Apparently the movie "300" is racist. RACIST I TELL YOU!
'Has the world gone mad?' I hear you cry? Evidently, yes:
"It may be worth pointing out that unlike their mostly black and brown foes, the Spartans and their fellow Greeks are white."A. O. SCOTT, New York TimesMarch 9, 2007
FROM WIKIPEDIA:
Greek critic Dimitris Danikas suggested that the film showed Persians as "bloodthirsty, underdeveloped zombies," and went on to say, "They are stroking (sic) racist instincts in Europe and America.Critic Steven Rea argues that Along with references to slavery, mysticism and depictions of hyper-sexuality, the Persians become the vehicle for an anachronistic cross-section of Western stereotypes of Asian and African cultures.Furthermore, the "bad guys" are depicted as black people, Persians, brown people, handicapped or deformed people, gays and lesbians.
Let us get one thing straight here, 300 is not racist. Are all the invading Persians black or brown? Yes. Are all the heroic Spartans white? Yes. Do white people kill black or brown people? Yes. Does that therefore make it racist? NO. Why? A simple answer:
2500 YEARS AGO EVERYONE IN ANCIENT PERSIA WAS BLACK OR BROWN AND EVERYONE IN ANCIENT GREECE WAS WHITE.That is history, not racism. That is the way things were. Was there any moaning about Michael Caine's "Zulu" becuase white people are killing black people? No. Why? Because that's the fucking way it was. (And it was a time when people actually used their own brains to think instead of being told what they think by newspapers, critics and columnists).
Why can't people get past colour nowadays? Should history be changed because it involved white people killing black people? Would it be changed if it involved black people killing white people? The armies of Xerxes I marched across ancient Greece slaughtering thousands. Was that racist? Was the Roman conquest of Carthage (now Tunisia in Northern Africa) racist? No. These nations and people were conquered for their land and what they could bring to the Empire (Greek, Persian or Roman), not because Caesar, Marcus Aurelius, Xerxes, Darius or Alexander the bloody Great wanted to kill blacks, whites, browns, yellows or whatever.
Get over yourselves.
Friday 16 March 2007
I was just watching "I, Robot". An entertaining (if a bit by the numbers and too Hollywoody) film. But more interesting than the film itself is the issue that it raises; namely that of machine sentience.
As I type this right now there are scientists around the world working on creating real artificial intelligence; real, thinking machine brains that can respond to and interact with the world around them. At the moment of course it is limited to simply conversation and not physical interaction, but one day in the future the desire will come to combine the current robotics work that some companies are undertaking with an artificial intellignece.
While, in most cases, this doesn't raise any alarming problems (aside from the obvious doomsday theories o machines taking over - which we would be powerless to stop probably), it does raise an important theological one. If a machine were ever to become fully sentient, and was then able to use the word "I" and mean it, where then do we draw the line at what life is?
Let's say that "life" is anything that's living. If a machine is activated, has a period of functionality and is then deactivated, doesn't that make it alive? It upholds the laws we seem to have for life. So the definition of life is then that you're aware of being alive (sentient life). Firstly this rules out things like trees or cats or whatever, but also brings in the problem of machine sentience again. Should a machine ever be able to say "I" and mean it, humanity will have essentially have become Gods, as we will have created a sentient lifeform (I'm not sure you can argue the fact that it isn't organic matter will hold up).
As sentient machines continued to learn then, could they ever develop into something more? Could they dream? Could they create things that express what they feel? The more we learn in our young lives the more complex our emotions become. Indeed, as a baby we never really experience emotions, we only have basic needs. It i only once we hit toddlership and become aware of ourselves and our surroundings (about the same time that memory develops, age 1 1/2 - 2 years) that we first begin to develop emotions. Anger, jealousy, affection, passion. Like and dislikes. Wants or desires. We do this by learning in the world around us. Who is to say that a machine couldn't do this same thing if it's brain allowed it to? If it was completely sentient couldn't it then develop something like a spirit? and more importantly, if this happened, could human beings ever maintain any semblance of control over it? Deactivating such a thing would not be as simple as flipping an off switch, as this being (it could be imagined) would not want to die.
