Credit where credit is due.

It's come to my attention, through my own thoughts, that I never give credit for the pictures I use. While it's not a problem when my blog is in it's infancy, if I do ever start to get some notoriety (when people start sharing...) it will begin to increase in need.

So I'm going through and adding credits for all the pictures I've used over the next while. No major changes will be made, except for little bits at the bottom. If I haven't credited you for a photo I've used that belongs to you, contact me, and I'll get straight on it! It's not really a blog, I was just making people aware of that. NAUGHTY ALLAN.

Ok, take it easy! Remember: think about everything. If you can't be bothered to think, trust only those who are qualified to think. Politicians and religious leaders are not qualified. Neither are our parents. Unless our parents happen to be philosophers or scientists...

Justice - A nice fairy tale?

Clip Art: Best thing since art?

We've broke 500 views, and I hardly ever post! That's the power of social media/ having great friends. Well done everyone, keep clicking links! Actually, keep clicking links, when you click adverts, I get paid, and I'd really like to get paid.

So this is the topic of Today's blog - The justice system.

A lot of you who know me, will know that this is something that I think about, whether or not there is justice, and whether or not the methods we use to instill our morality is appropriate. I've done a lot of thunking lately, and I think I'm ready to share.

This all stems from paedophillia. without incriminating myself, I am very interested in the Child Crime phenomena that sweeps through our society. I have been for quite a while. I have a couple of blogs actually saved in my drafts that I just haven't had the balls to post yet, plus, they aren't quite done. Why do I have such an interest? Because it's complete and utter bullshit. That's why.

My interest started, quite appropriately, when I was a lad. I was quite sexually active, through most of my life. I remember getting exited upon finding an Ann Summers catalogue (Google Chrome thinks this is the wrong spelling, someone verify?), and bringing it into school to show my friends... When I was 5. I remember my first erection, around the age of 12 or 13, stumbling upon a family friends copies of Men's Magazine or some shit, FHM might be the one to be honest, and seeing Emma Bunton (Baby Spice) in a state of undress, and being perplexed by the occurance (mostly due to the fact it really made me need a wee, and I couldn't fucking piss for the life of me. /man trouble), and I mean, I fancied the pants off of Emma Bunton. I'd get with her friends, if you know what I mean!

Seriously, like.. Would you not just?!

This level of early sexual interest sparked in me a level of sexual interest. I began to view porn (magazines under the bridge near my house) before moving on to the heavier shit (the internet, Googeling "Britney Spears Fake Nacked" I kid you not) and being exposed to more porn than a 14 year old boy should have access to... within the constraints of before my parents get home. But being 14, I was interested in 14 year old girls... And so you can see why I became interested in the law around paedophilia.

To me, the idea of child porn was such a... grey area. I mean, for starters, we can have sex at 16. But you can't take photographs of her until she is 18? That's weird. And even still, that's not regular throughout the world, there are all sorts of ages of consent all over the world, as outlined in a previous blog. So why then such hysteria?

As I've aged, I've matured into a sort of understanding... There is no logic to it. We all agree that crimes against children are wrong, because we all agree that crimes are wrong, and children are innocent and pure, so to crime against innocence makes it even worse. But what does that say to poor old Margret? 87 years old and murdered cold blooded by her neighbour, because he's a psychopath? I mean, she lived a good life, a fictional one, but a good fictional life, she'd had her years, but her children are still alive, and they never got the chance to say goodbye. Jump down the country, we have Toby, a 15 year old boy who's being fondled by an uncle. He's not particularly violent, just overly loving. Toby's uncle will spend years and years in jail, and be stuck on a list for the rest of his life, outcast from society. Margret's neighbour will maybe get life, depending on if it's a crime of passion or not. How is that fair? On a note, how can we qualify what crime is worse than others? Is it possible? The question stands: Is there absolute morality?

Personally, I would argue that there is not, but that there should be. To me, the idea of subjective morality is messy at best. To say that one person's crime means less than another persons, for such trivial matters as race, or age, is absolute nonsense. It sickens me. But there is a definite distinction between crimes. I wouldn't say that stealing an orange from Tesco was even a crime, but it is theft, by the definition of the law, and I certainly wouldn't place that in the category with Margret or Toby. So what is my answer?

First allow me to touch upon the way we deal with crimes, as I think this will help me explain. Currently, our process is punishment, by removing a persons freedom. Kind of a pointless punishment, when you think about what freedom means. To have freedom, is to do what we want. But we can't do what we want. We have laws. So, in essence, the punishment for doing what we want is not being allowed to do what we want. Oh, and we have to not do what we want with a higher concentration of unsavoury characters, or rather, not do what we want with people who also did what they want when they shouldn't have. Are we following? This is meant to be helping to explain...

Hey, ese! Sleep over!

We base our system of enforcing morality on fear. We terrorise people into doing what we want. "Do as we say, or you'll get locked away." We are given rules to follow, and if we don't, we're punished. So we better do them, unless we want punishing! But is that right? Is terrorism OK, so long as it's for the right cause? And how do we define the cause? Of course, the opposite of this, where doing good is rewarded, isn't much better off. That's how we get problems of entitlement that we are already presented with, where someone will do good and expect reward. Essentially, no one does good because it's good. They do good, because they have to. What's the point of good if it's just because we have to?

