7 Things Meme
SEVEN THINGS THAT SCARE YOU
01) Things/People touching my wrists. Really. I have a wrist phobia. Just try it. I'll scream the house down.
02) The dark. Honest - I still haven't gotten over the childhood fear that someone is in my room, watching me sleep.
03) Spiders. Far too many legs, far too many eyes and omg what the hell is that creepy-ass walk about? ARGH.
04) Hieghts. Every time I get somewhere high, I pretty much want to fall off, or jump, or have images of myself slipping going through my head. I'm not sure whether I fear the actual hieght, or the things that go through my head when I'm up there.
05) Dogs. I was bitten by an alsation/german shepherd when I was young, I still have the scar. Dogs freak me out.
06) Flying. I hate planes. Those things should not fly. I understand the physics, but really, does physics really know what's going on there? I wait for the day physics realises what's going on and decides that several tonnes of flying metal is wrong and drops it.
07) Boats. I also hate boating. Mostly because I have this irrational fear that every boat I'm on is going to sink and I'll be eaten by something that comes up out of the depths and is all tentacles and scales and yukkiness. Also - I don't swim well.
SEVEN IMPORTANT THINGS IN YOUR ROOM
(I'm taking this to mean my office, because really, my bedroom has a bed in it and that's about it)
01) My PC!
02) My bookshelves - full of books. Many many many books. From all sorts of subjects (from physcis to fantasy to religion to manga)
03) My business folder. It's got all my paperwork in it, and my meeting times and my business cards and so on.
04) My sketchbook - the rest of my art stuff is downstairs in my art-corner.
05) My mug of tea. Can't think without my cuppa.
06) My pile of comics. Good reading AND inspiration.
07) My personal CD player. MY PC doesn't have sound, so I have to plug myself in to whatever CD I can find. At the moment it's Greenday - American Idiot.
SEVEN RANDOM FACTS ABOUT YOU
01) I have very blue eyes. Mom wanted me to have green eyes, like dad, but I've blue - and I rather like them ^^
02) I actually need reading-glasses/art-glasses - but I put them down somewhere a couple of months ago and can't find them oo; So that's why I keep getting headaches when I spend too long at the computer or drawing or reading XD (I'm mildly long sighted and have a bit of a lazy focus, it takes a moment for my eyes to adjust when I change from looking at something far away to something close.)
03) I love to play Sudoku. Really. I have half a dozen books of the puzzles all around the house, ready for me to pick up and play anytime. I average about ten minutes per game.
04) I collect thimbles. Yeah. Little ceramic ones with pictures on them. Every time I go anywhere new, I look in the tack shops trying to find comemorative thimbles. I even made a friend buy me one from Spain when he went there on holiday. My favorite one is a tiny weeny little silver one my Nanna got for me, it's got a little message written around the base 'Naughty Girl' XD
05) I'm a fussy eater. Not in that I'll only eat certain foods, but in that I eat my meals fussily. I seperate my meats from my veg, and the different veg from each other. I cut all the meat up into little bits and then have a little scoop of everything all together for each moutfull. Apparently my Grandad used to love watching me do this when I was little.
06) I have a mild form of OCD (as if you couldn't tell from the previous answer...) which, as well as coming out in the way I eat, also makes me wash my hands religiously, clean surfaces religiously and eat everything in twos. I also line things up a lot. Anything put on the coffee table has to be JUST SO, or I get twitchy. It also comes out in my artwork, I'm very anal about neatness in my work. It's why you very rarely see any 'free sketching' or messy stuff in my galleries.
07) I'm related to Gary Barlow of 'Take That' fame XD we're distant cousins twice removed. Or something. Either way, he's the grandson of one of my Nanna's brothers.
SEVEN THINGS YOU WISH TO DO BEFORE YOU DIE
01) Finish writing and publish 'The Empress of Nareku' trilogy.
02) Visit Japan.
03) Re-learn Japanese - I took it in college and was doing really fucking well before I had to quit. So I intend to take it again in the near future. I've been keeping up my hiragana writing - so much so that my japanese friend Natsuki told me my handwriting was better than hers XD
04) Visit each and every one of my online friends XD
05) Have children. Plural. Lots of. I have names picked out already. (Can you tell my clock is ticking?)
06) Work on an X-Men comic for Marvel Comics.
07) Ride in a hot air balloon.
SEVEN THINGS YOU CAN DO
01) Speak along to every single part in the BBC adaptation of 'Pride And Prejudice' - the Jenifer Elhe, Colin Firth version. Really. I annoy anyone watching it with me, because they see me speaking under my breath to each and every character. It's sad. Sometimes I'll say the line just before the actor/actress does, and then get hit in the face with a pillow XD
02) Whistle oo;
03) I know all the words to almost every Christmas song in existence. Even 'All I Want For Christmas' by fuckingMariahfuckingCarey (did I mention I hate that woman?) I have discovered this over the past couple of weeks, because I've had the music chanels on almost religiously and found myself singing along to EVERY Christmas track they put on.
04) Make sushi from scratch! Natsuki taught me how to do it the other night and she told me I do it better than her, and she's been doing it since she was little ^^ I also use chop-sticks as naturally as a well practiced Japanese person apparently.
05) Cook. Though I can't be bothered too most of the time.
06) Crack almost every joint in my body. Though this isn't really something to be proud of, because it just means I'm going to get the arthritis that runs in the family.
07) Read the tarot cards. I don't believe it really works, but I know how to read the things anyway. I have my own really pretty deck.
SEVEN THINGS YOU CAN'T DO
01) Play chess. I would like to learn.
02) Run. Unless I have too XD and who the hell in this world needs to run anyway? (Ok, fine, I can run, I just don't LIKE running - have you ever tried running with E-Cup boobs? I mean.. ouch x.x it's why I prefer to swim or cycle to get in my exercise)
03) Believe that 'World Of Warcraft' is an interesting game. My other half has recently become addicted. Sometimes I'll sit and watch him play, and really.. why? Maybe it's just because I prefer games like 'Tomb Raider' and 'Prince of Persia', but WoW? Really doesn't interest me.
04) Dance. I can dance the old dances, those are easy, I know what to do with my feet and everything. But I simply CANNOT dance to the new stuff. I cannot go into a club/party and just join in. I have no rhythm and two left feet. (Funnily enough, if you get me tipsy and pull me into a gay club, I can dance fine, so long as the music has a VERY high RPM XD I just pull out the glowsticks and go mad) if I'm ever forced to go to ordinary clubs with people, I tend to find myself sitting watching everyone else dance. I suppose I'm the natural designated driver of the group.
05) Except I can't drive. Legaly. Illegaly, I can drive a car, no problem. I just haven't taken the tests yet.
06) French-plait. Or ordinary plait. I can plait other peoples hair, but whenever I do my own hair, it ends up looking like a rats-nest.
07) Draw old people. There's something to practice.
SEVEN THINGS YOU SAY THE MOST
01) Bollocks! (My favorite swear word)
02) Bloody Hell! (Something that just pops out when I get frustrated)
03) Weird. (a fairly common response to anything someone has said that confuses me)
04) Bin there! (normally while pointing at the TV)
05) Argh!
06) Stupid creatures! (At the cats, whenever they've done something particularly retarded)
07) MEH.
SEVEN CELEBRITY CRUSHES
01) Johnny Depp (YUM - who doesn't?)
02) Sandra Bullock (I love her upturned nose!)
03) Allan Rickman (I've liked him for EVER, well before he became Snape)
04) Drew Barrymore (Nice curves and a lovely smile)
05) Allan Davies (don't ask - he's the curly haired one in QI or Jonothan Creek)
06) Dylan Moran (cranky Irish comedian)
07) Selma Hayek (yum - totally yum - hips, boobs, belly, eyes, love her - especially in Dogma)
I do believe I have a thing for the scruffy blokes.
END.
I tag Mom and Sean oo and whomever else wants to give it a go.
I think I'll lay off the memes for a while now though ^^
Friday, 21 December 2007
Monday, 17 December 2007
Seven Interesting Things meme
I got tagged to do the Seven Interesting Things meme by Sean. Sooo I'll try to think of some things ^^
1: I have a Wrist Phobia. Honestly. I can't stand to have my own wrists touched - not even by myself. I can't stand to see other people touching their own wrists. If someone else touches my wrist I tend to squeal and cringe away. The other day I was researching hand wounds to get some picture-references and accidentally clicked on a link that took me to a wrist wound - I had to leave the room to recover. Imagine how bad it is when I go to the doctor and they need to check my pulse.
2: I love the human body. In all shapes, sizes and colours. I love to draw it and paint it - I would love to learn how to sculpt it.
3: I was born five weeks early. I came out yellow and spent (what was it? a month, two?) under a light with my bum in the air. Apparently I was so small my dad could hold me with one hand. I ain't that small no more.
4: I have met all the current band members of KMFDM. Sascha Konietzko really is a very nice bloke. Now I just have to meet the band members of Ramstien and Oomf to die happy XD
5: I was born in Germany, but I can't speak a word of German. Instead, I took Japanese at college and intend to do so again when I can afford it. In fact, I love languages so much I also want to retrain myself in French and give German a go. I was actually the best in my Japanese class and still write the Hiragana and Katakana scripts when I get the chance.
6: I was filmed for the TV program Casualty when I was eleven or twelve, however, they cut my scene. I was also interviewed for the Paul O'Grady Show last year, but they cut that section of the show!
7: I appear to have a following in the Anime Fan community - specifically the Naruto fan community. It's quite flattering to get so much attention - and of course, I love the inspiration they give me! I'm now working with a fellow fan on a Doujinshi Project!
There you go, seven interesting (?) things about me, for you ^^
Because I don't too many people here on the Blogsphere yet, I tag anyone who wants to do it ^^
1: I have a Wrist Phobia. Honestly. I can't stand to have my own wrists touched - not even by myself. I can't stand to see other people touching their own wrists. If someone else touches my wrist I tend to squeal and cringe away. The other day I was researching hand wounds to get some picture-references and accidentally clicked on a link that took me to a wrist wound - I had to leave the room to recover. Imagine how bad it is when I go to the doctor and they need to check my pulse.
2: I love the human body. In all shapes, sizes and colours. I love to draw it and paint it - I would love to learn how to sculpt it.
3: I was born five weeks early. I came out yellow and spent (what was it? a month, two?) under a light with my bum in the air. Apparently I was so small my dad could hold me with one hand. I ain't that small no more.
4: I have met all the current band members of KMFDM. Sascha Konietzko really is a very nice bloke. Now I just have to meet the band members of Ramstien and Oomf to die happy XD
5: I was born in Germany, but I can't speak a word of German. Instead, I took Japanese at college and intend to do so again when I can afford it. In fact, I love languages so much I also want to retrain myself in French and give German a go. I was actually the best in my Japanese class and still write the Hiragana and Katakana scripts when I get the chance.
6: I was filmed for the TV program Casualty when I was eleven or twelve, however, they cut my scene. I was also interviewed for the Paul O'Grady Show last year, but they cut that section of the show!
7: I appear to have a following in the Anime Fan community - specifically the Naruto fan community. It's quite flattering to get so much attention - and of course, I love the inspiration they give me! I'm now working with a fellow fan on a Doujinshi Project!
There you go, seven interesting (?) things about me, for you ^^
Because I don't too many people here on the Blogsphere yet, I tag anyone who wants to do it ^^
Sunday, 16 December 2007
The Christmas Meme
I stole this off Faith In Honest Doubt 's Blog.
1. Wrapping paper or gift bags?
>> Wrapping paper - I love getting annoyed at the stuff - I always end up with sellotape everywhere and a present so badly wrapped you'd never guess what it is.
2. Real tree or Artificial?
>> Artificial - I'd like to have a real tree, they smell better - but we can't afford them atm.
3. When do you put up the tree?
>> As soon as December turns up. Or when Matt gives in to my nagging.