What then? Where then? What kind of world we we be living in? We would actually be sharing our planet with another conscious lifeform, because to simply switch it off would mean killing it. Wouldn't it? Destroying the thought, memories, feelings of a mind and terminating the life of the body. What defines the spirit or the soul? How would we know the difference between ours and its.
Could a machine ever dream or sing? It would be interesting to see or hear such an event. That would be, as the title of the film already stands, the Ghost in the Shell. The day that machines sing. Surely it will be the day when we must share our world.
As I type this right now there are scientists around the world working on creating real artificial intelligence; real, thinking machine brains that can respond to and interact with the world around them. At the moment of course it is limited to simply conversation and not physical interaction, but one day in the future the desire will come to combine the current robotics work that some companies are undertaking with an artificial intellignece.
While, in most cases, this doesn't raise any alarming problems (aside from the obvious doomsday theories o machines taking over - which we would be powerless to stop probably), it does raise an important theological one. If a machine were ever to become fully sentient, and was then able to use the word "I" and mean it, where then do we draw the line at what life is?
Let's say that "life" is anything that's living. If a machine is activated, has a period of functionality and is then deactivated, doesn't that make it alive? It upholds the laws we seem to have for life. So the definition of life is then that you're aware of being alive (sentient life). Firstly this rules out things like trees or cats or whatever, but also brings in the problem of machine sentience again. Should a machine ever be able to say "I" and mean it, humanity will have essentially have become Gods, as we will have created a sentient lifeform (I'm not sure you can argue the fact that it isn't organic matter will hold up).
As sentient machines continued to learn then, could they ever develop into something more? Could they dream? Could they create things that express what they feel? The more we learn in our young lives the more complex our emotions become. Indeed, as a baby we never really experience emotions, we only have basic needs. It i only once we hit toddlership and become aware of ourselves and our surroundings (about the same time that memory develops, age 1 1/2 - 2 years) that we first begin to develop emotions. Anger, jealousy, affection, passion. Like and dislikes. Wants or desires. We do this by learning in the world around us. Who is to say that a machine couldn't do this same thing if it's brain allowed it to? If it was completely sentient couldn't it then develop something like a spirit? and more importantly, if this happened, could human beings ever maintain any semblance of control over it? Deactivating such a thing would not be as simple as flipping an off switch, as this being (it could be imagined) would not want to die.
What then? Where then? What kind of world we we be living in? We would actually be sharing our planet with another conscious lifeform, because to simply switch it off would mean killing it. Wouldn't it? Destroying the thought, memories, feelings of a mind and terminating the life of the body. What defines the spirit or the soul? How would we know the difference between ours and its.
Could a machine ever dream or sing? It would be interesting to see or hear such an event. That would be, as the title of the film already stands, the Ghost in the Shell. The day that machines sing. Surely it will be the day when we must share our world.
Why I Hate Gay Culture
By A Practicing Homosexual
Let me start off by stating this: I cannot stand gay culture. I loathe, detest, abhor, vilify and am sickened by it.
I was in London this weekend, having a great time shopping and catching up with the legendary Tim O'Shea. We were walking through Soho and my blood just began to boil. Soho's totally cool I might add, my favourite place on the planet. But it just pissed me off to see so many raving gay guys acting out the worst parts of the gay stereotype, socialising with only other campy guys and fag hags, and chatting about sex, dick sizes, ABBA, Kylie or drag queens. It annoys me so much.
Let me be clear, I'm not annoyed by someone being themselves. Far from it. My problem is that "these people" seem to have their entire lives revolve only around their sexuality. They are gay. So that means they only go to gay clubs, only have gay friends, only read gay magazines, only buy camp music, only check out gay websites, only go to gay gyms etc. It's like someone going "I can only go to straight clubs and read/watch straight media and hang out with straigh people and listen to straight music etc." because they're straight. Bollocks.
The sex thing pisses me off probably more than anything. For DECADES gay men have been associated with being rampantly promiscuis when it comes to their sex lives. No long term relationships, no meaningful partnerships, just sex, sex, sex, and then tak about it non stop. "But I'm gay so I can get away with it." Why? Because it's expected of you? If it was a straight girl she'd be labelled a slut. But gay men? Oh they're just gay.