In evolution, we have a need for morals. We do bad things, the group shuns us, and out we go into the harsh, dangerous wilderness, alone. So we, quite quickly, develop a sense of helpful behaviours, so to speak: "If I do that, will I piss people off?" Which makes sense. But we've unfortunately moved past that. We no longer have dangerous wildernesses. We no longer face beasts or foes. We ourselves are our only danger. So we have justice systems to make sure we have danger.

She's just so pretty! Why is she so
anonymous nowadays? She's had a kid!

So what of the answer? Well, that's just it. I don't yet have it. I have ideas, but I don't have anything concrete. What I will say, categorically, is capital punishment is not the way forward. I think what I will do is address seperate means of punishment in their own blogs. This is too word-some.

So, to sum up this long and necessary essay, justice in the sense that we have it is entirely flawed, but I simply don't yet have the answers. I will keep looking, but I haven't found anything that really works. What I'm going to do, over the course of next month or something, is have a look into the psychology of following rules, and morality, and see what strikes me. So until next time, I want to hear your thoughts! I will be changing the poll on the page, and I want to see your responses, so get on that! And, as always, share this amongst people who would be interested! The larger scope I have, the bigger a difference we can make. And most importantly, USE THE COMMENTS! I want to hear your views! I don't just do this shit because I can, I'm not simply some attention seeking want to be (that's right, grammar bitchez!), I do this because I want to find what works, I want to fix the world, once problem at a time. And of course, you being part of the world, you're part of the solution.

Take it easy people! The only way they can work, is by making you afraid. If you're not afraid, they lose.

OMG! TEENAGE PREGNENCIES YAH!

I know I don't post very often, I'm sorry. I'll make it up to you with this one, I promise. It's a bit of a weigh in about some rumours that have trickled down into my newsfeed (late, like normal for me) about the age of consent being lowered.

The only people to ever get pregnant as teenagers...

As always, Facebooks reactions to current affairs is hilarious, and with the heat being cause of a certain mathematic teacher and his underage love affair (you'd think he'd be able to do the math. hyuk hyuk) I don't doubt this latest bout of Facebook mania would be due to this, the best course of action beubg to blurt out that the UK is set to/ already has changed it's sex laws to state that children of the age of 14 are now enabled to have sex. Fear not! It's preposterous.

Now, here's where my interest comes into play.

It's apparent that not a single person who believes this story to be true actually understand how politics work. The government don't just decide what laws to pass, and then do it, they go through vigorous debate. This is why you should be involved in politics, so that you're not playing fool to stupid chain mails.

Further more, whilst researching the possibility of such a claim (of which I found not only no evidence, but negative evidence. There are articles talking of age of consent discussion in 2009) I came across a comment on Yahoo! answers which states that this would be an unwelcome law to be passed, what with pregnancies at an all time high.

See that blue colour? That's illegal here.

With the latest information I could find, that being of 2010, Teenage pregnancy in the UK is actually on the decrease, with 2010 actually having the lowest pregnancy rate since 1969. This idea that The Daily Mail and The Sun are driving down your throats that all teenagers are pregnant comes from the comparison to other countries, such as France (with their age of consent being 15) And Spain (13). I'm not suggesting that age of consent has a direct impact on teenage pregnancy, I dare say alcohol has an impact as well, you know, not being allowed to drink at a young age, so you go out and get as drunk as you possibly can... but I think it's clear that having stringent laws does have a negative effect on the actions of the people. As many philosophers have said through the ages (don't ask me to quote any, I'm making that up. It sounds convincing, doesn't it?)

TL;DR we're not changing the consent age to 14, teenage pregnancy isn't at an all time high, and we should seriously consider not being so damn conservative.

And I'm not even skimming on the "moral implications" that would have on paedophiles! Rest assured, I'll be hammering that one out some time in the near future. It's a sensitive topic, and I don't want vigilante mobs to attack me like they did that doctor...

So I hope this was informative for you! As always share and comment, and make sure you do your homework when confronted with something you don't know about/ understand. And no, homework is nothing like commenting on their post asking if it's true. I dare say they didn't do their homework either.

Source(s):

Yahoo! Answers Page: http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120820192128AA1vJN4

BBC News Article on Teen Pregnancy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17190185

Teenage Pregnancy Compared with EU: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079321/

Age of Consent in Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

Abstinence

There are worse things than Warts...
Long term relationships!

For those of you who know me well, you will know of my choice to abstain. There are numerous reasons for me making this decision. One being I have lost any passion for a sexual relationship of any kind. It's too much hard work, in my mind. That, and there is a distinct lack of options to break my vow, a Hobson's choice, but without even a choice to chose. There's also the belief that, should I in time find someone that I feel is worthy (or I worthy for them) to be in a relationship with, I know that having been so long since that I will enjoy it more.

Lately, this has evolved into a complete disdain for any kind of relationship. The sheer idea of attraction turns me off. I still somewhat have a sex drive, but it's not an outward one. I think the problem has simply grown from the amount of rejection that I've faced. But this is turning into something I don't want it to, I'm not seeking any form of pity. I'm simply looking to communicate some feelings I've had lately.