4. When do you take the tree down?
>> A week or two into January. Or when Matt starts complaining that David Bowie hasn't visited us yet.
5. Do you like egg nog?
>> I've heard of it, but refuse to even contemplate trying it. It sounds disgusting.
6. Favorite gift received as a child?
>> I'm pretty sure it was my TV when I was.. fifteen? Sixteen?
7. Do you have a nativity scene?
>> No. No thankyou. And I hate those stupid little scenes with MAry and Jospeh being played by children, with fluffy animals and bright clothes. Ugh.
8. Hardest person to buy for?
>> My Dad, strangely o0 I never quite know what to get for him.
9. Easiest person to buy for?
>> Matt ^^
10. Mail or email Christmas cards?
>> MAIL oo I've written thirty out this year, some of them I even included images.
11. Worst Christmas gift you ever received?
>> Hrm. A Noddy kalidescope from my Uncle David - it wasn't exactly horrible, but I think he'd forgotten how old I was, I think I was about thirteen at this point!
12. Favorite Christmas movie?
>> Father Christmas The Movie oo Despite Dudley Moore >_>
13. When do you start shopping for Christmas?
>> Sometime in early November usually ^^
14. Have you ever recycled a Christmas present?
>> Not as far as I remember - though I did recieve a recycled present once. The person who gave it to me, forgot to take out the note from the first giver ^^
15. Favorite thing to eat at Christmas?
>> The Christmas meal! All that lovely meat and veg and gravy. And then Dad's bubble'n'squeak the next day!
16. Clear lights or colored on the tree?
>> Clear - coloured ones always look tacky to me. Unless they're a uniform colour.
17. Favorite Christmas song?
>> A toss up between 'Fairy tale of New York' and 'Stop The Cavalry' XD I like the depressing ones best. (Every time I hear that DAMNED 'All I Want For Christmas' by Mariah - I seriously want to kill something - preferably Mariah herself.)
18. Travel at Christmas or stay home?
>> Home oo much prefer to stay at home - either at my own, or the parents.
19. Can you name all of Santa's reindeers?
>> Ugh. Um. Dasher and Dancer..Comit and Cupid.. Prancer and Vixen... eh - Roudolph? XD
20. Angel on the tree top or a star?
>> Either or - It depends on my mood. If it's a really pretty angle, I'll use her, if I like the star more, I'll use that.
21. Open the presents Christmas Eve or morning?
>> Christmas Morning! After getting dressed and fed of course ^^
22. Most annoying thing about this time of year?
>> The Bah-Humbuggers! oo
23. Favorite ornament theme or color?
>> Purples, Silvers and Blues. Though I'm also partial to Mum's Red and Gold themes.
24. Favorite for Christmas dinner?
>> Chicken/Turkey roast, with roast veggies and a Ham or Beef to go with it.
25. What do you want for Christmas this year?
>> I'm sure there's a whole list of things, but it mostly boils down to interesting books, fun DVDs and lots and lots and lots of Art Equipment.
26. What was the one Christmas gift you wanted as a child but never received?
>> Um. I honestly don't know. I don't think there was anything o0
27. Who are you tagging?
>> Anyone who reads this and feels like giving it a go ^^
1. Wrapping paper or gift bags?
>> Wrapping paper - I love getting annoyed at the stuff - I always end up with sellotape everywhere and a present so badly wrapped you'd never guess what it is.
2. Real tree or Artificial?
>> Artificial - I'd like to have a real tree, they smell better - but we can't afford them atm.
3. When do you put up the tree?
>> As soon as December turns up. Or when Matt gives in to my nagging.
4. When do you take the tree down?
>> A week or two into January. Or when Matt starts complaining that David Bowie hasn't visited us yet.
5. Do you like egg nog?
>> I've heard of it, but refuse to even contemplate trying it. It sounds disgusting.
6. Favorite gift received as a child?
>> I'm pretty sure it was my TV when I was.. fifteen? Sixteen?
7. Do you have a nativity scene?
>> No. No thankyou. And I hate those stupid little scenes with MAry and Jospeh being played by children, with fluffy animals and bright clothes. Ugh.
8. Hardest person to buy for?
>> My Dad, strangely o0 I never quite know what to get for him.
9. Easiest person to buy for?
>> Matt ^^
10. Mail or email Christmas cards?
>> MAIL oo I've written thirty out this year, some of them I even included images.
11. Worst Christmas gift you ever received?
>> Hrm. A Noddy kalidescope from my Uncle David - it wasn't exactly horrible, but I think he'd forgotten how old I was, I think I was about thirteen at this point!
12. Favorite Christmas movie?
>> Father Christmas The Movie oo Despite Dudley Moore >_>
13. When do you start shopping for Christmas?
>> Sometime in early November usually ^^
14. Have you ever recycled a Christmas present?
>> Not as far as I remember - though I did recieve a recycled present once. The person who gave it to me, forgot to take out the note from the first giver ^^
15. Favorite thing to eat at Christmas?
>> The Christmas meal! All that lovely meat and veg and gravy. And then Dad's bubble'n'squeak the next day!
16. Clear lights or colored on the tree?
>> Clear - coloured ones always look tacky to me. Unless they're a uniform colour.
17. Favorite Christmas song?
>> A toss up between 'Fairy tale of New York' and 'Stop The Cavalry' XD I like the depressing ones best. (Every time I hear that DAMNED 'All I Want For Christmas' by Mariah - I seriously want to kill something - preferably Mariah herself.)
18. Travel at Christmas or stay home?
>> Home oo much prefer to stay at home - either at my own, or the parents.
19. Can you name all of Santa's reindeers?
>> Ugh. Um. Dasher and Dancer..Comit and Cupid.. Prancer and Vixen... eh - Roudolph? XD
20. Angel on the tree top or a star?
>> Either or - It depends on my mood. If it's a really pretty angle, I'll use her, if I like the star more, I'll use that.
21. Open the presents Christmas Eve or morning?
>> Christmas Morning! After getting dressed and fed of course ^^
22. Most annoying thing about this time of year?
>> The Bah-Humbuggers! oo
23. Favorite ornament theme or color?
>> Purples, Silvers and Blues. Though I'm also partial to Mum's Red and Gold themes.
24. Favorite for Christmas dinner?
>> Chicken/Turkey roast, with roast veggies and a Ham or Beef to go with it.
25. What do you want for Christmas this year?
>> I'm sure there's a whole list of things, but it mostly boils down to interesting books, fun DVDs and lots and lots and lots of Art Equipment.
26. What was the one Christmas gift you wanted as a child but never received?
>> Um. I honestly don't know. I don't think there was anything o0
27. Who are you tagging?
>> Anyone who reads this and feels like giving it a go ^^
Fur Trade discussion
I was reading through some friends journals and this one caught my interest. So I responded - one reply to my comment was cool and I could respond quite happily. The other was a bit trollish for my liking, but I responded anyway. I shall put all up for you to peruse.
Original Journal Post:
hrmph niether viedo worked for me and I don't have sound on my computer anyway, so bah.
Generally, wearing fur doesn't bother me in the slightest. Maybe people will hate me for saying it, but then, that also doesn't bother me.
I am an animal lover, I have pets and have always had pets. I don't like to see animals tortured or mistreated. The cat I have atm is in fact a rescue - she was on the streets and we took her in.
But the simple fact of the matter is, humans have always used and will always use fur. It's a fact of life. Perhaps the treatment of animals raised for fur needs revising, but it shouldn't be stopped just because some people don't like the idea of it.
In the wider sense, getting rid of the fur trade is impractical - how many jobs would be lost? How many more hungry people would there be? And how many of these animals would simply be culled and not used in any way?
I worry far more about human abuses than animal abuses, because to me, an animal is an animal, whether it has a personality or not. If I saw a half starved animal next to a half starved person, I'd rescue the person. It's really that simple to me.
And I hate PETA.
Original Poster's Response and my reply:
Her: You'd think differently if you could see the videos, especially since you have pets. I do think that people depend on animals for food and such, and that's all well and good, the use of an animal's hide that is killed to be eaten is understandable and probably a good thing. As for people always wearing fur, the end may be closer than you think. The fur market is dying a horrid death because people are actually being educated about what happens on those fur farms and their sales are plummeting drastically. Getting rid of the fur trade is getting closer to becoming a reality because people are being granted the best weapon of all, that is education.
I sometimes have less sympathy for people, because often times people put themselves in bad situations then don't do anything to help themselves get out. I think most people people are capable of taking care of themselves, with a few exceptions like crippled or orphans, but so many animals suffer directly as a result of humans carelessness and cruelty, and it's not their fault and they didn't do anything to put them selfs in our path, but we are a cruel, selfish breed but they're the ones who suffer for it, And I don't just mean furs in this scenario, because deforestation, poaching, and pollution have impacted them and pushed so many to the brink. We're only killing ourselves by harming the environment.
Me: I've seen plenty such videos and watched plenty of documentaries on the subject, but I still feel the same way. If there is a viable way to end it, then I'm all for it - but until then, I don't care enough about the subject to get more than mildly alarmed.
If the fur trade is slowly falling out of favor and business, then I suppose it will one day vanish alltogether. But again, it doesn't bother me. So long as I still have my leather and suade (ostensibly taken from the skins of dairy and beef cattle, as well as deer) then I shan't mind too much.
As for people, I agree, in a lot of cases, people should work thier own way out of thier problems (for instance, I don't give money to non-UK charities, because I favor the plight of my own countrymen over that of people who choose to live in inhospitable areas, or to countries run by governments that basically refuse to do anything to help themselves.)
If I have money to spare, it goes to children's charities or dometic abuse, aids/cancer research and so on - animal charities are always on the bottom of my list.
I agree that as a race, Humanity has a lot to answer for - particularly in the 'abuse of habitat' respect (I think it has been proven that since the rise of humanity, more animal species have become extinct, than at any other time previous to our existence). But again, this is something that is being dealt with - if slowly.
And again, while the loss of hundreds of animal species a year is not a nice concept, it is sill secondary in my mind to the preservation of my own species.
Second persons response and my replies:
Her: That's a very cruel way of thinking.
Me: Perhaps, but it's also practical and realistic, rather than fanciful and idealistic
Her: Well, if you think, we humans are animals ourselves, and we are the worst of all. you clearly didn't watch the video, ans neither did I, but I suppose it's similar to those one in YouTube (go ans type in: Skins) and it really disgusted me. If you watch that and don't feel anything, you don't have any emotions at all.
Because of people like you, world is the way it is. Sorry to say it that way.
Me: Yes, we are indeed animals. Our genetic cousins are the Great Apes - as I'm sure you know. We are closest genetically to the Chimpanzee's, and closest in societal arrangement to the Bonobo's (we can see such similarities as murder, sexual proclivity and xenophobia in the Bonobo.)
We may be considered by some to be 'the worst' - but most who claim this argument forget their research. Humans may destroy habitats, murder and commit genocide - but animals are often guilty of the same things, though on a lesser scale.
Chimpanzee 'tribes' are known to go to war with other 'tribes', cats kill for pleasure, as do crocodiles; lions and babboons are two examples of mammals that commit infanticide on a frequent basis, bottle-nose dolphins are widely known to kill for fun - often killing infant dolphins or beating popoises to death, killer wales have been recorded following/hunting blue wale females with their young, tiring them out then killing, but not eating them; and of course, spiders - some female spiders eat the males (though in this case it can be argued that they are restoring their strength after copulation.) The list could go on.
I did say in my first post that I could not watch the videos - something to do with my OS and not having sound enabled anyway. But I did watch a couple of similar videos on youtube, and I have seen many previously, as well as watching many a documentary on the subject.
I find that most videos put out by PETA are biased and/or staged - so I tend to steer clear of them anyway.
I take offense at being told 'If you watch that and don't feel anything, you don't have any emotions at all.' This could be construed as an attack, but I shall overlook it. I take far more offense at being told 'Because of people like you, world is the way it is.'