This wouldn't bother me that much apart from the fact that I then get tarred with the same brush. I was flicking through "Boyz" magazine on the way back from London, and in the starsign section under Sagitarrius it read "You've been a good gay man recently and have been having lots of sex..." What? WHAT? The fact that you fuck around loads makes you a good gay?! Another article was talking about a new sauna that has opened. Of course, it's gay only. Meaning that the movies they show are only gay pornos, and there are plenty of dark rooms so you can have random sex with random people you don't know. The writer of the article concluded "We spent a couple of good hours in there getting to know several of the cuter patrons much better!" I don't understand how you can turn yourself into such a parody of everything negative about your sexuality.
Clubs are no better. Cliquey, self absorbed bollocks prevades through most, frowning and scorning on any straight man that enters through the doors and doesn't like having his ass pinched, or openly contempting anyone who's not part of the usual group that goes there. Plenty of clubs also have their own dark rooms for - you guessed it - more sex with strangers.
I just cannot understand how people can allow themselves to have the fact that they fancy men dominate their lives. How, because they are gay, they shun every other kind of culture and interest themselves only in the gay one. I don't understand it, I can't understand it. I have few gay friends for a reason: because I can't stand to be around most gay people. They're introverted, introspective, arrogant, rude, catty and hard work. The other reason I don't have many gay friends is because I avoid the gay scene like the plague. I've been there, done it and can't stand it. Every negative stereotype about gay people is portrayed and magnified. But not through parody. For real. Out of choice.
Make no mistake, I loathe narrow minded straight people who find the sight of two men kissing or holding hands something to be openly mocked or jeered at. I hate the stereotypes that they think apply to all gay people. I hate being thought of as a "different" kind of gay person because I'm not a flaming fag. I fuck men, that's it. It has no bearing on the rest of my life at all, and I hate that just because I am gay people expect it to. And it's primarily down the people I describe above who continue to bolster such stereotypes, but then get offended when anyone other than gay people use them. If you're going to live the stereotype, expect people to use it. Otherwise, do what most other minorites have done, and move on to living in the 21st century, not a 1960s Kenneth Williams flick. Ducky.
Let me start off by stating this: I cannot stand gay culture. I loathe, detest, abhor, vilify and am sickened by it.
I was in London this weekend, having a great time shopping and catching up with the legendary Tim O'Shea. We were walking through Soho and my blood just began to boil. Soho's totally cool I might add, my favourite place on the planet. But it just pissed me off to see so many raving gay guys acting out the worst parts of the gay stereotype, socialising with only other campy guys and fag hags, and chatting about sex, dick sizes, ABBA, Kylie or drag queens. It annoys me so much.
Let me be clear, I'm not annoyed by someone being themselves. Far from it. My problem is that "these people" seem to have their entire lives revolve only around their sexuality. They are gay. So that means they only go to gay clubs, only have gay friends, only read gay magazines, only buy camp music, only check out gay websites, only go to gay gyms etc. It's like someone going "I can only go to straight clubs and read/watch straight media and hang out with straigh people and listen to straight music etc." because they're straight. Bollocks.
The sex thing pisses me off probably more than anything. For DECADES gay men have been associated with being rampantly promiscuis when it comes to their sex lives. No long term relationships, no meaningful partnerships, just sex, sex, sex, and then tak about it non stop. "But I'm gay so I can get away with it." Why? Because it's expected of you? If it was a straight girl she'd be labelled a slut. But gay men? Oh they're just gay.
This wouldn't bother me that much apart from the fact that I then get tarred with the same brush. I was flicking through "Boyz" magazine on the way back from London, and in the starsign section under Sagitarrius it read "You've been a good gay man recently and have been having lots of sex..." What? WHAT? The fact that you fuck around loads makes you a good gay?! Another article was talking about a new sauna that has opened. Of course, it's gay only. Meaning that the movies they show are only gay pornos, and there are plenty of dark rooms so you can have random sex with random people you don't know. The writer of the article concluded "We spent a couple of good hours in there getting to know several of the cuter patrons much better!" I don't understand how you can turn yourself into such a parody of everything negative about your sexuality.