And if they ask "Would you like to be Abstinent?"
you answer...

There is loneliness in my heart, I do feel a longing for female company. But It doesn't ever extend further than that. I'll have a splutter of "damn, I could do with a cuddle right now." or "boy, what I wouldn't do for just one kiss." But this passes. Mostly because I tell myself "Don't be stupid, what happens after you've had it?" Or "Don't be stupid, who you gonna get?"

It doesn't help being on Facebook, because I have a lot of attractive women on my friends list (it's not so much of a problem, none of them talk to me, thanks to my affliction with science and religion).

I'll say one thing though, as disgusting as it sounds... I've learnt the value of friendship. Now, I just enjoy the conversation. Mostly because it's hard to find decent conversation, but also because it's just nice to hear a female perspective on the world.

But there is a negative. Slowly, over time (and not just due to my decision of no snoo snoo) I've become... Ever so slightly misogynistic. I don't 'hate' women, per se, but I'm more acutely aware of their bullshit. And there's a lot of bullshit. In fact, I have a feeling I may never find a woman who I actually feel comfortable with.

A little biased.

Which brings me to the purpose of writing this blog: I'm doubting. I feel like, maybe I should just stop. Or at the very least, stop avoiding women completely. But I don't know. It's a serious case of doubt.

I don't know if there is any one who's gone through something similar, or anyone who can offer advice, but I would be appreciative of anything anyone can offer.

Well, as usual, don't be afraid to share, leave any comments you'd like to in the comment section, and I look forward to hearing from you!

I felt a blog was needed.

I have no idea what to write about, but I have the urge to put finger to key.

I've been recently quite absorbed by politics. Especially the American politics, but that's mostly because it's happening just now. Romney Vs Obama. It should be a no brainer, really. One is a republican, conservative to the bone, plans to make money by taking it off of people, and the other is a suave, liberal Grade a politician. I guess I'll start with politics. Well, whenever one talks of politics, it's never actual politics that become the topic. It's the awareness of the public.

Winston Churchill once said "A good argument against democracy is a quick chat with your average voter", and never has a phrase rang so true. When did it ever appeal as a good idea? In theory, it's wonderful. But we now know we shouldn't trust theories, they mean nothing. I mean, they proposed the Theory of Intelligent Design. We should only ever concern ourselves with evidence. Evidence leads us to truth. And the evidence shows me that people cannot be trusted with making decision for themselves. Not only that, but they can't even be trusted to present reliable choices! I dare say that if politicians were constantly monitored for their truthfulness, we'd have far few blunders (why this isn't a mandatory practise, I'll never know. They give them out quite freely on Jeremy Kyle... Strike another one for the public.) or at least, we'd have better informed choices. But instead, we the public are left to decide our own way. And that ends up with nothing but turmoil. For a beginning, no two people think alike. Secondly, people are raised to be stubborn, unchanging creatures, so that once they've had their mind made for them, they'll never once stray. The free thinkers of the world are shunned and feared, disruptive and argumentative they're called. And yet these are the ones most concerned with our futures. These are the ones we should be supporting. We need more free thinkers, and less stigma surrounding intelligence. But it will never come. In the meantime: We'll have plenty of sport programs at school, ready to tire us out, teach us to follow rules and be good soldiers.

I won't focus too heavily on American politics, I'm not America. All that I know of is simply speculative. But know enough about liberal and conservative agendas and their differences. Picture your country, if you will, as a speeding train. Majestic and strong, full of passengers. This piece of your countries find engineering is going places, and going places fast! But due to the negligence of human error, the track is out, and this train is hurtling for the edge of the line. The driver has done his shift, so they had to elect a new driver, who decides the best thing he can do is to swoop out the train, and try to stop it. He's done a job at slowing it down, but his shift is ending, and he's not able to slow it down in time. along comes a new prospective driver, and he has a better plan to stop the train. He wants to drive it on, and see if he can't jump the gap. This analogy explains the differences of "opinions".

I hate the term sheeple. Not because it offends me, or because it's unjustified, there are a lot of people who too closely follow their shepherd. No, I hate it, because it's used so blindly. How ironic such a phrase be used by everyone, as though every person has access to information the next one does not, which is true to say: All people are differently knowledged, but to say they are sheep is a gross misstatement. It's simply arrogance. But as with all the arrogant people, they know not of their own ignorance, and so blindly continue to hold their "truth" so dear.

I'll finish now, I've really run out of things I care to say - that is to say - I've made my point.

I made a joke on a youtube comment, not a great joke, but a joke no less, pretending to be a creationist. You'd be amazed by which the aggression and frustration people have replied to me. Even though, on my very page, it shows me to be Atheist, I make no qualms with keeping all my information free (I mean, who'd want to steal my identity? I don't have my picture here, for a purely cosmetic reason. I don't quite fit the necessary facial requirements for people of "intelligence", I feel. I'm ashamed of my face and my mind. So I'll stick to having a mind, rather than a face. Perhaps one day I'll share. I'd have to get a larger number of followers first. People just don't want to read...