As I say, I have seen various videos pertaining to animal abuses, yes they are oftentimes shocking, yes they sometimes show distressing images, but you must keep in mind that they do not show the entire fur-trade, only isolated incidents, often shown out of context or exagerated.
And I still feel the same way. I still feel far more for human victims. I would still rescue a human over an animal, in any and all circumstances. If choosing to save a human victim of abuse or attrocity, over an animal victim, makes me 'emotionless' or 'the reason the world is the way it is' (would you clarify exactly what you mean by this?) - then fine, I am willing to accept that.
If you would like to continue this discussion, out of respect for the fact that this is someone elses journal - please PM me with your response.
---
It's an interesting discussion, and I'm sure my views are probably not well liked by most - but the second poster kind of annoyed me with her sweeping generalisation and personal attack. I hope both posters get back to me, I enjoy such discussions.
And if anyone else wants to contribute - go ahead.
H
Edit for more responses:
New poster: You make it sound like as if there aren't billions of people on the world, and we're just as fragile as the "animals" you seem to care so less about in comparison to humans. The only danger our species faces is itself. To quote Spider-man (Yes, that's where it comes from.): With great power comes great responsibility. We have power over everything except natural extremes, and as such, we should control our actions and avoid harming others, including things that may not necessarily be human.
Me: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your first sentence.
I already agreed that Humans are very destructive, that we are killing off more animal species now than ever - but I also agreed that things are being done about it. All to the good.
If you're talking about global warming and such, well, I take that with a pinch of salt. Certainly we aren't helping the planet any with our constant use of fossil fuels and deforestation. But we aren't doing nearly as much damage as 'they' like us to believe. We are already learning how to make new fuels and the industries that 'deforest' are also already being made to replant. Things are being done in every sector to make up for the damage already caused - mainly by people in the past who didn't yet understand what they were doing.
Certainly 'with great power comes great responsibility' (yes, funnily enough, I've been a fan of Spiderman for more years than the films have been around) and certainly we hold a lot of power in the palms of our hands. But you have to look at it from both sides. I never said we shouldn't help animals, and I never said we should deliberately harm them.
All I was saying was that animals register fairly low on my list of important things to look after - they are still on the list, you may note. Humans first, animals second. That certainly doesn't mean I'd deliberately allow an animal to come to harm or death. It just means that given the choice, I'd save the human.
When it comes to controlling our actions so as not to harm others '[i]including things that may not necessarily be human[/i]' - I think I already agreed to that as well. If not, I will do so now. Humans are capable of great destruction, this is a given, and we are powerful enough to notice what we are doing and change it. As has been said, this is already being done.
But this still doesn't change the fact that animals come second. There are far too many human atrocities going on in the world at the moment; wars, droughts, intolerance, abuse, murder and so on - that we need to sort out first. Until the human atrocities are sorted, animal atrocities will neccessarily take second place. If we can't sort out our internal problems, how are we going to band together enough to sort out our external ones?
When it comes to the fur industry - if we stop it, right this second, just what exactly are we going to do with all those animals?
We can't release them anywhere, because their sheer numbers would harm the eco-system (case in point, animal activists released mink kept for fur and those mink ravaged the countryside they were released into - it took years for the eco-system to return to normal, and only after most of the mink were hunted and killed.)
We can't keep them, because who has the time, space and money to look after that many animals for as long as their natural life-span? The creatures would have to be culled - and then what? If we're not using the skins for fur - what are they going to do with the bodies? Perhaps grinding them down and selling them as food for other animals may work. But even then, the pelts would simply be thrown away/burned - contributing somewhat to the 'global warming' everyone is so worried about.
As well as that - what about all the jobs closing the industry like that would lose? Hundreds upon thousands of people would suddenly be jobless. And most of them in areas and countries where a job means life. Creating more problems for humans.
I may be percieved as being fairly calous in my views, but whatever way you look at it, there are going to be problems.
Original Journal Post:
Animal Furs
I'm not usually one for peta, because a lot of the stuff peta says and does contradict themselves, and overall the woman who runs peta seems like a moron, however, after seeing this video I was slightly shocked. I wanted to show some people so they could, in turn, show more people, because even if I don't like peta, I also abhor people who wear fur. Whether that be mink, fox, rabbit, or whatever... but take a look at these links if you have the stomach for it, and show anyone you know who wears furs. It's absolutely unacceptable in my eyes. I don't see how anyone can think it's morally acceptable.
www.petatv.com/tvpopup····rent_fur
www.petatv.com/tvpopup····skins062
My Response:
www.petatv.com/tvpopup····rent_fur
www.petatv.com/tvpopup····skins062
My Response:
hrmph niether viedo worked for me and I don't have sound on my computer anyway, so bah.
Generally, wearing fur doesn't bother me in the slightest. Maybe people will hate me for saying it, but then, that also doesn't bother me.
I am an animal lover, I have pets and have always had pets. I don't like to see animals tortured or mistreated. The cat I have atm is in fact a rescue - she was on the streets and we took her in.
But the simple fact of the matter is, humans have always used and will always use fur. It's a fact of life. Perhaps the treatment of animals raised for fur needs revising, but it shouldn't be stopped just because some people don't like the idea of it.
In the wider sense, getting rid of the fur trade is impractical - how many jobs would be lost? How many more hungry people would there be? And how many of these animals would simply be culled and not used in any way?
I worry far more about human abuses than animal abuses, because to me, an animal is an animal, whether it has a personality or not. If I saw a half starved animal next to a half starved person, I'd rescue the person. It's really that simple to me.
And I hate PETA.
Original Poster's Response and my reply:
Her: You'd think differently if you could see the videos, especially since you have pets. I do think that people depend on animals for food and such, and that's all well and good, the use of an animal's hide that is killed to be eaten is understandable and probably a good thing. As for people always wearing fur, the end may be closer than you think. The fur market is dying a horrid death because people are actually being educated about what happens on those fur farms and their sales are plummeting drastically. Getting rid of the fur trade is getting closer to becoming a reality because people are being granted the best weapon of all, that is education.
I sometimes have less sympathy for people, because often times people put themselves in bad situations then don't do anything to help themselves get out. I think most people people are capable of taking care of themselves, with a few exceptions like crippled or orphans, but so many animals suffer directly as a result of humans carelessness and cruelty, and it's not their fault and they didn't do anything to put them selfs in our path, but we are a cruel, selfish breed but they're the ones who suffer for it, And I don't just mean furs in this scenario, because deforestation, poaching, and pollution have impacted them and pushed so many to the brink. We're only killing ourselves by harming the environment.
Me: I've seen plenty such videos and watched plenty of documentaries on the subject, but I still feel the same way. If there is a viable way to end it, then I'm all for it - but until then, I don't care enough about the subject to get more than mildly alarmed.
If the fur trade is slowly falling out of favor and business, then I suppose it will one day vanish alltogether. But again, it doesn't bother me. So long as I still have my leather and suade (ostensibly taken from the skins of dairy and beef cattle, as well as deer) then I shan't mind too much.
As for people, I agree, in a lot of cases, people should work thier own way out of thier problems (for instance, I don't give money to non-UK charities, because I favor the plight of my own countrymen over that of people who choose to live in inhospitable areas, or to countries run by governments that basically refuse to do anything to help themselves.)
If I have money to spare, it goes to children's charities or dometic abuse, aids/cancer research and so on - animal charities are always on the bottom of my list.
I agree that as a race, Humanity has a lot to answer for - particularly in the 'abuse of habitat' respect (I think it has been proven that since the rise of humanity, more animal species have become extinct, than at any other time previous to our existence). But again, this is something that is being dealt with - if slowly.
And again, while the loss of hundreds of animal species a year is not a nice concept, it is sill secondary in my mind to the preservation of my own species.
Second persons response and my replies:
Her: That's a very cruel way of thinking.
Me: Perhaps, but it's also practical and realistic, rather than fanciful and idealistic
Her: Well, if you think, we humans are animals ourselves, and we are the worst of all. you clearly didn't watch the video, ans neither did I, but I suppose it's similar to those one in YouTube (go ans type in: Skins) and it really disgusted me. If you watch that and don't feel anything, you don't have any emotions at all.
Because of people like you, world is the way it is. Sorry to say it that way.
Me: Yes, we are indeed animals. Our genetic cousins are the Great Apes - as I'm sure you know. We are closest genetically to the Chimpanzee's, and closest in societal arrangement to the Bonobo's (we can see such similarities as murder, sexual proclivity and xenophobia in the Bonobo.)
We may be considered by some to be 'the worst' - but most who claim this argument forget their research. Humans may destroy habitats, murder and commit genocide - but animals are often guilty of the same things, though on a lesser scale.
Chimpanzee 'tribes' are known to go to war with other 'tribes', cats kill for pleasure, as do crocodiles; lions and babboons are two examples of mammals that commit infanticide on a frequent basis, bottle-nose dolphins are widely known to kill for fun - often killing infant dolphins or beating popoises to death, killer wales have been recorded following/hunting blue wale females with their young, tiring them out then killing, but not eating them; and of course, spiders - some female spiders eat the males (though in this case it can be argued that they are restoring their strength after copulation.) The list could go on.
I did say in my first post that I could not watch the videos - something to do with my OS and not having sound enabled anyway. But I did watch a couple of similar videos on youtube, and I have seen many previously, as well as watching many a documentary on the subject.
I find that most videos put out by PETA are biased and/or staged - so I tend to steer clear of them anyway.
I take offense at being told 'If you watch that and don't feel anything, you don't have any emotions at all.' This could be construed as an attack, but I shall overlook it. I take far more offense at being told 'Because of people like you, world is the way it is.'
As I say, I have seen various videos pertaining to animal abuses, yes they are oftentimes shocking, yes they sometimes show distressing images, but you must keep in mind that they do not show the entire fur-trade, only isolated incidents, often shown out of context or exagerated.
And I still feel the same way. I still feel far more for human victims. I would still rescue a human over an animal, in any and all circumstances. If choosing to save a human victim of abuse or attrocity, over an animal victim, makes me 'emotionless' or 'the reason the world is the way it is' (would you clarify exactly what you mean by this?) - then fine, I am willing to accept that.
If you would like to continue this discussion, out of respect for the fact that this is someone elses journal - please PM me with your response.
---
It's an interesting discussion, and I'm sure my views are probably not well liked by most - but the second poster kind of annoyed me with her sweeping generalisation and personal attack. I hope both posters get back to me, I enjoy such discussions.
And if anyone else wants to contribute - go ahead.
H
Edit for more responses:
New poster: You make it sound like as if there aren't billions of people on the world, and we're just as fragile as the "animals" you seem to care so less about in comparison to humans. The only danger our species faces is itself. To quote Spider-man (Yes, that's where it comes from.): With great power comes great responsibility. We have power over everything except natural extremes, and as such, we should control our actions and avoid harming others, including things that may not necessarily be human.
Me: I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your first sentence.
I already agreed that Humans are very destructive, that we are killing off more animal species now than ever - but I also agreed that things are being done about it. All to the good.
If you're talking about global warming and such, well, I take that with a pinch of salt. Certainly we aren't helping the planet any with our constant use of fossil fuels and deforestation. But we aren't doing nearly as much damage as 'they' like us to believe. We are already learning how to make new fuels and the industries that 'deforest' are also already being made to replant. Things are being done in every sector to make up for the damage already caused - mainly by people in the past who didn't yet understand what they were doing.
Certainly 'with great power comes great responsibility' (yes, funnily enough, I've been a fan of Spiderman for more years than the films have been around) and certainly we hold a lot of power in the palms of our hands. But you have to look at it from both sides. I never said we shouldn't help animals, and I never said we should deliberately harm them.