Clubs are no better. Cliquey, self absorbed bollocks prevades through most, frowning and scorning on any straight man that enters through the doors and doesn't like having his ass pinched, or openly contempting anyone who's not part of the usual group that goes there. Plenty of clubs also have their own dark rooms for - you guessed it - more sex with strangers.
I just cannot understand how people can allow themselves to have the fact that they fancy men dominate their lives. How, because they are gay, they shun every other kind of culture and interest themselves only in the gay one. I don't understand it, I can't understand it. I have few gay friends for a reason: because I can't stand to be around most gay people. They're introverted, introspective, arrogant, rude, catty and hard work. The other reason I don't have many gay friends is because I avoid the gay scene like the plague. I've been there, done it and can't stand it. Every negative stereotype about gay people is portrayed and magnified. But not through parody. For real. Out of choice.
Make no mistake, I loathe narrow minded straight people who find the sight of two men kissing or holding hands something to be openly mocked or jeered at. I hate the stereotypes that they think apply to all gay people. I hate being thought of as a "different" kind of gay person because I'm not a flaming fag. I fuck men, that's it. It has no bearing on the rest of my life at all, and I hate that just because I am gay people expect it to. And it's primarily down the people I describe above who continue to bolster such stereotypes, but then get offended when anyone other than gay people use them. If you're going to live the stereotype, expect people to use it. Otherwise, do what most other minorites have done, and move on to living in the 21st century, not a 1960s Kenneth Williams flick. Ducky.
Surely...
If every young, blonde, silicon injected piece of ass that married an old, sick, rich man got her own globally covered obituary, the news media would never report anything else?
People are saying "What a shock. She was only 39. I don't know how to feel." Here's how to feel, you didn't know her, she was barely even a public figure, so who cares? You don't feel anything because there was nothing to feel. If you want to mourn someone you barely had any knowledge of, mourn dying soldiers, or the people that are reported murdered every day. Stop trying to feel moved by the death of someone who's had The 15 Minutes because you've been conditoned to and get on with your own life.
At least now we really will be able to find out if her skeleton will have two plastic bumps over the chest.
People are saying "What a shock. She was only 39. I don't know how to feel." Here's how to feel, you didn't know her, she was barely even a public figure, so who cares? You don't feel anything because there was nothing to feel. If you want to mourn someone you barely had any knowledge of, mourn dying soldiers, or the people that are reported murdered every day. Stop trying to feel moved by the death of someone who's had The 15 Minutes because you've been conditoned to and get on with your own life.
At least now we really will be able to find out if her skeleton will have two plastic bumps over the chest.
I Don't Like The Drugs... But The Drugs Like Me
Something is pissing me off. Something is getting under my skin. Something is niggling me like a stone in my shoe:
Drugs.
Drugs and their unjust portrayal in the media as murderers, home wreckers, rapists, pimps and embodiments of evil.
Let us make one thing clear; guns don't kill people, people do. If you're a an anti gun person who thinks all guns should be banned because people get killed with them, ask yourself this; if someone murdered someone with a stone, would you try and have the handling of stones outlawed? No. The stone is just that, a fucking stone. Sitting there, minding its own business, doing nothing. Just as a gun is a series of useless lumps of metal. Put in the wrong persons hands, a stone is just as deadly as a gun.
Similarly, drugs do not randomly go around killing people. When no one is taking them, they are just inanimate objects. But even when taken, they do not instantly inspire evil. Pour example,if a young girl takes heroin one time, she does not suddenly go and become a prostitute. If a man takes crack, he doesn't instantly go out and shoot someone. Just as if a person has a beer they don't instantly get behind the wheel of a car, swerve all over the road and kill someone.
We came to the acceptance quite some time ago that alcohol is only dangerous when consumed to excess. Why will people not accept the same fact about drugs? I'm not even a drug taker. I've taken drugs, yes, but prefer not to use them. I'm not addicted just because I've smoked weed/taken ecstacy/snorted cocaine/whatever once or twice. Human beings are the weak ones. It is the man that goes out, drinks 15 pints, comes home and kicks the shit out of his wife and two young children that is evil/wrong/at fault. Not the beer he drunk. (His alcoholism usually takes the blame however, and he gets a free pass. But that's another rant).