Well, as always, any comments to be made, make them. Share if you think you have people who would care to read this, I enjoy your thoughts, no matter how in-eloquent you form them.

Judgements.

One of the countless facebook philosophy pics
that litter my feed...

I came up against a conundrum recently, whereby someone posed to me the age old philosophy of "judge not lest ye be judged" or the more public-friendly "If you've got anything wrong with you, you better not say I have anything wrong with me, because that's hypocrisy!" I'm just gonna take a little bit of time to talk about this.

First of all, no, it's not hypocrisy. Anyone who thinks so doesn't understand the term hypocrisy. If I was to say "Don't judge me, because you're ugly" THAT would be hypocrisy. Saying "You're not allowed to judge someone unless you're perfect" is just bad logic, not hypocrisy.

But why is it bad logic? Well, for a start, it's self-solving. The reason why it's said, is because nobody is perfect (unless you're uber leftwinged, and believe that everyone is perfect in their own way... that's for another time.) and by saying nobody is perfect, you remove the right for anyone to judge anyone. But if no one can judge anyone, how will we get anything done at all? Can you imagine being on a jury panel, and hearing a criminal tell the Honourable presiding "you can't judge me, yeah, cos you ain't perfect!"
What a stupid sentiment!

How do we establish whether
we want to do these things?

Not only that, but I think people forget that to say something nice about someone is also a judgement. I mean, would the same theory go that if you've got pleasant qualities, you should not make reference to someone's positive traits? I can't imagine that ever being the case. If it is, we have a problem. But it should be if we wish to continue such a terrible idea, then we must make sure it's very well balanced. That would be the token of a proper philosophy.

Not only that, it's important to judge people. If no one judged anyone, we would be left with unreasonable expectations of the world. We all have negative qualities, as referenced before. So why is anyone then afraid of having negative qualities? What's wrong with having them? I, for instance, am incredibly geeky. I'm almost insufferable at times, I rant too often, I'm also putting on weight, have a receding hair line, a beard (some don't like this) and a lot of extreme views which many may not understand or share. But by accepting these "problems", I can turn them into positives. It won't help me to make people like me, but I no longer care that these people don't like me. The requirement for their approval is non existent.

Why would you show me an idiot?

So how about a better philosophy? How about instead we say "If you're willing to judge me, know I will judge you, and pray that my perceptive capabilities are less astute than yours."

Or a more public friendly version, "judge me, I don't care, I'm not 12 years old."

Opinions - Deserved of Respect?

The definition of Opinion as according to my word bible:

Opinion: (n) Personal belief or judgment

Personal to mean:

Personal: (adj) Individual or private; of the body eg personal hygine; (of a remark etc) offensive

And judgement:

Judgment: (n) Opinion reached after careful thought; verdict of a judge; ability to appraise critically; consider something to be the case.

All too often are our freedom of expression and opinion (Article 19) and freedom of thought (Article 18) used to justify some of the biggest blunders of humanity; Racism, sexism, religion, homophobia, just to name a few (I place religion in this satirically: I know that this is the real cause of these blunders.) But is this right? What does it mean to hold an opinion? Should we really respect one another’s opinions?
Of course we should, in theory. But a theory is nothing without evidence, so let’s get some. I’ve already stated the specific human rights that this particular freedom is protected by, but freedoms are not entitlements. They have responsibilities. Article 30 states:
Article 30
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
But what does that mean?

Look at how happy she is!
How could you be against that?

Let’s say I wanted to put every woman in the kitchen, and disallow them any opportunity of freedom, because that was my opinion. This would not be protected in the freedom of expression, because it affects a woman’s freedom of peace from torture.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Or even freedom from slavery
Article 4
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
But what if this particular opinion is a religious belief? (supposing I could provide evidence that this was my religion, like an old book, perhaps, or maybe my own interpretation, my opinion of a religion even.) Once again, this is entirely irrelevant. I am depriving a woman of her rights, therefore my right has been revoked. So, straight away, this idea is debunked. But of course, I’m using such exaggerated examples that I couldn’t possibly be wrong, not to mention I constructed these to suit my needs. Let’s look at something a little more credible. Opinion in general can be as varied and substantial as the human mind can muster. You might even be safe to assume that the human mind made them up! That’s an opinion you would be free to hold.
So what would be an example of a sustainable opinion? What is it that these rights protect? Well, so long as no ones rights are infringed, anything you like! You can hold the opinion that someone’s outfit is distasteful, so long as you don’t insist they wear something different. You can think that Justin Beiber is a quality choice of music, so long as you don’t play it in my presence, because of Article 5. You are even free to chose whatever religion you wish! So long as you don’t expect me, or anyone else, to also follow this religion, so long as your religion doesn’t infringe on other rights (such as freedom from discrimination and the ilk) and bear in mind that should you make the change from belief to fact, you open yourself up to scrutiny by others. As in, if you tell me you know for a fact that God exists, I am free to question you on the evidence. Especially if you insinuate that I will burn in hell for not believing in him... Essentially, you’re free to believe what you want, to think what you want, and do what you want, within question. This is the very important distinction. There are limits to what you can do, as there are other people in the world, people who don’t care about what you think, just as much as you don’t care about them. And it’s their right to do so.
But the question stands... Should we respect one anothers opinion? It’s all well and good saying you’re entitled to have an opinion, but respecting someone’s opinion is an entirely separate matter. What does it mean to respect someone’s opinion? Respect to me is to value it on an equal level as my own,  The dictionary definition is as follows:
Respect: (n) Consideration: Deference or esteem; point or aspect; reference or relation eg with respect to (v) treat with esteem; show consideration for
With esteem meaning:
Esteem: (n) High regard (v) think highly of; judge or consider
And consideration to mean:
Consider (v) regard as; think about; be considerate of; discuss; look at ... considerate (adj) thoughtful towards others ... consideration (n) careful though; fact that should be considered; thoughtfulness; payment for a service. Considering (prep) taking (a specified fact) into account.

