Borg

I had totally forgotten about Elliot's realizations about his sexuality and gender. That's weird, considering I so seldom (read: otherwise never) see characters who are agender like me, at least not in any way that is ever established. (Well, these days I say "nongender," i.e. no gender identity, because I've gotten sick of the fact that "agender" refers to both a gender identity and a lack of a gender identity, and the two aren't actually even similar.) Then again, there's plenty of characters that we don't really know to be male or female, where we're just assuming. (On a side note of being a nerd nobody asked for, "inflammable" originates as "inflame-able," i.e. "able to be inflamed." Then language evolved and people started dropping the "in" sometimes, because it sounds like a negative prefix, and now use of "inflammable" is discouraged because it confuses people about what you're trying to say.)

Personally, I'm not even transgender and I'm incredibly jealous of Elliot. Granted, I hear I'm not in all ways typical, but I can only imagine how somebody with actual gender dysphoria feels about it.

You know, I always found particularly comical the argument that God is the greatest being conceivable, and a being that exists is greater than one that doesn't, ergo God exists. No offense to all of you, but I prefer fictional beings to real ones. Thus I singlehandedly prove that God cannot exist, as if he did exist he would not be the greatest being conceivable. I'd actually like to see somebody debunk my logic. I think Anselm was right that the Judeo-Christian concept of an omnipotent, omniscient god does imply that such a god would be the greatest being conceivable, and it's an empirically observed fact that I feel a fictional being is greater than a real one, so you would have to find the flaw within the reasoning itself. However, I can't identify any hole in the core logic other than that one cannot sensibly make conclusions based on the properties of potentially nonexistent objects; however, in this case, either God exists and the argument holds to prove he doesn't, or he doesn't exist and the argument is unnecessary. I know there must be some other flaw, since disproving God is just as absurd as proving God, but I can't find what it is.