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.
Monday, 25 June 2012
Benefits of Obsession
I get obsessed with things fairly easily, it's not a bad thing, it's not a good thing either, its's just a thing. They take hold quite fast, it often only takes one exposure to set it off, sometimes I'll be aware of something for ages then suddenly it will be all my free time for the next month. They can be anything really from Helena Bonham Carter to the 3 Daft Monkeys. The obsession normally only lasts from a week to 2 months, but I will retain the high opinion that lead to it in the first place (For example, I haven't listened to a Katherine Jenkins song for well over a week, but I still believe that she is one the best singers I have ever heard).
Anyway, as the title implies I've noticed a definite change in my actions between phases where I have an obsession verses ones where I do not. Converse to what even I expected of myself, during an obsessive phase I find much easier to deal with myself and others ("easier" as we all know I'm not likely to ever find human interaction easy). I noticed this recently as I realised I felt total apathy towards everyone, even people I know matter to me. In my current phase, without obsession, I find myself more violent and argumentative than normal, angering people I want to be happy, for reasons I cannot even justify to myself.
So I've thought about why something I'd expect to make me more reclusive actually brings me closer to being a balanced and well rounded person, I have an idea but I'm sure there's no psychological basis for it all at. I think because the obsession works away in the background, I don't get as bored and therefore feel the need to create a scene through violence or provocation. Plus having something I wish to talk about can make social interaction easier (however, although I have never hid any obsession of mine, I don't always talk about them). This makes it easier for me to sit an just talk, even when the topic changes I'm ok as I've settled into the conversation.
So put simply, don't worry if you get a little obsessive, it might just stop you doing something stupid.
Anyway, as the title implies I've noticed a definite change in my actions between phases where I have an obsession verses ones where I do not. Converse to what even I expected of myself, during an obsessive phase I find much easier to deal with myself and others ("easier" as we all know I'm not likely to ever find human interaction easy). I noticed this recently as I realised I felt total apathy towards everyone, even people I know matter to me. In my current phase, without obsession, I find myself more violent and argumentative than normal, angering people I want to be happy, for reasons I cannot even justify to myself.
So I've thought about why something I'd expect to make me more reclusive actually brings me closer to being a balanced and well rounded person, I have an idea but I'm sure there's no psychological basis for it all at. I think because the obsession works away in the background, I don't get as bored and therefore feel the need to create a scene through violence or provocation. Plus having something I wish to talk about can make social interaction easier (however, although I have never hid any obsession of mine, I don't always talk about them). This makes it easier for me to sit an just talk, even when the topic changes I'm ok as I've settled into the conversation.
So put simply, don't worry if you get a little obsessive, it might just stop you doing something stupid.
Monday, 18 June 2012
God isn't Listening
"Everything happens for a reason" "God has a plan for us all" "God is all knowing" all comments you'd expect from a follower of any major religion. Most of these religions will also contain some sort of prayer system. So my point today is this: If everything happens according to some divine plan, why would god change it for you? And if god knows everything, that surely includes your wishes, so how does saying them out loud help?
Even if we assume the universe is run according to the whims of some divine entity, how self centred and egotistical must you be to believe you are important enough for it to intervene in your life? Do you really believe your problems are so important that they eclipse every other issue in the universe? The very idea of preying is basically saying that you are all that matters in the entirety of existence.
And regardless of your opinions on religion and prayer, you have to admit that there are better things that you you could be doing on your knees.
Even if we assume the universe is run according to the whims of some divine entity, how self centred and egotistical must you be to believe you are important enough for it to intervene in your life? Do you really believe your problems are so important that they eclipse every other issue in the universe? The very idea of preying is basically saying that you are all that matters in the entirety of existence.
And regardless of your opinions on religion and prayer, you have to admit that there are better things that you you could be doing on your knees.
Friday, 8 June 2012
Homophobia, its Against Nature
I'e been thinking a lot about the main argument used by homo-phobics "it's not natural to be gay" and I already knew that wasn't really true as I knew of Roy and Silo, the 2 male penguins that raised a chick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo), so I knew that it wasn't just humans that have the capability to be homosexual. Being me I thought I should look into it some more before writing on it. It turns out that homosexual behaviour has been observed in around 1500 animals, which makes it seem fairly natural.