I think I need this T-shirt.

This to me all points in one direction... mainly. If I am to respect your opinion, I must consider your opinion in high regard, carefully think and discuss it, with you or others, before I can consider myself respectful to your opinion. But if I am to hold it in high regard, it must stand up to my scrutiny, otherwise, I cannot respect it. This would be incorrect of me, by definition.  By asserting your opinion, you are opening it up to analysis to whether it is a worthy opinion, especially if you wish for it to be respected. This is part of society. And should you wish to be included in society, well… That’s up to you. But if you do, then you need to follow the rules of society.

I want to talk...

I want to talk about depression.

Appropriate.

It's a touchy subject, for obvious reasons. There's a lot of problems to do with depression, it's a massively scary thing to admit to. But why?

Right now, I'm feeling strange. I get this way sometimes... A feeling of uselessness, of despair. A feeling that you're not good for anything. It's not nice.

I'm not saying I am depressed, but rather, I might be. I might be depressed. It's a really strange set of affairs; I actually feel so useless that I don't deserve to say I'm depressed. I'm definitely not suicidal. I don't deserve to say that either. Even if life IS pointless. It's not even really low self-esteem. I don't have an awful lot to have low self-esteem about. I life in a middle life. I'm not well off, but I have little to no money. I couldn't afford to keep myself alive for the 2 weeks that I'm supplied with government money. I'm on Unemployment benefit, and made to feel as guilty as possible about it, by everyone. By my parents, by society, even, to a degree, the government that gives it to you. Sometimes I can't help but wish to be worse off than I am, so that I can justify the feelings I have. It's not fair to say that, I know. But I'm on such a middle level...

I don't even want to make this blog. I feel like I'm complaining when I have no grounds to complain. I'm just being a whiney white boy. But dammit, my brain is telling me that I have these feelings. I don't know how to get around it... So I'm not allowed to vent because other people are worse off than me? It's selfish to think that, but what's more selfish than being depressed? I feel like my life is too hard for me. It's such hard work to be depended upon all the time, to be strong for everyone, it's cliché, I know. But it's true. It's a massive struggle, to have all the people around you expect you to be there for them, and not have them be there for you, emotionally, I mean. It's not like they physically stop existing as soon as you've helped them... Boy, wouldn't that be a treat? I live a middle life. I'm autistic, but not very much. I'm fast, but never the fastest. I'm smart, but no where near the smartest. I can debate pretty well, but what kind of use is that? When in life do you ever need to debate with someone? I play guitar, I love to play lead, but I'm shit at rhythm. I can't compromise, it's all gotta be my way... But I'm second best, how does that work? I live a middle life.

I like cats. They make me happy.

I'm never picked first for something, I'm usually not the funniest person, or the best actor, even though that's my career choice. I'm not the best at anything, no where near. I'm not the best looking, or the best boyfriend, though I try to be. That's what's important, right? Trying hard. It's only important that you try... Important to who? Who am I trying for? What use if trying to be important, if no one gains anything from it?

How I would love to live life.

I don't want anyone to read this. I hate sympathy. It's pointless. It's always followed by a compliment. Like, "you're not ugly, you're handsome!". Words mean nothing. Actions are what counts. What does it matter what you say? I'm never shown that I'm handsome. My mum might say it... Because she's a good judge! Second best is the place I'm assigned. Second best is the place I'm gonna have to accept.

Winning is great, but it just means you're better than people who are worse than you. And that's relative. Totally depends on your category, doesn't it?

I'd like to say I have something meaningful and poignant to finish with... I don't. This is just a feelings blog. I try to keep my personal feelings out of this, but it's my blog. Don't like it? Deal with it, it's mine. Go make your own blog, take whatever you like out of this, and stick it in it. Then you can read it without my personal stuff.
Anyway, I'm gonna go and make some funny stuff. Gotta keep trying, don't you?

That baby video.

