Offence and Offensive Words

It doesn't come across nearly as much here as it does in real verbal conversation, but I swear a lot. It isn't that I view swear words in any special light, in fact its quite the opposite, they are just words to express a strong dislike, and I dislike many things. Consequently there are some things that a refer to as "cunts" and for some reason many people seem to believe that cunt is worse than any other word in the great language of our lands, and they are entitled to this opinion.
What irritates me is that they believe this should change the way I speak. A good example of this is one girl I know who objects to my use of the word cunt, and no other word, in the same way every time "I don't like that word" this would be fine if it was just a statement of fact but it clearly is not. It is always given as a, poorly concealed, order to stop using the word cunt. My response is always the same "I don't like the word *first word into my head (often orange for reasons unknown to science)* therefore I demand you stop using it" without exception this order is ignored.
I may not genuinely be offended by "orange" but the hypocrisy of people offended by "cunt" stands out regardless. The way I speak will not be influenced by a single person, beyond the amount it changes between situations just like anyone else's. I will not omit any word, be it "cunt" or "orange", because you want me to.
Offence should come about in the same way as any other emotion, because a logical stimulus has caused it. Take racism for example, people who are offended by other races are rightly not respected for that belief as it has no logical basis, but offence at racism is respected as it is supported by logic. Yet an illogical hatred of the word cunt, albeit not as serious as racism, expects to be able to control your language.
I am not going to change the way I talk for you, so don't be a cunt about it.

Meeting in the new world

James May once said the meeting between man and machine will not take place in the physical world but the digital. I would in fact go a step further and say the meeting between man and man is becoming a far more digital affair. By only 2010 25% of American marriages originated from online meetings (Rosenfeld and Thomas, Stanford university) It is becoming less common for people to meet, they rather meet up, already having known each other well for months possibly.
There are of course people who will lament this "impersonal" form of communication, but they're simply showing a conservative nature that offers nothing but a hindrance to progress. Every major leap in human history has been opposed by some and few leaps have been as large as the internet.
The people I meet in person I talk to in person, only online when I have something important to say. However when I get home I have people I talk to purely on the internet, most of these people I will never meet however this does not make any relationships any less significant than one that benefits from close proximity. I would only consider myself to have one friend that I've never met but I feel certain that as time goes on this number will rise for everyone.
Just as you don't have to befriend everyone you meet, I believe you don't have to meet everyone you befriend.

Religion- In the interest of fairness

I've been thinking a lot about religious arts recently, and modern religion in general and I suddenly realised something. My main complaints about religion are against fundamentalists (faith on the other hand is still an unreasonable system of illogical madness) but most people are able to weed out the mad orders, and benefit from the positive aspects of religion.
Religious inspiration has given us some of the most impressive forms of basically all the arts: the cathedrals at Notre Dame and Cologne are the most impressive pieces of architecture I've ever seen. Two of the most beautiful pieces of music I know are Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Fkuq5Lf0Q) and Angel (Katherine Jenkins, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC7TcH-3MVs) both clearly with religious inspiration. As far as I'm aware there are no atheist arts that can compete, everything is done for a purpose, ad therefore not art.
I still believe that faith without prof is insane, but ignoring beauty because you disagree with its inspiration is as mad, if not worse.

Why the world needs bloggers

I was ordered to write a blog on blogs earlier and was not planning on complying until I realised that, as the Murdoch monopoly is currently being torn down around his ears, independent news blogs will become more prominent. While most, mine included, offer little or no real news signing up to blog at least gives you the chance to find and read real news. For this reason I am happy that other people I know have set up blogs, regardless of their content or reason.
That is in fact the point of my praise, no one person could ever control the bloggosphere any more than they could the internet. So every blog, from the million hitters to the tens, from the most inanely personal to the most informative news blog, every single one is a piece of freedom that will be very hard to take legally, and together they greatly protect the free media.
So whatever your blog may be I support and encourage it, even if I have no interest or even disagree with what you're saying. Freedom of speech is more important than whatever it is you're saying.

God - What makes you worth worshipping?

The front page of the sun today (so hardly a reliable source of information) shows that the most important thing happening anywhere in the world right now, more important than Korean tensions, more than the Syrian uprising, is that god saved a footballer from a heart attack while doctors were "baffled". There are two things that upset me about this. The first is that those doctors are the only reason he is alive and yet they are portrayed as incompetent fools.
However there is an issue that I wish to address more, as most people are aware how intelligent and valued doctors are, and that is that god protected him. This means that the world is watched over by an interventionist god, an undeniably good thing. However this god does not use it's power to intervene in wars, famine or plagues. Nor does it reveal itself to the world and address humanity to end religious disputes by giving us all the facts. No, the most important thing in the world to god is the health of one footballer.
So I ask you this, if god exists and is willing to intervene in treatable medical issues, but not large scale disasters, does this god deserve your praise and respect? Or should they be held to account for their actions, for caring for one footballer while ignoring thousands of starving children? You may believe in god, or you may not, but I wonder, god has infinite power, and is reported to willingly intervene in human lives, so why is there so much suffering of innocents?
A further question on this issue was raised to me today. If god is all powerful, and has a plan for everyone, why do you pray to him to assist the ill/injured? Surely god caused or at least permitted them to fall ill to start with? This adds further strength to my belief that god has no right to demand the affection of the humans who lives he seems to delight in toying with. To paraphrase a friend of mine, surely when praying for god to help someone all you're really doing is begging for mercy?

Syria

Contrary to what the name suggests I'm not going to talk about what's going on in Syria, I'm instead focusing on what is being done about Syria. You see I believe it was Kofi Annan who described the situation as "unacceptable" however, it is being accepted. Disagreeing with a course of action but letting it happen is accepting it, you have to actually intervene if you find something unacceptable.
We have seen this far to often recently, all across the middle east political uprisings have given corrupt leaders the chance to utilize means that should be unacceptable, but the only way western governments are willing to intervene is with a stern word.
Politicians need to realize that this isn't like every other political issue, they cant sit on the fence until the issue is resolved and then sit there pretending they supported the victor all along. People are dying and those in power need to pick a side and support it from the outset. In the case of Syria I believe that the opposition should be assisted in the strongest non invasive way possible until such a time that a stable democratic government is formed.
In most cases the political game is played with tax money and political power, and it can cause massive damage. When it is the entire future of a country at stake there is no room for games, action has to be taken.

Internet Tracking, the Death of Privacy

Before I start I would just like to thank the conservative government for getting my blog out of its downward spiral and back to its original angry roots. I'm currently watching BBC news and noticing that two of the biggest stories seem to be the polar opposites of each other. Today James Murdoch has stepped down from his post as head of BSkyB, as a result of the phone hacking scandal. Put simply, monitoring people’s activities without their permission has lost him his job. The other story is that the government are pushing forward with their attempts to pass a law that would allow them to monitor any activity that anyone makes on the internet in Britain. The exact thing that has begun to break down the Murdoch empire is not only about to become legal but it will become mandatory law. Benjamin Franklin once said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The government wish to remove the right to privacy to attempt to prevent cyber-terrorism. However I am almost certain that passing this law will increase the activities of many groups such as anonymous. The people this law aims to target will easily avoid it and will see it as provocation. This is an entirely new kind of warfare but the government are trying to fight it using 19th century methods, they are marching into unknown territory and drawing their own battle lines. These lines will be crossed and ignored and the only people to suffer as a result will be us, the innocent public.