All I was saying was that animals register fairly low on my list of important things to look after - they are still on the list, you may note. Humans first, animals second. That certainly doesn't mean I'd deliberately allow an animal to come to harm or death. It just means that given the choice, I'd save the human.
When it comes to controlling our actions so as not to harm others '[i]including things that may not necessarily be human[/i]' - I think I already agreed to that as well. If not, I will do so now. Humans are capable of great destruction, this is a given, and we are powerful enough to notice what we are doing and change it. As has been said, this is already being done.
But this still doesn't change the fact that animals come second. There are far too many human atrocities going on in the world at the moment; wars, droughts, intolerance, abuse, murder and so on - that we need to sort out first. Until the human atrocities are sorted, animal atrocities will neccessarily take second place. If we can't sort out our internal problems, how are we going to band together enough to sort out our external ones?
When it comes to the fur industry - if we stop it, right this second, just what exactly are we going to do with all those animals?
We can't release them anywhere, because their sheer numbers would harm the eco-system (case in point, animal activists released mink kept for fur and those mink ravaged the countryside they were released into - it took years for the eco-system to return to normal, and only after most of the mink were hunted and killed.)
We can't keep them, because who has the time, space and money to look after that many animals for as long as their natural life-span? The creatures would have to be culled - and then what? If we're not using the skins for fur - what are they going to do with the bodies? Perhaps grinding them down and selling them as food for other animals may work. But even then, the pelts would simply be thrown away/burned - contributing somewhat to the 'global warming' everyone is so worried about.
As well as that - what about all the jobs closing the industry like that would lose? Hundreds upon thousands of people would suddenly be jobless. And most of them in areas and countries where a job means life. Creating more problems for humans.
I may be percieved as being fairly calous in my views, but whatever way you look at it, there are going to be problems.
Saturday, 15 December 2007
EPIC COLD OF DOOM
I've gone and caught the Epic Cold Of Doom off've the other half.
This has left me wondering about the evolutionary cycle of the damn cold virus. (As well as floods of tissues, an epically blocked nose and a sore throat that just wont stop complaining at me.)
Not wondering in any real sense, mind, just generally, headachingly induced sort of mulling-it-over-ness.
I mean, didn't I hear somewhere that in a general sense, a virus is alive? Not completely and not in the sense that a bacteria is, but in some way, sort of? I mean, it certainly adapts to things. Didn't I also hear somewhere that it is now thought that viruses were what came before bacteria.. or something.. in the primordial gloop?
I dunno. My head isn't working particularly well right now.
And isn't it just my damn luck to get a Cold Of Doom right before Christmas?
Bah.
This has left me wondering about the evolutionary cycle of the damn cold virus. (As well as floods of tissues, an epically blocked nose and a sore throat that just wont stop complaining at me.)
Not wondering in any real sense, mind, just generally, headachingly induced sort of mulling-it-over-ness.
I mean, didn't I hear somewhere that in a general sense, a virus is alive? Not completely and not in the sense that a bacteria is, but in some way, sort of? I mean, it certainly adapts to things. Didn't I also hear somewhere that it is now thought that viruses were what came before bacteria.. or something.. in the primordial gloop?
I dunno. My head isn't working particularly well right now.
And isn't it just my damn luck to get a Cold Of Doom right before Christmas?
Bah.
Saturday, 8 December 2007
If there REALLY was a God...
... My BLOODY pencil lead wouldn't be broken at every BLOODY five millimetere length.
*sharpens her pencil summore* Oh look! Broken again!
Just exactly, HOW am I supposed to work when my BLOODY pencil keeps breaking?
This journal brought to you by the girl who hasn't slept for nearly 24 hours.
*sharpens her pencil summore* Oh look! Broken again!
Just exactly, HOW am I supposed to work when my BLOODY pencil keeps breaking?
This journal brought to you by the girl who hasn't slept for nearly 24 hours.
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Why DO Athiest's celebrate Christmas?
I was chatting with a friend the other day, she lives in Utah, has three kids and is very Atheist (she's the one who wrote that rant about Golden Compass I posted a few days back) and she mentioned something that gave me pause.
'I love that all my Atheist friends celebrate Christmas!'
Like I said, it gave me pause. She mentioned it because I was being ditsy and telling her about the cards I'd written (about thirty now), my decoration plans, the Christmas presents I was painting (yes, painting, I AM an artist after all), my tacky-Christmas earring collection (of which a pair I am currently wearing) and my Christmas tinkly-bell hair-tie (which I am also currently wearing).
It left me wondering. Why exactly DO Atheists like myself celebrate Christmas?
Yes, there's the usual 'I grew up with it and don't want my own kids to miss out' or 'It was a winter celebration long before the Christians ever took over' or even 'It's just so much fun!'
(Personally, I adhere to that last one.)
But I'd like to know WHY. It's just a day like any other, the only difference being that it has a three day holiday over it (unless it falls on a weekend) in the UK and the USA. None of the other various religious days in December have this, ostensibly because the West is predominantly Christian (in it's varying forms).
I mean - it wasn't until the 1840's that we even started sending Christmas cards! And it was 'A Christmas Carol' that turned the holiday into something about family and similar, rather than just the religious and commercial overtones. Apparently, Christmas even fell out of favour in the USA for a number of years after the US Revolution, because it was seen as a purely 'English' celebration (it was only declared a proper Holiday, by President Grant, in 1870!)
Again, the standard Santa Claus/Father Christmas/Saint Nicholas /Kris Kringle/Whatever name you give him, was only settled on in the 1920's, after years of different designs (and no, Coca-Cola did not invent the Red Santa - but it is true that the design became widespread after advertisers picked up on the image.)
The Christmas Tree itself is reported to have started out it's life in Germany and was imported over to the UK (and about the same time in the USA) in the 1700's. The first time the name 'Christmas Tree' is recorded is in 1835.
I remember being told, as a child, that the silver tinsel used to decorate the tree is to commemorate the fact that Jesus hid from some soldiers in a cave once and spiders spun webs over the entrance to help hide him - the webbing then glinted and glistened in the moonlight - giving rise to the tinsel. (Honestly? I think this is a load of bull.)
It's basically just a bunch of new and old traditions, smooshed together and planted on a day that no-one even knows for sure really had anything to do with any religion. (Apart from the Roman one - Sol Invictus, a festival held on December 25th)
The Winter Solstice happens on the 21st, Saturnalia was the 17th and Yule (or Jul as it is known in Scandinavia) happens for twelve days over late December (guess where the Twelve Days Of Christmas comes from?)
I mean - if we're Atheist, none of this should matter in the slightest to any of us. It really is just a random date in the year. Why do we, the non-religious, the sceptics, the free-thinkers, celebrate a day so wrapped up in various traditions, customs and controversies that hold no meaning for us?
I can't really get my head around it!
I suppose all I can do, until someone enlightens me on this subject, is sit back, tinkle my hair-bells, wrap presents, write cards and sing along to my Christmas Albums. Because, despite everything, I still find the season far too much fun to give up.
H
'I love that all my Atheist friends celebrate Christmas!'
Like I said, it gave me pause. She mentioned it because I was being ditsy and telling her about the cards I'd written (about thirty now), my decoration plans, the Christmas presents I was painting (yes, painting, I AM an artist after all), my tacky-Christmas earring collection (of which a pair I am currently wearing) and my Christmas tinkly-bell hair-tie (which I am also currently wearing).
It left me wondering. Why exactly DO Atheists like myself celebrate Christmas?
Yes, there's the usual 'I grew up with it and don't want my own kids to miss out' or 'It was a winter celebration long before the Christians ever took over' or even 'It's just so much fun!'
(Personally, I adhere to that last one.)
But I'd like to know WHY. It's just a day like any other, the only difference being that it has a three day holiday over it (unless it falls on a weekend) in the UK and the USA. None of the other various religious days in December have this, ostensibly because the West is predominantly Christian (in it's varying forms).
I mean - it wasn't until the 1840's that we even started sending Christmas cards! And it was 'A Christmas Carol' that turned the holiday into something about family and similar, rather than just the religious and commercial overtones. Apparently, Christmas even fell out of favour in the USA for a number of years after the US Revolution, because it was seen as a purely 'English' celebration (it was only declared a proper Holiday, by President Grant, in 1870!)
Again, the standard Santa Claus/Father Christmas/Saint Nicholas /Kris Kringle/Whatever name you give him, was only settled on in the 1920's, after years of different designs (and no, Coca-Cola did not invent the Red Santa - but it is true that the design became widespread after advertisers picked up on the image.)
The Christmas Tree itself is reported to have started out it's life in Germany and was imported over to the UK (and about the same time in the USA) in the 1700's. The first time the name 'Christmas Tree' is recorded is in 1835.
I remember being told, as a child, that the silver tinsel used to decorate the tree is to commemorate the fact that Jesus hid from some soldiers in a cave once and spiders spun webs over the entrance to help hide him - the webbing then glinted and glistened in the moonlight - giving rise to the tinsel. (Honestly? I think this is a load of bull.)
It's basically just a bunch of new and old traditions, smooshed together and planted on a day that no-one even knows for sure really had anything to do with any religion. (Apart from the Roman one - Sol Invictus, a festival held on December 25th)
The Winter Solstice happens on the 21st, Saturnalia was the 17th and Yule (or Jul as it is known in Scandinavia) happens for twelve days over late December (guess where the Twelve Days Of Christmas comes from?)
I mean - if we're Atheist, none of this should matter in the slightest to any of us. It really is just a random date in the year. Why do we, the non-religious, the sceptics, the free-thinkers, celebrate a day so wrapped up in various traditions, customs and controversies that hold no meaning for us?
I can't really get my head around it!
I suppose all I can do, until someone enlightens me on this subject, is sit back, tinkle my hair-bells, wrap presents, write cards and sing along to my Christmas Albums. Because, despite everything, I still find the season far too much fun to give up.
H
Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Nothing to do with Anything
But I just had to do the whole song and dance.
I've lost 9lbs!!!
I just got back from WieghtWatchers, where I was told I'd lost another 4lbs, which totals up to a 9lbs weight loss! I even have a shiny sticker to prove it!
*dances the joyful dance of lost wieght*
Yes, I really AM that sad.
I've lost 9lbs!!!
I just got back from WieghtWatchers, where I was told I'd lost another 4lbs, which totals up to a 9lbs weight loss! I even have a shiny sticker to prove it!
*dances the joyful dance of lost wieght*
Yes, I really AM that sad.
Monday, 3 December 2007
Teddy Named Mohammad - concluded
Gillian Gibson, 54, arrested on charges relating to 'insulting Islam' by allowing her class to name a teddy-bear 'Mohammad' - HAS BEEN RELEASED AFTER A PARDON FROM THE PRESIDENT OF SUDAN.
She was convicted three days ago, and sentenced to fifteen days in prison, reduced to ten for having already spent five in custody.
But late last night, early this morning, after intervention from two British Muslims, who went to Sudan on her behalf, to talk to the President, he agreed to Pardon her.
She is now expected back in the UK within days, maybe hours.
Apparently she is in good health and is reported to have said 'she holds every respect for the Islamic religion'.
Now, while I am happy that this has happened, I am still bloody pissed off that they allowed it to go as far as it did - she shouldn't NEED to be Pardonned. She didn't do anything wrong.
BUT at least she's coming home safe!
She was convicted three days ago, and sentenced to fifteen days in prison, reduced to ten for having already spent five in custody.
But late last night, early this morning, after intervention from two British Muslims, who went to Sudan on her behalf, to talk to the President, he agreed to Pardon her.
She is now expected back in the UK within days, maybe hours.
Apparently she is in good health and is reported to have said 'she holds every respect for the Islamic religion'.
Now, while I am happy that this has happened, I am still bloody pissed off that they allowed it to go as far as it did - she shouldn't NEED to be Pardonned. She didn't do anything wrong.
BUT at least she's coming home safe!