I refuse to include a link to the actual video in this blog, a quick scout of the internet will find it you if you're truly determined in finding it, but I did include a link to Huffington Post article on the matter... The video in question entails a woman... Not mercilessly, but certainly incessantly beating a young child, of no older than 3. Though I'm terrible at guessing age, don't quote me on that.* I say it's not merciless, because she stops from time to time, to look at the child, before resuming the attack. She begins with a cushion, and not a soft looking one, from the way the babies head is moving, before changing to a hand, not a fist, but definitely a hand. and then some kind of what I assume to be plastic item. She then cycles between them, all the while stopping to let the baby 'breath' before continuing. Now, I'm staying as impartial as I can. I want you to make up your own mind. I don't urge you to see it, it's definitely going to be disturbing to those of you who can't handle a bit of child-abuse. A good gauge of whether or not you're going to be able to withstand watching it; if you find the Dead Baby Joke page offensive, you're definitely going to want to steer clear. Fuck, if you find the word cunt out of your bounds, I'd avoid it like the plague. It is not easy watching. But, being a man of the mind, I tortured myself, so that you don't need to.

The first thing that springs to mind, is why? Why would anyone want to do this? I don't wish her harm, or any kind of capital punishment. That would not solve the problem, only feed my own animalistic urges of sacrifice for repentance, and I feel I'm above those days... But instead, I just wonder, what possessed her to do so? She's of an Asian persuasion, so perhaps it's a cultural thing, though to assume so would make me racist, so I shan't do anymore than just query. My second assumption would be that the woman is of unsound mind, but the problem with this, is there is a young girl watching, and also someone operating the camera. Now, he's were it gets strange. The woman with the camera is not impartial. She seemed to be pleading to the woman to stop. There was a point where kicking was involved, and the woman appeared to be pleading a sort of 'don't, don't kick her.', but of course, I do not speak the language. I am only speculating on the tone of voice used. It wasn't an urgency, more of a suggestion, like when someone is trying to put together an Ikea wardrobe, and it doesn't fit right, so they start to bang it shut, but it won't work, so the get the hammer, and that one wise person says 'Don't be daft, you'll break it.'

So could that be what this is? Some kind of... Repairing baby thing?

There are moments towards the middle when the baby starts to get up onto all 4's, and is discouraged, with a few more blows to the head with a cushion, and what appears to be a twisting of the arm. Then later, toward the end, the baby begins to crawl to the woman for comfort. Even through beating, it pleads for comfort. I was moved at this. I felt a hope. The baby was beaten up the side of it's head, not hard, more of a firm push with the palm, and it still reaches out to the woman. In a weird way, it's inspirational. If you can get past all the baby-beating. But nothing of this video can I make sense.

I guess this is born through the current influx of attention to the [Controversial humour] Dead Baby Jokes page. People are fighting out against it by showing what real human cruelty looks like. Which is fine. I'm all against child, or indeed any cruelty. Cruel thoughts can't be stopped. Cruel actions can. I just wish that the people who were petitioning against this page weren't such a bunch of reprobates, wishing and actively threatening anyone who would do such evil as associating themselves with the page. Including myself. And all I do is provide them with some perspective. Oh, how that makes me a paedophile!

There's no actual point to this blog, so real pinnacle message or climax. This is mere journalism. Not good journalism, but relatively impartial. As journalism should be. What I will ask, is if you watch the video, I want you to forget you're watching a baby being beaten, I want you to watch thinking 'there is something being beaten by someone, and there are people watching'. I want you to become impartial. Judge not lest ye be judged. I want you to think about what you're watching, why it would be done, what would drive someone to such... unforgivable acts of human indecency. I want you to look through my eyes, and see the facts, not the feels.

A quick google search after I wrote this has shown me that this video has actually gone viral a year after the woman was prosecuted, serving 18 months in jail, and the baby is fine.

Huffington Post article link: (the next time I do some critique, I'm gonna do a google search beforehand. This was all done through passion. I apologise for my flaws.)
Huffington Post report on Malaysian woman baby abuse video

Freedom of Speech and it's Impact on Us...

On the topic of Freedom of speech, a problem that often occurs is ones ability to receive insults. This happens more often than one may think, one man's trash is another man's treasure. But what is to be done about this? And how can we avoid it? Should we avoid it? In order to progress with freedom of speech, do we all need to kind of... Toughen up a bit? Or should we continue down a path paved in eggshells and peoples feelings? (Future Allan here, just to let you know if you don't read this, I will be incredibly upset. It's really insulting.)

Black guy joke.

 First we must define insult to properly gauge what is quite going on. Dictionary.com states that insult is;

'To treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; Affront.'

 Which means calling someone a name, and meaning it. The key word in this definition would be insolently (boldly rude or disrespectful), or contemptuous (showing or expressing contempt, or disdain). This is to mean that if someone is making it their mission to hurt your feelings, they are being insulting. Saying rude words is not insulting, unless you are of a particularly weak disposition, or have an inability to register the complexities of human interaction. This is where we run to soft ground.

 There has been, probably all through every one of our lives (though I'm not one to make assumptions of generalisations, that's for another blog) been a time when someone has said something which hurt our feelings, rightly or wrongly, or perhaps even pushed us to the brink of shaving our heads and joining a monastery. and then they deliver the line to the teacher, or boss, or my mother, the magic 'I didn't mean it!' they may not have meant it, but those words still stung. Does that mean I can say 'you're no longer allowed to say that in case it upsets me.' Or should I just learn to deal with this issue? What if it's a serious issue, like the loss of a parent, or my sexual feelings? Or even my race!

