I heard about Kenneth Eng last week. He made big news by write a column in AsianWeek talking about why he hates black people. At first I thought it’s just another case of your typical racism, but as I read more about this guy I have come to the conclusion that he is utterly insane. Not only does he hate black people, but he hates white people as well. In justifying his racism, he often backups it up by saying he — and other asians — are superior to black people and white people. He is also a science-fiction writer and often refers back to his own fictional world, about how dragons are superior to humans. He is very strongly against any kind of religion, particularly Christianity, which is the reason he said he hates white people — since Christianity is (according to Kenneth Eng) a white people’s religion. Oh, and on top of all that he also claims to be the “God of the universe.”
He recently went on Fox News live, and yes, suddenly his crazy point of view all makes sense… or not. You can watch the video on Youtube.
Update: I came across Kennet Eng’s blog on Amazon. Is this guy for real or what? He claims to be logical, but I think his “logic” has to be brought into question. A very good example to illustrate what I mean is his entry on trying to disprove logic. Here is an expert from the entry:
Recently, I came upon another thought. Even if logic did not need to be proven, could it still be disproved? Certain mathematical theories, such as the Goldbach Conjecture and the Twin Prime Conjecture have yet to be proven; or at least they have yet to be proven without induction. However, since causality indicates that every event must have a purpose, then the repetition of events may in fact have some significance in reality. Therefore, one might question whether or not inductive reasoning is really as shoddy as it sounds. Should inductive reasoning actually be a solid basis for determining truth, then perhaps the Goldbach Conjecture, the 3x+1 procedure and every other mathematical mystery might very well be proven through repetition—NOT LOGIC. This would make logic irrelevant, which in essence, disproves logic.
Wow, just wow. Does he even know what mathematical logic is? Does he know what mathematical induction actualy is? I would love to ask him why he thinks that by testing a conjecture multiple times, and having it being satisfied every time, will make the conjecture necessarily true. Testing a conjecture many times (by many I mean a billion to the power of a billion) with different configurations doesn’t prove anything. Sure, you can say it looks more “plausible,” but the to say IT IS true requires an argument from logic. Oh, and BTW induction is a logical inference technique.