Sunday, 2 December 2007
The Golden Compass
This is a rant I've copied over from a friends journal:
Sorry. Edit here. And I'm not sorry for cussing here. Yes I am aware of things like people wanting to boycott the movie because the author is an atheist, and because they think it's 'anti god'.
I just want to point out that actions like that *disgust* me. I can't get over how people now days can actually be so idiotic and bigoted as to persecute someone *for their religious beliefs* because they're not the same as 'yours' (yours meaning the boycotters). Yes, persecute. Get over yourselves people. It was a VERY well written book, and it's an entertaining movie. And having seen it, I know for a fact my kids aren't gonna ask me existential questions based on the flick. They might ask me how a polar bear's jaw can fly off with one blow, but not if there's a god.
And don't tell me this boycott is because he's saying anti god stuff in the movie. FUCK YOU, you lot didn't see it. You lot are planning your boycots because you THINK he says antigod stuff that'll brainwash the kids. *I* saw it, thank you very much, and *I* saw a really facinating concept presented in entertaining fashion. That means you're doing it because you don't like *the writer's personal beliefs* and you think that assaulting his work, his art, and his JOB is the way to be a good little christian.
I'm all for not going to a movie because you don't want to see it. Good on you. The mormons out here generally don't go to R rated movies because they don't feel comfortable with it. But you don't organize an entire boycott because the writer is ATHEIST.
Now Don't get me wrong and think I'm saying they don't have the right to do this. Kay? I KNOW freedom of speech. I KNOW they have the right to organize a boycott and as a very valued friend said 'stand by their convictions'. But you know what, these are the same fuckers who do shit like put advertisements on regular tv about 'remember the reason for the season' with a little christ figure. Or other VERY christian advertisements that I can't fucking boycott because it's ON PUBLIC TV. I flick a channel and I get some 'hey, don't forget god loves you so come to church' message before I can even turn it OFF. You want to get rid of an atheist's flick because it's 'brainwashing' your kids? Fuck you. Take your propaganda commercials off of the fucking television where *my kids* can see it, and then we'll talk.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Pretty much sums up my own feelings on the boycotting of Golden Compass
Sorry. Edit here. And I'm not sorry for cussing here. Yes I am aware of things like people wanting to boycott the movie because the author is an atheist, and because they think it's 'anti god'.
I just want to point out that actions like that *disgust* me. I can't get over how people now days can actually be so idiotic and bigoted as to persecute someone *for their religious beliefs* because they're not the same as 'yours' (yours meaning the boycotters). Yes, persecute. Get over yourselves people. It was a VERY well written book, and it's an entertaining movie. And having seen it, I know for a fact my kids aren't gonna ask me existential questions based on the flick. They might ask me how a polar bear's jaw can fly off with one blow, but not if there's a god.
And don't tell me this boycott is because he's saying anti god stuff in the movie. FUCK YOU, you lot didn't see it. You lot are planning your boycots because you THINK he says antigod stuff that'll brainwash the kids. *I* saw it, thank you very much, and *I* saw a really facinating concept presented in entertaining fashion. That means you're doing it because you don't like *the writer's personal beliefs* and you think that assaulting his work, his art, and his JOB is the way to be a good little christian.
I'm all for not going to a movie because you don't want to see it. Good on you. The mormons out here generally don't go to R rated movies because they don't feel comfortable with it. But you don't organize an entire boycott because the writer is ATHEIST.
Now Don't get me wrong and think I'm saying they don't have the right to do this. Kay? I KNOW freedom of speech. I KNOW they have the right to organize a boycott and as a very valued friend said 'stand by their convictions'. But you know what, these are the same fuckers who do shit like put advertisements on regular tv about 'remember the reason for the season' with a little christ figure. Or other VERY christian advertisements that I can't fucking boycott because it's ON PUBLIC TV. I flick a channel and I get some 'hey, don't forget god loves you so come to church' message before I can even turn it OFF. You want to get rid of an atheist's flick because it's 'brainwashing' your kids? Fuck you. Take your propaganda commercials off of the fucking television where *my kids* can see it, and then we'll talk.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Pretty much sums up my own feelings on the boycotting of Golden Compass
Friday, 30 November 2007
What movie scene...? Possummomma's Meme
My Mom tagged me with Possummomma's 'Which movie scene do you think of when talking of religion?' meme.
So here's my movie scene:
Loki talking to a Catholic Nun, using the Carpenter and Walrus story from ALice In Wonderland to de-convert her. Absolutely brilliant.
I tag whomever wants to do it :)
So here's my movie scene:
Loki talking to a Catholic Nun, using the Carpenter and Walrus story from ALice In Wonderland to de-convert her. Absolutely brilliant.
I tag whomever wants to do it :)
An ongoing conversation - continued
Her:
I don't mind, but you have to watch taking passages from religious texts and using them as an excuse to explain the behavior or misogynistic cultures. Like it or not, every organized 'thing' has discriminated against women at one time or another [some countries didn't allow them to vote; shit, my country still 'grousing' over reproductive rights!] and religious is often misused by patriarchal cultures. [BTW - you'll find the same sort of passages in the Christian bible, about the secondary status of women and how women and children will come between 'man' and G*d] -it's down to how the culture interprets these passages that says a great deal.
I tend to get knee-jerky when you start quoting incidents of 'cultural' violence, and blame the religion as the reason. The Islamic religion is vast and diverse, just like Christianity [Catholics do no espouse the same rules as Protestants, and yet--it's all Christianity, isn't it?] And on Western Christianity, well, it can be just as stupid--some sects don't allow women to wear 'trousers or make up', they say working outside the home is unsound, and worst of all...keep having children even though you can't afford it. And this isn't obscure Christianity, this is modern Christianity. At the heart of it all, a flawed culture is just that, a flawed culture--ask yourself, if Islam disappeared tomorrow, do you still think there would be violence against women in those very same cultures? Of course there would. Turkish Muslims are nothing like Iranian Muslims, anymore than Mormons are anything like Episcopalians...one thing they all have in common is, there culture is the blue print for how their religion operates--
Like it or not, man existed before G*d [no matter what the man-made bible says] and women were subjugated culturally before there was an conceived Allah or Christ. :/
Me:
All of which I basically agree with - I grew up in Germany and the various countries of the UK, so I know all about the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) I can find similar quotes in all three 'holy' books.
But what you are missing is that these are the same religions as in the East, exactly the same, yet in this day and age, the West have abolished such barbaric practices and the East appears to revel in them. Despite the growing education of the world, the growing diversity, there are still those who prefer to live in the past and justify their actions using precisely the quoted passages.
You're also making the mistake of asuming that religion is shaped by culture. It's far more complex than that, it goes both ways - religion is shaped by culture, but culture is also shaped religion.
Back in the pre-modern era, it was indeed mostly a culture shaping religion toss, but now it's flipped and religion is shaping culture, so much so that what may have started off as nice and simple rules for keeping your people in place and happy, have turned into laws that are unconsionable in more advanced cultures.
It's the main reason the West strives so hard to keep fundamentalists watched and (metaphorically) beaten down - Muslim as well as Christian fundamentalists all want the world we live in now to go back to the days described in their 'holy' books.
Far more recently the Muslims have gone at it again, this time in Sudan, this time with absolutely no way anyone can say it's not because of their religion:
A teddy bear named Mohammad.
Different country, same schtick.
The problem is that the West is secular, with a distinct seperation of Politics and Religion - while the East has no such distinction. (Though unfortunately I have noticed that the US is beginning to blur the lines.) Precisely because Muslim countries lack this distinction, they still have barbaric laws that allow raped women to be punished for the grvious wrong of 'being with a strange man' and teachers to be punished for allowing children to name teddy bears 'Muhammad' (despite the fact that there is actually no provable evidence that it was the PROPHET Mohammed and not just a simple name).
If there wasn't this much needed distinction, those laws would never have been formed and they would not exist today. I find it shameful that the East, once so far more advanced than the West, is now living once again in the Dark Ages, so scared of what will happen to their religion in the future, that they are reacting in such barbaric ways to even the imagined threat.
So yes, I am incredibly wary of any and all religions, because when you get right down to the crux of the issue, our world has no place for them, certainly not in the fundamentalist versions - even the moderates aren't helping matters, because they pave the way for the fundies to step in and be heard.
I don't mind, but you have to watch taking passages from religious texts and using them as an excuse to explain the behavior or misogynistic cultures. Like it or not, every organized 'thing' has discriminated against women at one time or another [some countries didn't allow them to vote; shit, my country still 'grousing' over reproductive rights!] and religious is often misused by patriarchal cultures. [BTW - you'll find the same sort of passages in the Christian bible, about the secondary status of women and how women and children will come between 'man' and G*d] -it's down to how the culture interprets these passages that says a great deal.
I tend to get knee-jerky when you start quoting incidents of 'cultural' violence, and blame the religion as the reason. The Islamic religion is vast and diverse, just like Christianity [Catholics do no espouse the same rules as Protestants, and yet--it's all Christianity, isn't it?] And on Western Christianity, well, it can be just as stupid--some sects don't allow women to wear 'trousers or make up', they say working outside the home is unsound, and worst of all...keep having children even though you can't afford it. And this isn't obscure Christianity, this is modern Christianity. At the heart of it all, a flawed culture is just that, a flawed culture--ask yourself, if Islam disappeared tomorrow, do you still think there would be violence against women in those very same cultures? Of course there would. Turkish Muslims are nothing like Iranian Muslims, anymore than Mormons are anything like Episcopalians...one thing they all have in common is, there culture is the blue print for how their religion operates--
Like it or not, man existed before G*d [no matter what the man-made bible says] and women were subjugated culturally before there was an conceived Allah or Christ. :/
Me:
All of which I basically agree with - I grew up in Germany and the various countries of the UK, so I know all about the three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity) I can find similar quotes in all three 'holy' books.
But what you are missing is that these are the same religions as in the East, exactly the same, yet in this day and age, the West have abolished such barbaric practices and the East appears to revel in them. Despite the growing education of the world, the growing diversity, there are still those who prefer to live in the past and justify their actions using precisely the quoted passages.
You're also making the mistake of asuming that religion is shaped by culture. It's far more complex than that, it goes both ways - religion is shaped by culture, but culture is also shaped religion.
Back in the pre-modern era, it was indeed mostly a culture shaping religion toss, but now it's flipped and religion is shaping culture, so much so that what may have started off as nice and simple rules for keeping your people in place and happy, have turned into laws that are unconsionable in more advanced cultures.
It's the main reason the West strives so hard to keep fundamentalists watched and (metaphorically) beaten down - Muslim as well as Christian fundamentalists all want the world we live in now to go back to the days described in their 'holy' books.
Far more recently the Muslims have gone at it again, this time in Sudan, this time with absolutely no way anyone can say it's not because of their religion:
A teddy bear named Mohammad.
Different country, same schtick.
The problem is that the West is secular, with a distinct seperation of Politics and Religion - while the East has no such distinction. (Though unfortunately I have noticed that the US is beginning to blur the lines.) Precisely because Muslim countries lack this distinction, they still have barbaric laws that allow raped women to be punished for the grvious wrong of 'being with a strange man' and teachers to be punished for allowing children to name teddy bears 'Muhammad' (despite the fact that there is actually no provable evidence that it was the PROPHET Mohammed and not just a simple name).
If there wasn't this much needed distinction, those laws would never have been formed and they would not exist today. I find it shameful that the East, once so far more advanced than the West, is now living once again in the Dark Ages, so scared of what will happen to their religion in the future, that they are reacting in such barbaric ways to even the imagined threat.
So yes, I am incredibly wary of any and all religions, because when you get right down to the crux of the issue, our world has no place for them, certainly not in the fundamentalist versions - even the moderates aren't helping matters, because they pave the way for the fundies to step in and be heard.
Gillian Gibbons, 54
Is anyone else as sickened and angered as I am by the treatment of this teacher?
A teddy bear named Mohammad.