White joke... White people are the joke.

 Racism falls into this topic quite well. There is always a race card floating about, there is always an insulted member claiming vendetta against your violent disregard for their culture (I only asked if they were paying too much for their gas!) but as we established earlier, contempt must be felt for it to be an insult. Is it perhaps that the hatred they feel towards us can trigger an insult in them? Can we be insulted for being insulted? only an individual can answer that problem, and unfortunately, wikipedia does not have an answer, which means one, at least at the moment, does not exist in solid format. So for now, we'll use our imaginations (no, I'm not trying to be insulting) and say yes, it's more than definitely positive.

 So, does that mean that taking offence is a personal choice? We can't entirely rule out the fact that they didn't mean it, (other than the fact there is no such thing as fact, which actually makes this fact not a fact... another days work...) So that means that this should be ruled out as a variable. Does that place the entirety of whether or not what you just said about my mum was meant offensively all in how I receive it? How else can we take offence? Is there another way to gauge whether someone is offending me? What about if they are consistently saying the same thing?

 The legal definition;

 (The Crown Prosecution Service. (2012). Stalking and Harassment: Legal Guidance: Crown Prosecution Service . Available: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/stalking_and_harassment/#a01. Last accessed 12 Jan 2012.) 'Although harassment is not specifically defined it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contacts upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.'

 This says that if someone is persistent in their insulting, you're being harassed. Which still leaves a lot of gaps for someone to BE insulted, but makes clearer justification for how someone may feel if insulted, though this goes slightly out of the way of insult into threatening behaviour, which tends to violate the freedom of speech of a person anyway. We should perhaps draw a line under harassment, but let's not forget it's intention! If someone is continuing to insult us, this violates our freedom of speech, and is therefore unwanted, and should not be tolerated.

Gay Joke

 So far, unless someone is deliberately continuing to say things which they know are offensive towards you, we cannot define what an insult is. It is still just something which we ourselves define as insulting. If this is the case, why on earth would anyone want to be insulted? Perhaps we should redefine what insults are, and instead, call them 'flashes of ignorance.' After all, how can we despise someone who does not know better, and there can be no insult if the person does not understand the topic!

 So, to summarise, (FINALLY! trust me, you think this was hard to read? I had to write it. And proof read! And no one ever forced you to read this... Unless the future Allan added in a bit right at the beginning that said you have to read it otherwise you've insulted me... He's a crafty bastard like that.) if we can feel insulted just because we don't like someone (we won't go into the reasons for not liking someone, they can be serious and true, like they killed your father, or they can just be because they insulted you previously! perhaps you don't like their ugly shoes... ) or by feeling harassed (the continued insults that leave you fearful of leaving your house, or using the bus) or even by stupid comments made by people who can barely walk and breath at the same time... then are we to blame? Is it your fault you don't like someone so took their harmless comment as an insult? Perhaps it is important to kind in mind the circumstances, but in general, my personal opinion is yes. And here is where i get into the philosophy behind this long and tiresome blog (well done you, for reading this far! have a gold star. Unless gold stars are insulting to your mental ability, sexuality, gender, race, culture, religion or astrological inclination... )

 The only clear definition that can be made of an insult (short of it's your own stupid fault you lily-livered chicken-noodle.) is that a stupid person has said it. Therefore, since stupidity is the bane upon mankind and itself, it cannot possibly be insulting. You may have been insulted by someone with the IQ of a brain damaged gnat (it's brain damage was caused by the abuse he would receive from his alcoholic father beating him mercilessly with his tiny little shoes - Oh, and if you're insulted by this, imagine how the gnat felt! He only lives a day... ) but you were insulted by a person with the IQ of a gnat! (he's alright now! He's up in fly heaven, flying with Fly God. What? There is no fly god? Racism... ) you couldn't possibly be any worse than they are. There is a wise Facebook quote which states 'If people are trying to bring you down, it just means that you are above them.' Hold this always, hold this dear. And remember, no one has any write to comment on the way you walk, because they haven't walked as far as you have.

 But what about swear words? And hurtful gesticulations? I know I touched on this briefly, but I kind of sauntered past it like a blind elephant. Did you know the OK sign that all Americans with their wrong way facing baseballs caps flaunt like it's their own creation or something, is an offensive symbol in Greece? Basically, what I mean by this, is every word means something to someone, somewhere... Somehow. Sometimes, we just need to face the fact that words can be interpreted as offensive. FOR EXAMPLE! The word gay. It's a word generally believed to mean homosexual, which originated as a word to mean happiness, or glee, joy, if you will. The reason the definition was adapted to homosexuals, is due to it's meaning of campness. Some people find this word offensive, especially when it is used in a derogatory way (Man, I watched a film last night, it was totally gay... Brokeback mountain is not worth the hype.) how should one feel about this? This is one of those times when contempt comes into play. If it's being used in a playful way, why should it be offensive? Language is a beautiful thing, it's words can be used over and over again to mean many different things! If you ever commit one word to mean one thing, you are condemning language to become obsolete.

Dead baby joke.