None of my friends get surly/aggressive/confrontational when they're drunk. Not one. I find it offensive that responsible people that I know who do take drugs have to put up with the stigma from others who choose not to take them and refuse to do so because they're evil or bad. If you don't want to take them, fine, but don't cast down this holier than thou attitude just because you haven't taken drugs. Same as people that don't drink.
Since the inception of human civilisation, societies have invented or discovered substances that can be smoked, drunk, snorted or injected in order to change ones perception of reality. Why do so many believe the ones that we use in this society to be so bad? It is not the drugs that are wrong and deserve to be destroyed, it is the weak minded fools that over-indulge, develop addiction and ruin lives because they are not strong enough to know when their limit is reached and the line is crossed.
Drugs aren't bad, the people that abuse them are. If you want to find a real ruiner of lives, look to alcohol. It kills more people a year than all "evil" drugs combined. "But we couldn't ban that, too many people drink it." Fine, so let those people have their indulgences, and let the people that choose to take drugs have theirs. Either everything's okay, or none of it is.
Drugs.
Drugs and their unjust portrayal in the media as murderers, home wreckers, rapists, pimps and embodiments of evil.
Let us make one thing clear; guns don't kill people, people do. If you're a an anti gun person who thinks all guns should be banned because people get killed with them, ask yourself this; if someone murdered someone with a stone, would you try and have the handling of stones outlawed? No. The stone is just that, a fucking stone. Sitting there, minding its own business, doing nothing. Just as a gun is a series of useless lumps of metal. Put in the wrong persons hands, a stone is just as deadly as a gun.
Similarly, drugs do not randomly go around killing people. When no one is taking them, they are just inanimate objects. But even when taken, they do not instantly inspire evil. Pour example,if a young girl takes heroin one time, she does not suddenly go and become a prostitute. If a man takes crack, he doesn't instantly go out and shoot someone. Just as if a person has a beer they don't instantly get behind the wheel of a car, swerve all over the road and kill someone.
We came to the acceptance quite some time ago that alcohol is only dangerous when consumed to excess. Why will people not accept the same fact about drugs? I'm not even a drug taker. I've taken drugs, yes, but prefer not to use them. I'm not addicted just because I've smoked weed/taken ecstacy/snorted cocaine/whatever once or twice. Human beings are the weak ones. It is the man that goes out, drinks 15 pints, comes home and kicks the shit out of his wife and two young children that is evil/wrong/at fault. Not the beer he drunk. (His alcoholism usually takes the blame however, and he gets a free pass. But that's another rant).
None of my friends get surly/aggressive/confrontational when they're drunk. Not one. I find it offensive that responsible people that I know who do take drugs have to put up with the stigma from others who choose not to take them and refuse to do so because they're evil or bad. If you don't want to take them, fine, but don't cast down this holier than thou attitude just because you haven't taken drugs. Same as people that don't drink.
Since the inception of human civilisation, societies have invented or discovered substances that can be smoked, drunk, snorted or injected in order to change ones perception of reality. Why do so many believe the ones that we use in this society to be so bad? It is not the drugs that are wrong and deserve to be destroyed, it is the weak minded fools that over-indulge, develop addiction and ruin lives because they are not strong enough to know when their limit is reached and the line is crossed.
Drugs aren't bad, the people that abuse them are. If you want to find a real ruiner of lives, look to alcohol. It kills more people a year than all "evil" drugs combined. "But we couldn't ban that, too many people drink it." Fine, so let those people have their indulgences, and let the people that choose to take drugs have theirs. Either everything's okay, or none of it is.
I Have A Great Idea...
Rather than actually admitting the cataclysmic failure of the war in Iraq, President GWB is just going to hurl another 21'000 troops into that sandy hell just to satisfy his ego. Even his war mongering Generals advised against it, stating to the President that the war is lost and that a quick exit is the smartest thing to do, letting the Iraqi government sort the problems that the "Coalition" caused.
