leg up in the air and his tongue sticking out. On the table are chewed up magazines, bits of food, and the larger parrot's feathers. Obviously, the little guy had a little too much stimulation, and had to relieve himself as soon as possible. Why not the kitchen chair? It's close by, and often has a nice, soft cover (conveniently put there for his pleasure, and not to prevent him from pooping on the furniture). As soon as the wet spot dries the humans will never know a thing. How could they? He only does it right in front of us. That lovebird has no shame whatsoever.

What does that say about us? My family is not really god-fearing. We don't fear that which doesn't exist. In a religious family, however, I bet you this sort of behaviour would not be tolerated. Bird humping your furniture? Swat him with a newspaper. Twelve year old son masturbating in his bedroom? Hide the Vaseline. That should solve the problem, provided that he's not one of the few privileged boys in the US who didn't get circumcised. Personally, I say swat the boy with a newspaper when he doesn't masturbate. Don't tell him why you're swatting him, just do it. He'll catch on eventually, or develop a fetish. And if you're swatting the the boy with a newspaper, you have to do something worse to the parrot. This is according to the natural order of things. Humans are more important than animals, so if you treat a human badly, you have to counteract that by treating an animal worse. That way everything evens out, and all is right with the world. I think anything short of placing mousetraps on all of the furniture is irresponsible and unmoral.

Some of you might think that I'm the kind of person who buys houseplants just to watch them wither away from lack of water. That's completely untrue. I don't even buy houseplants; they always wither away from lack of water. And despite my comment about swatting kids with newspapers for not masturbating, I think I'd be a pretty good father. I'd teach my children responsibility and ethics by making them water the plants and provide the birds with plenty of room to relieve their loins. Teaching the kids about sex is, as I hear, one of the hardest things about being a parent. But with all of the horny parrots flying around my house I think they'd get the picture by the age of three. And what would you rather have, your kids learning about sex from television or your kids learning about sex from cute, colourful animals that can sing well? Sure, they're no Barney, but they get the job done. And they usually do it without inducing nausea.

Until your kids die from STDs.