I mean, WTH? She wasn't even the one to name the damn thing, her SEVEN YEAR OLD STUDENTS did. She's been arrested, imprisoned for fourteen days and is then going to be deported back to the UK, all because some parent got a stick up their arse about the name of a fucking teddy bear.
And it gets worse - now she's being threatened with six months and forty lashes!
I mean, JESUS, what the hell are they going to do next? Whip the kids? It was THEM who named the bloody toy.
Just another reason to hate the Theist Majority countries.
A teddy bear named Mohammad.
I mean, WTH? She wasn't even the one to name the damn thing, her SEVEN YEAR OLD STUDENTS did. She's been arrested, imprisoned for fourteen days and is then going to be deported back to the UK, all because some parent got a stick up their arse about the name of a fucking teddy bear.
And it gets worse - now she's being threatened with six months and forty lashes!
I mean, JESUS, what the hell are they going to do next? Whip the kids? It was THEM who named the bloody toy.
Just another reason to hate the Theist Majority countries.
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
Random funnies
Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net
Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net
Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net
Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net
I have now been awake for 26 hours!
*dies of insomnia related illnesses*
Monday, 26 November 2007
An ongoing conversation...
Me: Regarding internets: Yes. I know what you mean. However, I have been amusing myself with many an athiest blog, pointing out the stupidity of various religious nuts. If you are at all interested, I can send you some links ^^
Her: Organized religions, and those who oppose them, scare me as much as anti-shota fans. I've never understood why, if you don't believe in G*d, would you care if anyone else does?
0__0
Me: ugh i could give you an essay to answer that one o0
The long and the short of it is that however much good religion has ever done, it's currently doing far too much bad.
Here's a link to iilustrate some athiest points: why athiests are angry
I mean, at this precise moment in time, there is a young woman in Saudi Arabia facing 200 lashes and six months in prison, for 'being in a strange mans car' - let alone the fact that she was gang-raped 14 times by 7 men IN THAT CAR - all because the predominant religion of their society says women can't be alone with a man unless she's married to or related to him.
Because of said religion, women in that country aren't even second-class citizens, they are thought of as property - which is why the ruling of 200 lashes and 6 months in prison for something she couldn't help, however much she screamed, has been allowed, even endorsed and praised.
*blink* sorry - ranting slightly - but when it comes to the mistreatment of women, combined with idiot religionistas, I just can't contain it.
Her: I think you're confusing the Islamic religion, with Saudi culture? First, you need to separate the religion from the cultural norms and style of the society.
According to Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood,
The Koran is addressed to all Muslims, and for the most part it does not differentiate between male and female. Man and woman, it says, "were created of a single soul," and are moral equals in the sight of God. Women have the right to divorce, to inherit property, to conduct business and to have access to knowledge.
For example, female circumsion is required in certain parts of Africa and Egypt--but it's considered barbaric and criminal by most Muslims. Forced marriages are the norm in some Indian and Pakistani cultures--but this practiced is shunned by Muslim women from other cultures.
You have to be careful when you paint organized religion as the bad guy---it's only as bad as the nitwits who distort it to match their culture preferences. Look at Christianity---before the Romans were converted, there was no monstrosity known as Catholcism. See what I mean?
Me: The problem with culture and religion, in most of the middle-eastern countries, is that they are so intertwined as to be indistiguishable from one another. Yes, there are a fair few moderates who try to paint a prettier picture, but the majority are more inclined to fundamentalism, and they actually Believe in every word of their holy book.
Whether people like to admit it or not, religion has a much harder impact on society than people assume. Without passages like the following, there would be no '200 lashes for being in a strange mans car'.
2:282 “…and call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women…”
A woman is worth half that of a man
4:34 “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”
Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Women must obey men, and if they refuse they must be punished. Refuse to have sex with them and beat them into submission.
4:176 “…unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females…”
I think that one is rather self evident.
64:14 “O ye who believe! Lo! among your wives and your children there are enemies for you, therefor beware of them…”
Your wives and children are your enemies. They are to you only a temptation.
These ideas permeated the very thoughts of all the believers, and when drawing up laws, these of course are where inspiration were found. The same goes for laws in the UK and USA (however much non-thiests hate to admit) luckily, the prevalent religion in the West is Christianity (in it's various forms) which, though still far from espousing equality for both genders, at least didn't inspire such stupid segregation laws.
However, I do agree that it is rarely the religion itself, but the people who profess to follow it. Which is where the problem lies, for the most part. But you have to keep in mind, that if there weren't such passages in the holy books, the people who follow them, would have a much harder time justifying their actions to themselves or the world at large.
(Argh - I don't want to swamp your jurnal - if you'd like to continue the discussion, just PM me)
I'll keep you posted on how it goes, if she decided to keep the conversation going.
Her: Organized religions, and those who oppose them, scare me as much as anti-shota fans. I've never understood why, if you don't believe in G*d, would you care if anyone else does?
0__0
Me: ugh i could give you an essay to answer that one o0
The long and the short of it is that however much good religion has ever done, it's currently doing far too much bad.
Here's a link to iilustrate some athiest points: why athiests are angry
I mean, at this precise moment in time, there is a young woman in Saudi Arabia facing 200 lashes and six months in prison, for 'being in a strange mans car' - let alone the fact that she was gang-raped 14 times by 7 men IN THAT CAR - all because the predominant religion of their society says women can't be alone with a man unless she's married to or related to him.
Because of said religion, women in that country aren't even second-class citizens, they are thought of as property - which is why the ruling of 200 lashes and 6 months in prison for something she couldn't help, however much she screamed, has been allowed, even endorsed and praised.
*blink* sorry - ranting slightly - but when it comes to the mistreatment of women, combined with idiot religionistas, I just can't contain it.
Her: I think you're confusing the Islamic religion, with Saudi culture? First, you need to separate the religion from the cultural norms and style of the society.
According to Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood,
The Koran is addressed to all Muslims, and for the most part it does not differentiate between male and female. Man and woman, it says, "were created of a single soul," and are moral equals in the sight of God. Women have the right to divorce, to inherit property, to conduct business and to have access to knowledge.
For example, female circumsion is required in certain parts of Africa and Egypt--but it's considered barbaric and criminal by most Muslims. Forced marriages are the norm in some Indian and Pakistani cultures--but this practiced is shunned by Muslim women from other cultures.
You have to be careful when you paint organized religion as the bad guy---it's only as bad as the nitwits who distort it to match their culture preferences. Look at Christianity---before the Romans were converted, there was no monstrosity known as Catholcism. See what I mean?
Me: The problem with culture and religion, in most of the middle-eastern countries, is that they are so intertwined as to be indistiguishable from one another. Yes, there are a fair few moderates who try to paint a prettier picture, but the majority are more inclined to fundamentalism, and they actually Believe in every word of their holy book.
Whether people like to admit it or not, religion has a much harder impact on society than people assume. Without passages like the following, there would be no '200 lashes for being in a strange mans car'.
2:282 “…and call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women…”
A woman is worth half that of a man
4:34 “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them.”
Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Women must obey men, and if they refuse they must be punished. Refuse to have sex with them and beat them into submission.
4:176 “…unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females…”
I think that one is rather self evident.
64:14 “O ye who believe! Lo! among your wives and your children there are enemies for you, therefor beware of them…”
Your wives and children are your enemies. They are to you only a temptation.
These ideas permeated the very thoughts of all the believers, and when drawing up laws, these of course are where inspiration were found. The same goes for laws in the UK and USA (however much non-thiests hate to admit) luckily, the prevalent religion in the West is Christianity (in it's various forms) which, though still far from espousing equality for both genders, at least didn't inspire such stupid segregation laws.
However, I do agree that it is rarely the religion itself, but the people who profess to follow it. Which is where the problem lies, for the most part. But you have to keep in mind, that if there weren't such passages in the holy books, the people who follow them, would have a much harder time justifying their actions to themselves or the world at large.
(Argh - I don't want to swamp your jurnal - if you'd like to continue the discussion, just PM me)
I'll keep you posted on how it goes, if she decided to keep the conversation going.
Sunday, 25 November 2007
Child Services are at it again
Yes yes, I'm sure they do a stellar job when they actually try, but this is just another sickening story pinpointing the fact that when they're left to their own devices they fuck things up royally.
Fran Lyon moves to Europe to stop CPA from taking her baby
All the medical evidence supports the fact that this young woman is psychologically healthy and poses no risk to either her unborn child or herself.
But instead of taking this evidence into consideration and backing off, they are using evidence from a man who confesses he has never met her, and simply suggested that if it is proven that she may harm her child, then watch her 24-7.
I honestly think the Child Services should open their damn doors and stop working in the secrecy that is supposedly to 'protect children' - when it is obvious that it protects no-one but themselves.
When agencies are allowed to work in secret, accountable to no-one like this for years, they get complacent, egotistical - they accept criticism from no-one. If there is dissension amongst the ranks, that person or group simply gets kicked out and legally barred from speaking out.
It should be stopped now, before further problems are created, more children are needlessly taken from their homes and parents (like the family wrongly accused of abusing their son, had all three children adopted out and then had to flee to Ireland when they had a fourth) and mother's needlesly accused of infanticide.
The money currently used to needlessly convict 'suspect' parents, could then be better used on fixing the fostering system.
Fran Lyon moves to Europe to stop CPA from taking her baby
All the medical evidence supports the fact that this young woman is psychologically healthy and poses no risk to either her unborn child or herself.
But instead of taking this evidence into consideration and backing off, they are using evidence from a man who confesses he has never met her, and simply suggested that if it is proven that she may harm her child, then watch her 24-7.
I honestly think the Child Services should open their damn doors and stop working in the secrecy that is supposedly to 'protect children' - when it is obvious that it protects no-one but themselves.
When agencies are allowed to work in secret, accountable to no-one like this for years, they get complacent, egotistical - they accept criticism from no-one. If there is dissension amongst the ranks, that person or group simply gets kicked out and legally barred from speaking out.
It should be stopped now, before further problems are created, more children are needlessly taken from their homes and parents (like the family wrongly accused of abusing their son, had all three children adopted out and then had to flee to Ireland when they had a fourth) and mother's needlesly accused of infanticide.
The money currently used to needlessly convict 'suspect' parents, could then be better used on fixing the fostering system.
Saturday, 24 November 2007
Westborough Baptist SUED
How the hell did I miss this?
These guys have been horrifying me for a number of years. I watched a documentary about them (Loui Therough..Therew..Therou?) a while back and they seriously are the scariest Christian Sect I have ever heard of - even trumping the damn Mormons and JWs.
Ever since the war in Iraq, the Father of the church (which mostly consists of his children, gandchildren and other relatives) has been ordering his followers to protest at soldiers funerals.
In his eyes, every soldier that dies in the war is dead because god hates homosexuals and this is apparently His way of showing that hatred.
However - it backfired in 2006, when a family was so offended they brought him to court. The church/family has now been ordered to pay $10.9 million to the family!
My only problem with it all is that this is only one family, out of the hundreds these sick fucks have been 'protesting' - it also misses the fact that this church has been protesting against gay men and women for years, including at THIER funerals.
These guys have been horrifying me for a number of years. I watched a documentary about them (Loui Therough..Therew..Therou?) a while back and they seriously are the scariest Christian Sect I have ever heard of - even trumping the damn Mormons and JWs.
Ever since the war in Iraq, the Father of the church (which mostly consists of his children, gandchildren and other relatives) has been ordering his followers to protest at soldiers funerals.
In his eyes, every soldier that dies in the war is dead because god hates homosexuals and this is apparently His way of showing that hatred.
However - it backfired in 2006, when a family was so offended they brought him to court. The church/family has now been ordered to pay $10.9 million to the family!
My only problem with it all is that this is only one family, out of the hundreds these sick fucks have been 'protesting' - it also misses the fact that this church has been protesting against gay men and women for years, including at THIER funerals.