But no, Georgy Porgy hasn't gotten his way yet. He refuses to accept defeat. He refuses to accept that most of his own people (along with the rest of the world) want American troops out of Iraq.
Going into Iraq was the biggest mistake of this millenium. Giving "democracy" (aka a puppet Government controlled by the American military) was like giving a 6 year old a gun full of bullets and sending him off to play army. It's an area of the world that has never had democracy, has never wanted democracy and has never needed democracy. But because we're Western and "civilised" what works for us MUST work for them. Whether they like it or not.
Now, whether everyone else in the entire world (particularly the American people and military) agrees or disagrees, Georgy Porgy is going to continue this damn war until he gets his way. And the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will mindlessly back him up. You will support the pursuit of freedom for countries that don't have it. You will support the continuation of a war you never wanted. You will let thousands of young lives be sacrificed in vain. Whether you like it or not.
But no, Georgy Porgy hasn't gotten his way yet. He refuses to accept defeat. He refuses to accept that most of his own people (along with the rest of the world) want American troops out of Iraq.
Going into Iraq was the biggest mistake of this millenium. Giving "democracy" (aka a puppet Government controlled by the American military) was like giving a 6 year old a gun full of bullets and sending him off to play army. It's an area of the world that has never had democracy, has never wanted democracy and has never needed democracy. But because we're Western and "civilised" what works for us MUST work for them. Whether they like it or not.
Now, whether everyone else in the entire world (particularly the American people and military) agrees or disagrees, Georgy Porgy is going to continue this damn war until he gets his way. And the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will mindlessly back him up. You will support the pursuit of freedom for countries that don't have it. You will support the continuation of a war you never wanted. You will let thousands of young lives be sacrificed in vain. Whether you like it or not.
Paedomania
So I see parents are protesting outside the house of a convicted paedophile. Many of the mainstream media are jumping up and down saying how right it is for them to be doing this, how it's wrong that the man should be put within a galaxy's distance of children, and how wrong it is for him to be placed near a school playground. So lynch the "pervert" (as one paper actually called him). Set him on fire! Burn him! Treat him like a 13th century witch!Morons.
FACT: Paedophelic desires are not things that are chosen. If someone is attracted to young people (as many older men are), its' not frowned upon. I don't remember anyone complaining when the world was moistening its loins over freshly 16 year old Brittney Spears back in 1996. Why is it ok to do that but not be attracted to a 15 year old? Oh, because she's a year older. It's fine. Bollocks.
I have sympathy for paedophiles. These people do not choose to have the desires they have, just as someone doesn't choose to have a fetish about feet, horses, rubber, panty pissing, clothing, sex in open places or anything else. It's not chosen, it's something you just have. It's a fetish. I feel sympathy for people who are unfortunately struck with that particular desire. I have no sympathy however, for those who act upon these urges. It's wrong, wrong, wrong. I condone anything , unless one of the parties involved is unconsenting. In the case of a minor, many times they do not understand the implications (and that applies to 16 year olds) of what they're doing.
But I also hold no sympathy for the morons and bigots that jump up and down like a crazed mob baying for blood. Why is is okay for newspapers to release the image of a paedophile without their consent, but cannot do the same for an illegal immigrant? Why does no one frown on that? It is no ones business as to who they are apart from the people who live in the same area (ala the sex offenders register).
Desires can be surpressed, urges denied, but they can never be eradicated altogether. For that reason alone people living in the area with a sex offender deserve to be made aware. They do not however, have the right to then act on this information and take the law into their own hands, regardless of the crime. So what, a paedophile is living in an area with children around? There are fucking children everywhere! I agree that it was an idiotic mistake to house him near a playground, but that's life. It's wrong to just assume that because someone has been convicted of child molestation (or worse) that he'll be running after every little boy or girl he sees trying to get into their Barbie or Action Man printed underwear. One woman was quoted as saying "I spoke to him everyday about gardening, he seemed so nice and normal." And he doesn't now just because you've found out something from his past??? The man may have found a way to surpress his desires so they do not interfere and ruin his life and the lives of others. Do the Christian values that this country is built on (as we so endlessly hear at the moment) of forgiveness not apply here? Or is it ok to only forgive some crimes and not others?
