I was thinking earlier, what's so bad about certain words? Don't get me wrong, I understand that words like nigger and faggot have strong links to a prejudiced viewpoint, but why general swearing? I can't see anything that links swear words together, it just seems to be random words that are worse than all others according to some arbitrary scale I can't seem to understand.
Simple and common example, what's so bad about fuck? If it was the meaning then sex or intercourse would be swear words, if it's the sound then we can get rid of duck. So what makes fuck the bad guy? The same logic applies to all the other randomly assigned swear words. Who decided these certain sounds are worse than others? If no one told you about them would you be able to pick them out? What if it was decided another word was now swearing? No would accept being told they had to stop using it, so why is it ok to censor other people? There is no logic at all to the existence of swear words, so why do we allow them to be worse than any other?
Thursday 20 September 2012
Sunday 16 September 2012
Syria
This is the second post with that title, this one is about the events not the reaction. However I will obviously be mentioning what I believe should be done, that's how this blog works.
I'm writing this now (23:42) because I just saw a picture from the aftermath of the Kafr Aweed massacre, the picture is of a man holding the decapitated body of a girl who cant be more than 6 (http://i.imgur.com/Gy9wq.jpg The image is there but it is horrible) and it just made me think. How long ago was it that the UN said the events in Syria were unacceptable? Why then have they been accepted this long? If they meant it when they said they would not accept this then something would have been done and that girl would be alive today.
The worst thing to me is that reports from inside Syria are so small and sparse that I can't even tell you which side was responsible for this, it could have been anyone, the government, rebels, bandits, anyone. Let me make this clear now, Syria is not in a state of civil war like Libya was, Syria is in a state of tribal barbarism most of the world stepped out of before the end of the middle ages. There are no good guys in this conflict, there is not a democratic force of freedom fighters, there is no significant force for good in the entire country, just village on village on village, massacre after massacre until the news gives up on the unconfirmed reports and people start to forget.
The situation is so bad there is clearly not going to be any solution that will take anything less than many years and many lives. So far as I can see the governments of NATO and the UN have two choices available to them: Intervene, force democracy on the country and remain there for what could be decades until the country is stabilised, it is not an attractive idea and in almost any other case it would be an atrocity for anyone to force control on a country in this manner, but I believe it is what has to be done, because of the alternative; the west does nothing, allows Syria to dissolve all features of civilisation and collapse into a new dark age, this is the end of the path Syria is being allowed to travel down.
If nothing is done, Syria as a nation will cease to exist, it will become a back spot on the map full of warring tribes, it will be decades or centuries until a true nation is reformed if the conflict continues as it is doing so now. Intervention will not be popular from any point of view, this is the biggest flaw with the democracy that is being fought for, to stay in power you do what is popular, not what is necessary. So there will be no action from the west and many more massacres like this will happen.
A county is dying and the people in power chose not to react to stay popular, is democracy even worth fighting for if it will not fight for it's own existence?
I'm writing this now (23:42) because I just saw a picture from the aftermath of the Kafr Aweed massacre, the picture is of a man holding the decapitated body of a girl who cant be more than 6 (http://i.imgur.com/Gy9wq.jpg The image is there but it is horrible) and it just made me think. How long ago was it that the UN said the events in Syria were unacceptable? Why then have they been accepted this long? If they meant it when they said they would not accept this then something would have been done and that girl would be alive today.
The worst thing to me is that reports from inside Syria are so small and sparse that I can't even tell you which side was responsible for this, it could have been anyone, the government, rebels, bandits, anyone. Let me make this clear now, Syria is not in a state of civil war like Libya was, Syria is in a state of tribal barbarism most of the world stepped out of before the end of the middle ages. There are no good guys in this conflict, there is not a democratic force of freedom fighters, there is no significant force for good in the entire country, just village on village on village, massacre after massacre until the news gives up on the unconfirmed reports and people start to forget.
The situation is so bad there is clearly not going to be any solution that will take anything less than many years and many lives. So far as I can see the governments of NATO and the UN have two choices available to them: Intervene, force democracy on the country and remain there for what could be decades until the country is stabilised, it is not an attractive idea and in almost any other case it would be an atrocity for anyone to force control on a country in this manner, but I believe it is what has to be done, because of the alternative; the west does nothing, allows Syria to dissolve all features of civilisation and collapse into a new dark age, this is the end of the path Syria is being allowed to travel down.
If nothing is done, Syria as a nation will cease to exist, it will become a back spot on the map full of warring tribes, it will be decades or centuries until a true nation is reformed if the conflict continues as it is doing so now. Intervention will not be popular from any point of view, this is the biggest flaw with the democracy that is being fought for, to stay in power you do what is popular, not what is necessary. So there will be no action from the west and many more massacres like this will happen.
A county is dying and the people in power chose not to react to stay popular, is democracy even worth fighting for if it will not fight for it's own existence?
Wednesday 12 September 2012
23 Years, Just to Say Sorry
The "police had failed to do enough and had also tried to blame Liverpool fans" -David Cameron. "up to 41 of the 96 who died could have potentially been saved if they had received treatment earlier" -Dr Bill Kirkup. These two quotes are to me, the two main points of the new report into the Hillsborough disaster, the sad thing is that everyone has known them to be true since 1989 so why has it taken an 18 month investigation using 450,000 pages of documents to figure this out?
Don't get me wrong, the fact that the blame has finally been placed where it belongs and not on "mayhem caused by drunks" -Irvine Patnick (To Margaret Thatcher in 1989), is good news, but it is late news. News that has only formalized a clear truth. All that has been given today is a sorry, a meaningless apology from people who simply succeed from those who should have given it decades ago. What matters is that this becomes a stepping stone, the report attributes the disaster to gross negligence on the part of the police, not the officers on the gates, but the men giving the orders, the people who ordered the police to cause the deaths of 96 people. These are the people who should be brought to justice and it is clear that charges should be made and the fight for justice will continue as fiercely as before.
Today's apology should be welcomed by everyone, but not seen as anything more. Justice has not yet been done, but another step towards it has been taken. Justice can be ran from, but not avoided. It may take many more years, but those responsible for the gates being opened will be held to account, justice will be achieved for the 96.
Don't get me wrong, the fact that the blame has finally been placed where it belongs and not on "mayhem caused by drunks" -Irvine Patnick (To Margaret Thatcher in 1989), is good news, but it is late news. News that has only formalized a clear truth. All that has been given today is a sorry, a meaningless apology from people who simply succeed from those who should have given it decades ago. What matters is that this becomes a stepping stone, the report attributes the disaster to gross negligence on the part of the police, not the officers on the gates, but the men giving the orders, the people who ordered the police to cause the deaths of 96 people. These are the people who should be brought to justice and it is clear that charges should be made and the fight for justice will continue as fiercely as before.
Today's apology should be welcomed by everyone, but not seen as anything more. Justice has not yet been done, but another step towards it has been taken. Justice can be ran from, but not avoided. It may take many more years, but those responsible for the gates being opened will be held to account, justice will be achieved for the 96.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)