Friday, 23 November 2007
Christian Best Friend
Does anyone else have this problem? You probably do.
My best friend, of roughly 12 years, is Christian, was brought up in a stiflingly Christian household and attends a Baptist Church whenever she goes home (to her parents). She has two younger sisters, both very dedicated to their religion. Her father is a Deacon and her mother helps to run all sorts of Church things.
I was brought up in an agnostic household, where my parents allowed my younger brother and myself to make our own decisions - this has lead to us both turning first to Paganism, and then to Atheism. Now that we are both open about being atheists, our mom has allowed herself to be free with her own atheism. Honestly don't know about my dad, he was brought up CofE and I think he's Agnostic.
Occasionally my best friend and I butt heads.
We used to talk about religion and belief systems quite openly - but that was back when I was agnostic and still unsure. Now that I've gone full over and declared myself completely Atheist, the talks never go anywhere. They last about five seconds, before she gets 'frustrated', declares there's no point in talking about it 'because she can't describe her points properly' and says I should talk to her father instead.
I honestly feel a little disappointed. I miss the arguments we used to have about Adam and Eve (at one point I got her to admit that it could, at the very least, be an allegorical story of how the human race began, rather than literal truth.)
Now a comment like 'Oh! It says here, you have to be circumcised to get into Heaven!' (referring to Genesis 17:10-14) is rebutted with 'The Old Testament doesn't really apply these days' and it's left at that.
Where's her conviction? Any hint of my own conviction that pickers-and-choosers should just make their damn minds up, gets frowned at.
(I mean, if she doesn't think the bit about circumcision applies, why does she think that her god creating the Earth/Universe in seven days does? And I know she does think that, she's told me often enough - she honestly still doesn't believe in evolution, despite the fact that we both went to the same school...)
I'm beginning to think that the real problem is not her apparent belief that she couldn't form a decent argument to get her own points across, but that she's beginning to have doubts. And every time I point out some fallacy or other with her great book, she gets flustered and feels guilty with herself.
I don't know - does anyone else have this problem?
My best friend, of roughly 12 years, is Christian, was brought up in a stiflingly Christian household and attends a Baptist Church whenever she goes home (to her parents). She has two younger sisters, both very dedicated to their religion. Her father is a Deacon and her mother helps to run all sorts of Church things.
I was brought up in an agnostic household, where my parents allowed my younger brother and myself to make our own decisions - this has lead to us both turning first to Paganism, and then to Atheism. Now that we are both open about being atheists, our mom has allowed herself to be free with her own atheism. Honestly don't know about my dad, he was brought up CofE and I think he's Agnostic.
Occasionally my best friend and I butt heads.
We used to talk about religion and belief systems quite openly - but that was back when I was agnostic and still unsure. Now that I've gone full over and declared myself completely Atheist, the talks never go anywhere. They last about five seconds, before she gets 'frustrated', declares there's no point in talking about it 'because she can't describe her points properly' and says I should talk to her father instead.
I honestly feel a little disappointed. I miss the arguments we used to have about Adam and Eve (at one point I got her to admit that it could, at the very least, be an allegorical story of how the human race began, rather than literal truth.)
Now a comment like 'Oh! It says here, you have to be circumcised to get into Heaven!' (referring to Genesis 17:10-14) is rebutted with 'The Old Testament doesn't really apply these days' and it's left at that.
Where's her conviction? Any hint of my own conviction that pickers-and-choosers should just make their damn minds up, gets frowned at.
(I mean, if she doesn't think the bit about circumcision applies, why does she think that her god creating the Earth/Universe in seven days does? And I know she does think that, she's told me often enough - she honestly still doesn't believe in evolution, despite the fact that we both went to the same school...)
I'm beginning to think that the real problem is not her apparent belief that she couldn't form a decent argument to get her own points across, but that she's beginning to have doubts. And every time I point out some fallacy or other with her great book, she gets flustered and feels guilty with herself.
I don't know - does anyone else have this problem?
Thursday, 22 November 2007
Joined the Athiest Blogroll
Yupp!
I've joined the Athiest Blogroll.
The Atheist Blogroll is a service provide to the Atheist and Agnostic blogging community. The blogroll currently maintains over 350 blogs. Membership is limited to Atheist and Agnostic bloggers.
It's that long list of Blogs to the right ---->
If you have an open mind, an interest in what us athiests, agnostics and skeptics get up to, or even if you're an athiest, agnostic or skeptic yourself, this is the perfect place for you. Lots of different blogs to peruse at your leisure.
Enjoy. And please leave your Trolls at home.
I've joined the Athiest Blogroll.
The Atheist Blogroll is a service provide to the Atheist and Agnostic blogging community. The blogroll currently maintains over 350 blogs. Membership is limited to Atheist and Agnostic bloggers.
It's that long list of Blogs to the right ---->
If you have an open mind, an interest in what us athiests, agnostics and skeptics get up to, or even if you're an athiest, agnostic or skeptic yourself, this is the perfect place for you. Lots of different blogs to peruse at your leisure.
Enjoy. And please leave your Trolls at home.
NFP cartoon, for your amusement
Computer Says No
I drew this after watching a program about various ways of bringing up baby. One of the families was an NFP family (Natural Family Planning - wherein the husband keeps track of the wifes cycle, by asking questions about her body)
My other half commented 'Computer says No!' in the David Walliam's voice, which lead to this image. If you have no idea what NFP entails and haven't seen Little Britain, this'll probably be completely lost on you.
I drew this after watching a program about various ways of bringing up baby. One of the families was an NFP family (Natural Family Planning - wherein the husband keeps track of the wifes cycle, by asking questions about her body)
My other half commented 'Computer says No!' in the David Walliam's voice, which lead to this image. If you have no idea what NFP entails and haven't seen Little Britain, this'll probably be completely lost on you.
Some thoughts...
I'm re-reading The God Delusion again. It started me thinking (as it tends to) and I had to note down the thoughts.
Is God(/Yahweh/Odin/Zeus) omnipotent and omnicient?
Omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
Omnicient: Having total knowledge; knowing everything.
Most religionists would say yes.
But if you think about it logically, they would be about as wrong as it is possible to get.
If this god is omnicient, then he knows what he is going to do in the future. He knows what is going to happen when, how and where. He knows what he is going to do about it.
This negates the omnipotence attributed to him, because if he knows what the future holds in store for the universe, then he can't change his mind about it, he can't do everything - because then he wouldn't know the future. Would he?
So then - what is the point in this god?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
There is no point. God doesn't exist.
Just my thoughts this morning.
~~~~~~~
Also - hark at the sheer stupidity of this:
"Nepal Airlines, which was having technical trouble with one of its two Boeing 757s in August, announced that it had fixed the problem by sacrificing two goats to appease the Hindu sky god Akash Bhairab."
Is God(/Yahweh/Odin/Zeus) omnipotent and omnicient?
Omnipotent: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
Omnicient: Having total knowledge; knowing everything.
Most religionists would say yes.
But if you think about it logically, they would be about as wrong as it is possible to get.
If this god is omnicient, then he knows what he is going to do in the future. He knows what is going to happen when, how and where. He knows what he is going to do about it.
This negates the omnipotence attributed to him, because if he knows what the future holds in store for the universe, then he can't change his mind about it, he can't do everything - because then he wouldn't know the future. Would he?
So then - what is the point in this god?
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
There is no point. God doesn't exist.
Just my thoughts this morning.
~~~~~~~
Also - hark at the sheer stupidity of this:
"Nepal Airlines, which was having technical trouble with one of its two Boeing 757s in August, announced that it had fixed the problem by sacrificing two goats to appease the Hindu sky god Akash Bhairab."
As an Athiest and a woman...
...this has seriously offended me.
I'm probably seriously behind the times on this one, but I just found it on the Butterflies and Wheels website.
As an Athiest, I find it abhorrant that religion can dictate to the law in such a way - as a woman, I find it abhorrant that a victim of rape has been punished. For anything. Let alone 'being in a strange mans car'.
It just adds more credence to the 'Religion should be abolished' agenda of most athiests, like myself.
I'm probably seriously behind the times on this one, but I just found it on the Butterflies and Wheels website.
As an Athiest, I find it abhorrant that religion can dictate to the law in such a way - as a woman, I find it abhorrant that a victim of rape has been punished. For anything. Let alone 'being in a strange mans car'.
It just adds more credence to the 'Religion should be abolished' agenda of most athiests, like myself.
Tuesday, 20 November 2007
Reading The Bible
(Moved over from my LJ post September 28th - now that I have some spare time again, I'm going to continue this farage into the Bible)
I bought a copy of the King James Bible off've Ebay about a week ago. It turned up this morning. I've been reading it on and off all day.
I'm STILL reading Genesis. This things English is attrocious, narrative is almost non-existant and plot is ridiculous. I mean REALLY. Have you ever read this thing?
In the first two chapters ALONE, it manages to contradict itself quite hienously.
Genesis 1 through 31 describes the seven days and what god does on each of those seven days.
1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(Talk about a tautological statement!)
Then in chapter 2 he DOES IT ALL AGAIN, but with some changes.
2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
('make him an help meet'???)
2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Which of these am I suppsoed to be believing here? That man and woman were made on the same day, both in god's image, or that Adam was made first, god decided he needed a companion and then took one of Adam's ribs and made Eve?
Matt said something about, perhaps chapter 2 is just clarifying chapter 1. It IS NOT. I've read both chapters repeatedly now, and they are completely seperate bloody stories.
Oh - and then chapter 3 blithely goes on to paint Eve as the goddess of all evil. Lovely. Eve get's cursed with birthing pains, while Adam - as far as I can tell from reading the scripture - got cursed to eat bread.
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, til thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
What? How is that fair? Adam was apparantly the worlds first Dobber-Inner, and he got cursed to eat bread?
Personally, I quite like bread. Could we swap?
Oh - and god apparently dislikes vegetarians.
4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.
So Cain kills Abel, and god kicks him out. Cain goes to Nod.
Pardon - where? Where was this Nod again? Has this place been mentioned before?
*re-reads previous chapters*
No - no it hasn't been mentioned before - but apparently it has plenty of humans in it, because Cain bags himself a wife!
Aaaand the next two chapters are a loooooong list of male heirs. You see how this can get boring.
Enter Noah and his sons. He's given a week to build a boat and collect two of each animal (or was that seven?)
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee: they shall be male and female.
7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Quite aside from the genetic degredation of this sort of thing - quite how did Noah and his sons manage to get two (or seven) of every animal species into the ark in only a week?
7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon them.
Fun. So - because he's a bit pissed off with his own creation, he kills EVERYTHING.
I wont get into the geological mystifications of this particular biblical story (I could, and at length, but I wont.)
Once that's all over and done with, Noah gets drunk, passes out naked and has to be rescued by his sons. The youngest of whom he then curses into slavery, because he saw his naked genetalia.
Um. This may be a silly question, but what particular moral is he espousing there?
'See your fathers genetals, forever be slave to your brothers!'
Yeaaah.
Anyway - then we have lots MORE male hiers. So much fun!
And that takes up the next three chapters.
Now - I don't know about you guys, but the story of Abram and his wife, to me, is just really silly.
Basically, because his wife is so pretty, he makes her pretend to be his sister - so HE isn't killed so other men can have her. (Doesn't it make it easier for them to take her, if she's his sister? Perhaps he's not thinking of HER at all, just himself...)
Because of this, the Egyptian Pharoh takes her in as his mistress, while heaping many pleasures and riches upon Abram.
Unsurprisingly, god get's antsy.
Surprisingly, instead of punishing Abram for his dishonesty and deciet, he punishes the unknowing Pharoh!
All Abram get's is a slap on the wrist and an escort from the country.
And that's as far as I've got so far. It makes tedious reading. It really does. I KNOW it's been translated a hundred thousand times, from arabic to latin to english and all over the place, but BLOODY HELL. Babelfish is far more amusing.