This country is so hypocritical and blinded by media manipulation that it sickens me. People have no interest in building their own opinions based on knowledge, learning and thinking and would rather take on the mob mentality of the moment and make claim it as their own.
Either everythings okay, or it's not. Forgiveness for crimes that are repented or don't. The "Christian Morals" of a nation cannot pick and choose as they like.
FACT: Paedophelic desires are not things that are chosen. If someone is attracted to young people (as many older men are), its' not frowned upon. I don't remember anyone complaining when the world was moistening its loins over freshly 16 year old Brittney Spears back in 1996. Why is it ok to do that but not be attracted to a 15 year old? Oh, because she's a year older. It's fine. Bollocks.
I have sympathy for paedophiles. These people do not choose to have the desires they have, just as someone doesn't choose to have a fetish about feet, horses, rubber, panty pissing, clothing, sex in open places or anything else. It's not chosen, it's something you just have. It's a fetish. I feel sympathy for people who are unfortunately struck with that particular desire. I have no sympathy however, for those who act upon these urges. It's wrong, wrong, wrong. I condone anything , unless one of the parties involved is unconsenting. In the case of a minor, many times they do not understand the implications (and that applies to 16 year olds) of what they're doing.
But I also hold no sympathy for the morons and bigots that jump up and down like a crazed mob baying for blood. Why is is okay for newspapers to release the image of a paedophile without their consent, but cannot do the same for an illegal immigrant? Why does no one frown on that? It is no ones business as to who they are apart from the people who live in the same area (ala the sex offenders register).
Desires can be surpressed, urges denied, but they can never be eradicated altogether. For that reason alone people living in the area with a sex offender deserve to be made aware. They do not however, have the right to then act on this information and take the law into their own hands, regardless of the crime. So what, a paedophile is living in an area with children around? There are fucking children everywhere! I agree that it was an idiotic mistake to house him near a playground, but that's life. It's wrong to just assume that because someone has been convicted of child molestation (or worse) that he'll be running after every little boy or girl he sees trying to get into their Barbie or Action Man printed underwear. One woman was quoted as saying "I spoke to him everyday about gardening, he seemed so nice and normal." And he doesn't now just because you've found out something from his past??? The man may have found a way to surpress his desires so they do not interfere and ruin his life and the lives of others. Do the Christian values that this country is built on (as we so endlessly hear at the moment) of forgiveness not apply here? Or is it ok to only forgive some crimes and not others?
This country is so hypocritical and blinded by media manipulation that it sickens me. People have no interest in building their own opinions based on knowledge, learning and thinking and would rather take on the mob mentality of the moment and make claim it as their own.
Either everythings okay, or it's not. Forgiveness for crimes that are repented or don't. The "Christian Morals" of a nation cannot pick and choose as they like.
America, America, God Spread His Dumb On Thee
It occurred to me recently that the richest nation on the planet is also the one populated with highest percentage of ignorant people. Surely this shouldn't be right. In the glory days of the British Empire, the French Empire, the Greek, the Roman, the Persian, the Mongol, the German the populations of the sovereign nations were cultured, civilised and intelligent. Of course they bowed to the propoganda of the state, every population does, but they still remianed open and appreciative of the ways of the rest of the world and moved with the times.
How then can the mass of the population of the United States be such morons? Outside of the east and west coasts (and even then it's really only key cities), the majority of the country are beyond baqckwards in the way they think about the world. They still can't understand why coalition forces still haven't captured The Great Satan Osama. Nevermind the fact that they're looking for one guy in a country the size of Texas that's also riddled with a monstrous cave network. They still can't get their head round the idea that the United Kingodom is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island and each is a (semi) independent country. Three quarters of the population doesn't have a passport and has never left the country. Nearly a third of them still believe that the world is only 7000 years old and was created by God, that Heaven and Hell exists, that gayness is an abomination (they don't realise that any ugly couple is an abomination) and that evolution is a lie that basically says that you're a monkey. (They don't know the differance between apes and monkeys).
