So Draco has continued the exercise of watching commercials for films Draco doesn’t plan to watch. God’s Not Dead appears to be about a philosophy class with an instructor who didn’t feel like doing his job of teach students about philosophy and stated that since he didn’t want to waste time about whether there is a God by forcing all students to write that he is dead. If this is not what it is about well they should make a better commercial. Now Draco’s problem with this isn’t anything to do with religion or whether God does or does not exist (though Draco does if you were wondering). You see the definition of dead as defined by a Google search of “dead definition” is no longer alive. The definition of alive was “not dead”. On further investigation on the word alive the word existing came up. You see if you do not exist you cannot be alive. Being alive requires existence. If God were dead as the instructor says then he is confirming to the class the God does exist. To be dead one must for at least a moment been alive. To be dead one must exist and must have ceased living. The entire premise of the student being forced to prove God exists is flawed because that is the entire basis for the instructor’s assertion that God is dead. The student is only agreeing with him. The burden of proof is meaningless because they are in agreement. Even if they weren’t and it was just bad language it is still up to the instructor to not only prove his point but also do his job and teach philosophy. If this were a true story(which honestly people are stupid and it could possibly be (It seems so uninteresting that Draco can’t be bothered to look it up)) this instructor is hopefully fired for proposing not to do a large section of the subject and wasting time trying to get out of it. That’s like teaching English but leaving out all the adjectives and adverbs.
Draco has heard much about this dumping a bucket of ice on ones head for ALS. Draco has read many comments calling it stupid and then many comments calling those people who previously called it stupid stupid. They then defend it for all the money and awareness raising it has done. The problem is that both parties are correct. Pouring a bucket of ice water on one’s head is stupid whether it is for charity or not. You can actually die from it if you’re not warmed up.The dumping of the ice is the stupid part. The helpful part is that it raised awareness and money. It certainly did help and that isn’t debatable. You see a stupid action can be helpful if used correctly. Fart jokes for colon cancer would be stupid but it would also probably spread quickly and raise money. Setting your self on fire for burn victims would be another example but odds are that would do more harm than good. The moral to this story is that you should never set yourself on fire no matter how charitable it is. Setting yourself on fire is stupid and you should know better. The other moral is something stupid can alos be something that helps many people and in vice versa.