Christians are constantly telling me and fellow atheists to read the bible and let the words speak to us and so on so forth.
Well, I am.
And so far?
I've found it badly worded, badly written, badly emphasised, to contain bad or no morals, bad science, ridiculous history, crap geology and really REALLY anti women.
And that's just the first book!
What exactly do christians hope to achieve by forcing this down my throat? Or am I simply to read only the bits they TELL me to read?
I have little to no respect for the 'pick-and-choose' religionistas (either believe the whole thing was inspired by god, or don't - don't pick and choose which verses you like, that negates the whole POINT.)
Either way, I'm going to keep reading.
Lets see what else my old Vicar was hiding from us in the pews.
I bought a copy of the King James Bible off've Ebay about a week ago. It turned up this morning. I've been reading it on and off all day.
I'm STILL reading Genesis. This things English is attrocious, narrative is almost non-existant and plot is ridiculous. I mean REALLY. Have you ever read this thing?
In the first two chapters ALONE, it manages to contradict itself quite hienously.
Genesis 1 through 31 describes the seven days and what god does on each of those seven days.
1:27 - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
(Talk about a tautological statement!)
Then in chapter 2 he DOES IT ALL AGAIN, but with some changes.
2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
('make him an help meet'???)
2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Which of these am I suppsoed to be believing here? That man and woman were made on the same day, both in god's image, or that Adam was made first, god decided he needed a companion and then took one of Adam's ribs and made Eve?
Matt said something about, perhaps chapter 2 is just clarifying chapter 1. It IS NOT. I've read both chapters repeatedly now, and they are completely seperate bloody stories.
Oh - and then chapter 3 blithely goes on to paint Eve as the goddess of all evil. Lovely. Eve get's cursed with birthing pains, while Adam - as far as I can tell from reading the scripture - got cursed to eat bread.
3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, til thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
What? How is that fair? Adam was apparantly the worlds first Dobber-Inner, and he got cursed to eat bread?
Personally, I quite like bread. Could we swap?
Oh - and god apparently dislikes vegetarians.
4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.
So Cain kills Abel, and god kicks him out. Cain goes to Nod.
Pardon - where? Where was this Nod again? Has this place been mentioned before?
*re-reads previous chapters*
No - no it hasn't been mentioned before - but apparently it has plenty of humans in it, because Cain bags himself a wife!
Aaaand the next two chapters are a loooooong list of male heirs. You see how this can get boring.
Enter Noah and his sons. He's given a week to build a boat and collect two of each animal (or was that seven?)
6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee: they shall be male and female.
7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Quite aside from the genetic degredation of this sort of thing - quite how did Noah and his sons manage to get two (or seven) of every animal species into the ark in only a week?
7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon them.
Fun. So - because he's a bit pissed off with his own creation, he kills EVERYTHING.
I wont get into the geological mystifications of this particular biblical story (I could, and at length, but I wont.)
Once that's all over and done with, Noah gets drunk, passes out naked and has to be rescued by his sons. The youngest of whom he then curses into slavery, because he saw his naked genetalia.
Um. This may be a silly question, but what particular moral is he espousing there?
'See your fathers genetals, forever be slave to your brothers!'
Yeaaah.
Anyway - then we have lots MORE male hiers. So much fun!
And that takes up the next three chapters.
Now - I don't know about you guys, but the story of Abram and his wife, to me, is just really silly.
Basically, because his wife is so pretty, he makes her pretend to be his sister - so HE isn't killed so other men can have her. (Doesn't it make it easier for them to take her, if she's his sister? Perhaps he's not thinking of HER at all, just himself...)
Because of this, the Egyptian Pharoh takes her in as his mistress, while heaping many pleasures and riches upon Abram.
Unsurprisingly, god get's antsy.
Surprisingly, instead of punishing Abram for his dishonesty and deciet, he punishes the unknowing Pharoh!
All Abram get's is a slap on the wrist and an escort from the country.
And that's as far as I've got so far. It makes tedious reading. It really does. I KNOW it's been translated a hundred thousand times, from arabic to latin to english and all over the place, but BLOODY HELL. Babelfish is far more amusing.
Christians are constantly telling me and fellow atheists to read the bible and let the words speak to us and so on so forth.
Well, I am.
And so far?
I've found it badly worded, badly written, badly emphasised, to contain bad or no morals, bad science, ridiculous history, crap geology and really REALLY anti women.
And that's just the first book!
What exactly do christians hope to achieve by forcing this down my throat? Or am I simply to read only the bits they TELL me to read?
I have little to no respect for the 'pick-and-choose' religionistas (either believe the whole thing was inspired by god, or don't - don't pick and choose which verses you like, that negates the whole POINT.)
Lets see what else my old Vicar was hiding from us in the pews.
Friday, 24 August 2007
Slavery Apologies
Honestly, I don't know about you guys, but this new wave of apologists is really raising my hackles.
To put it simply, why should I apologise for something an ancestor - and not even an ancestor we can be certain is mine - took part in the slave trade?
Yes, it was horrible and ruined many lives.
Yes, it was a crime against humanity.
Yes, I'm sure many, many, slaves descendants still feel horrified.
But I did not take part in the trade. Not a single living person, today, took part in the trade of black people from Africa to the America's, the UK or any other country. To act as if I or anyone else did, is morally wrong.
The act of getting down on bent knee to apologise for something that happened generations ago is arrogance of the worst sort - it smacks of ego fluffing.
Instead of standing in front of a crowd, apologising for his ancestors wrongs, such people as Ken Livingstone, (as seen in today's Daily Mail) should be standing up and apologising for the atrocities currently going on under their noses. Not crying crocodile tears, in full view of photographers and cameras, seemingly crying out 'Vote for me! I feel your pain!'
Is he going to stand up and apologise for the hundreds of thousands of women, brought into the country under false pretences and forced to work as sex slaves?
Is he - or indeed anyone - going to stand up and apologise to the families of those killed or maimed in the various terrorists bombings, for failing to bring his own Government to justice over the fact?
Is he going to stand up and apologise to the hundreds of people, freely discriminated against, for whatever reason, day in and day out, in his 'fair city'?
Of course he isn't - none of those things will get him the vote.
And to add to this - I notice the way those who advocate this 'apologising for the slave trade' movement, conveniently forget that Africans had their part in the process. Of course, a lot of slaves were taken by white traders, of course. But that doesn't mean they were taken by only white traders.
People seem to forget that the various inter-tribal wars had a part in the trade. Prisoners of war were often sold to the white traders - as were any caught non-tribe members and even actual family members.
But I don't see any of the descendants still in Africa now, bending on their knees and apologising for what their ancestors did - or apologising for what is still going on in Africa, even now.
Either way, there are far too many black people, right now, using the excuse of their family history, to explain away their actions, or inaction.
'I'm descended from slaves - this makes me feel angry - that anger is what leads to my antisocial behaviour!'
I'm sorry, but what? In this same vein, I could murder/drink-drive/be generally anti-social and then excuse it by saying:
'My people were raped, pillaged and murdered - it makes me angry!'
I am a direct descendant of the Viking settlers.
Oh, is that too far in the past? OK, how about:
'My people were ostracised, kicked out of their homes, prejudiced against and often beaten or murdered - this makes me angry!'
I am also a direct descendant of the Gypsy travelers in Ireland. That's far closer to now, than even the slave trade. Do you think I could get away with it?*
It just makes me wonder whether people are going to learn from the past, or simply dredge it up when they need the votes. Either way, I am sick of hearing about these apologies. Instead of apologising, do something pro-bloody-active, for the here and now.
H
* I think I read a similar argument against the casual use of 'my ancestors were slaves' excuse. Can't remember where though. All I know, is that it states my case far more eloquently. If you happen to find it, send me the link so I can reference it here.
To put it simply, why should I apologise for something an ancestor - and not even an ancestor we can be certain is mine - took part in the slave trade?
Yes, it was horrible and ruined many lives.
Yes, it was a crime against humanity.
Yes, I'm sure many, many, slaves descendants still feel horrified.
But I did not take part in the trade. Not a single living person, today, took part in the trade of black people from Africa to the America's, the UK or any other country. To act as if I or anyone else did, is morally wrong.
The act of getting down on bent knee to apologise for something that happened generations ago is arrogance of the worst sort - it smacks of ego fluffing.
Instead of standing in front of a crowd, apologising for his ancestors wrongs, such people as Ken Livingstone, (as seen in today's Daily Mail) should be standing up and apologising for the atrocities currently going on under their noses. Not crying crocodile tears, in full view of photographers and cameras, seemingly crying out 'Vote for me! I feel your pain!'
Is he going to stand up and apologise for the hundreds of thousands of women, brought into the country under false pretences and forced to work as sex slaves?
Is he - or indeed anyone - going to stand up and apologise to the families of those killed or maimed in the various terrorists bombings, for failing to bring his own Government to justice over the fact?
Is he going to stand up and apologise to the hundreds of people, freely discriminated against, for whatever reason, day in and day out, in his 'fair city'?
Of course he isn't - none of those things will get him the vote.
And to add to this - I notice the way those who advocate this 'apologising for the slave trade' movement, conveniently forget that Africans had their part in the process. Of course, a lot of slaves were taken by white traders, of course. But that doesn't mean they were taken by only white traders.
People seem to forget that the various inter-tribal wars had a part in the trade. Prisoners of war were often sold to the white traders - as were any caught non-tribe members and even actual family members.
But I don't see any of the descendants still in Africa now, bending on their knees and apologising for what their ancestors did - or apologising for what is still going on in Africa, even now.
Either way, there are far too many black people, right now, using the excuse of their family history, to explain away their actions, or inaction.
'I'm descended from slaves - this makes me feel angry - that anger is what leads to my antisocial behaviour!'
I'm sorry, but what? In this same vein, I could murder/drink-drive/be generally anti-social and then excuse it by saying:
'My people were raped, pillaged and murdered - it makes me angry!'
I am a direct descendant of the Viking settlers.
Oh, is that too far in the past? OK, how about:
'My people were ostracised, kicked out of their homes, prejudiced against and often beaten or murdered - this makes me angry!'
I am also a direct descendant of the Gypsy travelers in Ireland. That's far closer to now, than even the slave trade. Do you think I could get away with it?*
It just makes me wonder whether people are going to learn from the past, or simply dredge it up when they need the votes. Either way, I am sick of hearing about these apologies. Instead of apologising, do something pro-bloody-active, for the here and now.
H
* I think I read a similar argument against the casual use of 'my ancestors were slaves' excuse. Can't remember where though. All I know, is that it states my case far more eloquently. If you happen to find it, send me the link so I can reference it here.
Stupid o'clock in the morning
Morning all.
I have recently found myself needing somewhere to vent my frustrations with the world in general and theism in particular - and having seen three or four 'rant' type blogs here on blogspot, I thought I may as well do the same.
My usual blog is not so lenient on the atheisticaly minded and is watched by numerous people whom I would dearly like to not end up disliking or arguing with.
So - here I am - this journal will contain my musings, my rants and my vents, as well as be somewhere I can ask the pertinant questions and hope for inteligent responses. Maybe I can start debates here - you never know.
For now though, I'm going to sign off and go to bed - even the most anti of anti-theists must sleep at some point!
Night all.
I have recently found myself needing somewhere to vent my frustrations with the world in general and theism in particular - and having seen three or four 'rant' type blogs here on blogspot, I thought I may as well do the same.
My usual blog is not so lenient on the atheisticaly minded and is watched by numerous people whom I would dearly like to not end up disliking or arguing with.
So - here I am - this journal will contain my musings, my rants and my vents, as well as be somewhere I can ask the pertinant questions and hope for inteligent responses. Maybe I can start debates here - you never know.
For now though, I'm going to sign off and go to bed - even the most anti of anti-theists must sleep at some point!
Night all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