I just can't understand how a country so rich can be so blind. So foolish. Still clinging onto blind, mindless patriotism (the virtue of the viscous according to Oscar Wilde), and as naive about the way other countries work as a two year old is about the workings of a thermonuclear reactor. Where capitalism has boomed and paved way for a (generally) superb standard of living (unless you're an inner city black - ands that's not a joke it's true), how can it leave people so totally ignorant to the ways of 21st century living?
I don't understand it and suppose I never will. I'm not that dumb.
How then can the mass of the population of the United States be such morons? Outside of the east and west coasts (and even then it's really only key cities), the majority of the country are beyond baqckwards in the way they think about the world. They still can't understand why coalition forces still haven't captured The Great Satan Osama. Nevermind the fact that they're looking for one guy in a country the size of Texas that's also riddled with a monstrous cave network. They still can't get their head round the idea that the United Kingodom is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island and each is a (semi) independent country. Three quarters of the population doesn't have a passport and has never left the country. Nearly a third of them still believe that the world is only 7000 years old and was created by God, that Heaven and Hell exists, that gayness is an abomination (they don't realise that any ugly couple is an abomination) and that evolution is a lie that basically says that you're a monkey. (They don't know the differance between apes and monkeys).
I just can't understand how a country so rich can be so blind. So foolish. Still clinging onto blind, mindless patriotism (the virtue of the viscous according to Oscar Wilde), and as naive about the way other countries work as a two year old is about the workings of a thermonuclear reactor. Where capitalism has boomed and paved way for a (generally) superb standard of living (unless you're an inner city black - ands that's not a joke it's true), how can it leave people so totally ignorant to the ways of 21st century living?
I don't understand it and suppose I never will. I'm not that dumb.
Blame Culture & The Sin Of Gluttony
When are people gonna get off their ass and do some Goddamn parenting?? I saw some skinny, heroin junky looking woman feeding her BABY some freaking KFC. A baby. KFC. That sucks. A baby needs decent food, not greasy fried chicken (that's for the rest of us porkers).
And guess what? When that hideous little ball of fat grows up and is an obese kid his moronic mother will blame The Colonel (the KFC Colonel for those wondering), for making her kid fat. Never mind that she has been feeding the chubby little porker fried chicken since before he could walk.
Take a good, hard, long look in the mirror. Don't "Blame Canada" as South Park sang, blame yourselves. You feed the children. You have the money and you choose what they eat. Stop feeding babies greasy fried food and start feeding them GODDAMN BABY FOOD! Or that little ball of baby fat will turn into a big fat ball of child fat. Ugly, greasy and unhealthy. Jamie Oliver can piss off and stick his carrot sticks up his ass. Children don't need sappy school dinners, if they want a chocolate pudding let them have it, but they don't have to have it everyday because people are too feeble and spineless to say no to a child.
I'm going to go and eat an entire Sarah Lee Chocolate Gateaux, and then raid Thorntons. And you know what? If I get fat, I'm not going to blame someone else, I'm not going to whine about it, I'm going to go down the gym and WORK IT OFF!
And guess what? When that hideous little ball of fat grows up and is an obese kid his moronic mother will blame The Colonel (the KFC Colonel for those wondering), for making her kid fat. Never mind that she has been feeding the chubby little porker fried chicken since before he could walk.
Take a good, hard, long look in the mirror. Don't "Blame Canada" as South Park sang, blame yourselves. You feed the children. You have the money and you choose what they eat. Stop feeding babies greasy fried food and start feeding them GODDAMN BABY FOOD! Or that little ball of baby fat will turn into a big fat ball of child fat. Ugly, greasy and unhealthy. Jamie Oliver can piss off and stick his carrot sticks up his ass. Children don't need sappy school dinners, if they want a chocolate pudding let them have it, but they don't have to have it everyday because people are too feeble and spineless to say no to a child.
I'm going to go and eat an entire Sarah Lee Chocolate Gateaux, and then raid Thorntons. And you know what? If I get fat, I'm not going to blame someone else, I'm not going to whine about it, I'm going to go down the gym and WORK IT OFF!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