Although strictly speaking it's more often bisexual (except in sheep where 10% of males are exclusively homosexual), in black swans for example a male will mate with a female, wait until she lays eggs and then drive her off for another male. The signets raised by the two males are more likely to survive than those raised by a male-female pair. So male-male pairings are not just natural but beneficial to the young. In fact humans exhibit a much lower rate of homosexual behaviour than many other species (the highest is in bonobos where 60% of all mating rituals are between 2 females)
So if homosexual pairings are so common across the animal kingdom I think its fairly safe to say that it's perfectly natural to find homosexuality in our species. Homophobia on the other hand, like all prejudices, is an exclusively human idea. It's strange to think that the people who pride themselves on being the natural type of human are the only ones exhibiting unnatural behaviours.
Although strictly speaking it's more often bisexual (except in sheep where 10% of males are exclusively homosexual), in black swans for example a male will mate with a female, wait until she lays eggs and then drive her off for another male. The signets raised by the two males are more likely to survive than those raised by a male-female pair. So male-male pairings are not just natural but beneficial to the young. In fact humans exhibit a much lower rate of homosexual behaviour than many other species (the highest is in bonobos where 60% of all mating rituals are between 2 females)
So if homosexual pairings are so common across the animal kingdom I think its fairly safe to say that it's perfectly natural to find homosexuality in our species. Homophobia on the other hand, like all prejudices, is an exclusively human idea. It's strange to think that the people who pride themselves on being the natural type of human are the only ones exhibiting unnatural behaviours.
Saturday, 19 May 2012
Shakespeare
I've watched 2 film versions of the bard's work today, one I know well and one I have never seen nor read in any form, Macbeth and 12th night. Despite being made 60 years apart and both over 300 after the play was written, both manage to resonate more with me than anything I seen or read for many months. As a result I am forced to wonder how it is that so many people find Shakespeare boring, it amazes me that schools manage to turn people off some of the most beautiful works in the world's literary history. I refuse to believe that anyone would not enjoy Shakespeare at least as much I if they would but make the effort to witness it off their own accord and free of the constraints of an English lesson.
Almost every common complaint about Shakespeare can either be traced back to poorly engaging education, or they stem from simple ignorance. Anyone with a reasonable grasp of modern English should have absolutely no trouble with the bard's, the fact that nothing is abbreviated and full sentences are used properly should make it far easier to understand that most modern written communications and certainly not harder. Any claims that the issues or plot lines are outdated are clearly unfounded, many of the plays have been re-set in modern times while remaining true to the original text, so the plot is clearly as relevant today as it was in the 16-17th century or else they would have seemed insane.
Take for example one of the speeches in 12th night "She never told her love, But let concealment, like a worm i' the bud, Feed on her damask cheek: she pined in thought, And with a green and yellow melancholy She sat like patience on a monument," I instantly recognised my own romantic cowardice in those lines, and was born less than 2 decades ago, 20 times more recently than the play was written. If you were to go though all the many works it wouldn't be long before you find a speech or a character that fits you perfectly as well.
English lessons may have tarnished your opinion of Shakespeare, but you should not let this prevent you from taking the time to realise how good his works really are.
Almost every common complaint about Shakespeare can either be traced back to poorly engaging education, or they stem from simple ignorance. Anyone with a reasonable grasp of modern English should have absolutely no trouble with the bard's, the fact that nothing is abbreviated and full sentences are used properly should make it far easier to understand that most modern written communications and certainly not harder. Any claims that the issues or plot lines are outdated are clearly unfounded, many of the plays have been re-set in modern times while remaining true to the original text, so the plot is clearly as relevant today as it was in the 16-17th century or else they would have seemed insane.
Take for example one of the speeches in 12th night "She never told her love, But let concealment, like a worm i' the bud, Feed on her damask cheek: she pined in thought, And with a green and yellow melancholy She sat like patience on a monument," I instantly recognised my own romantic cowardice in those lines, and was born less than 2 decades ago, 20 times more recently than the play was written. If you were to go though all the many works it wouldn't be long before you find a speech or a character that fits you perfectly as well.
English lessons may have tarnished your opinion of Shakespeare, but you should not let this prevent you from taking the time to realise how good his works really are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)