 Turns out I'm not quite finished yet... You see, another topic which comes up when we talk about insults, is the other side of the coin. You insulting other people. What if you insult other people with your views? Perhaps you taking offence to a word they said offends them! Then it becomes a matter of arrogance, of pride, of 'I'm more important than your feelings, so you should just stop speaking.' Equality must be equal if it will ever work. You must be able to take a few punches before you throw a few. You must be willing to work if you want a holiday. You must be willing to scratch a few backs... I think you understand by now. there's no need to belittle, that's insulting, and arrogant! Should I continue it... It would become harassment! So, in conclusion, (Yes, folks, this is the end... ) In order for us to claim to have been insulted by someone who is exercising their freedom of speech, you must feel yourself to be above them. And if you to feel that you are above them, you are most certainly be bellow them, because each man, woman, and all that comes in between, is made equal, no matter of status, money, car or racial orientation. The only thing that makes someone's place, is their attitude... So never feel insulted just because someone made a bad joke. Just get even instead! Make a joke about their nose.

 With this in mind, fuck you all for reading this!

It's common sense!

I don't encounter many snakes.
It's probably common sense not to deal with them.
I still would.

Here's a little thing you might not know about me... I don't have total awareness of 'common sense'. I'm not sure why. It could be the minor level of autism I have, it could be the fact that I don't massively care about people, perhaps my upbringing... Who knows! But I don't. I'd go almost as far to say, common sense is stupid.

Now, this might sound a bit... Off. But it's true! Common sense implies shared knowledge, something that everyone should intrinsically know, and those who don't know, are somehow flawed, but the only thing I know of that humanity shares, is that nothing is the same in everyone. To imply 'common sense' is to imply that your reality is the same as the other persons. But it never is. Would you tell a blind man that it's common sense to look both ways in the street? Of course not. His reality is different. But then, that makes him uncommon, doesn't it? That's not very nice equality. That's singling him out, isn't it? Would it not be the same for any other 'non-similarity'?

Take, for example (again) someone who is afraid of cats. For them, it's common sense to avoid them. I love cats though. I wouldn't avoid a cat, even if it didn't like me. Or for one last example, God. Now, believing in God, as you probably know by now, is not something I do, (just No-God, but come on, he's the source of everything! Or she...) But judging by statistics in the world, I would have to concede that believing in God is something the majority do. Would that make it common sense? It's certainly common knowledge. So, if believing in God is common sense, is it right? Probably not. Popularity has never counted for anything worth while (I say that, acutely aware of democracy) and yet, it's still common!

Common sense is only worth as much as where you're from. So stop it. Just stop it. It's silly.

Some topical thinking...

Young Happy Sportsman holding his water bottle. 

Today, I was watching the adverts, as normal, and I get annoyed, as normal. I got annoyed, because I saw yet another sportsman who I didn't know existed, and had no inclination of the sport he's involved in, being thrust at me with his pretty face and attractive hairline, to promote another product I don't care too much about (this time, it was anti-dandruff shampoo.) and it got me thinking... Isn't that what sports is for?

It was an interesting thought line. That does seem to be where most sports people get their money from. Footballers (or soccer players, for those who are linguistically different) are paid millions of pounds, (that's currency, not weight) for kicking the ball for their chosen team into the opposing net, (I'm told this is called a 'goal') and where does all this money come from? Sponsorship! 

For those who don't know,
this is the best bread ever.

But you'd never see a scientist in sponsorship, would you? I think this is a gap in the market. I think we could do with more "Warburtons: Scientifically proven to be bread!" endorsed with the face of Neil deGrasse Tyson, or "I like my music to be massive! Which is why I listen to it on Phillips sound systems!" With Dr Peter Higgs, respectively. 

It would be a welcome breath of fresh air to have Richard Dawkins on the inside of the metro, with a can of Lynx, emblazoned with; "hide your evolutionary flaw of body odour, with new Lynx Reality."

Well, we won't. Because Lynx already released their final fragrance... DIDN'T THEY?!??!

No more Lynx... Yeah right!

So, I'm putting this to you people. I want to hear what you think would be the best science/ advertising combination. Leave it in a comment, or even fucking better, let's get a geeky hashtag going!

Of course, we all know that scientists will never advertise anything other than toothpaste, because they actually have something to gain from their profession, and aren't just shallow, empty husks of human beings who have little more than a wasted life of money, women and possessions, and nothing to show for it but good looks, fast cars, and millions of people who know their name, face and abdominal muscles. What losers!

Credit:
Warburtons best bread ever.
Lynx.
The other photo is credited.

Divine Intervention.

Last night in my sleep, I had a most wonderful occurance become of me. I saw the light! And today, when I awoke, it was still there. Never more will I ever say that I do not believe in God, as illogical as it is, for to not believe in God is a false statement, it has not merit, and it has not grace. I know now that I could never disprove God, and no longer shall I do so. For I was given a vision.

I now believe... In No-God.

No-God came to me in my dream, and told me the secrets of life. No-God came to me, with it's infinite wisdom, and taught me of the truth path to enlightenment. I know now that all the times I have walked the path, all the times I have struggled through life, No-God has been there for me. No-God has been my guide. And this is as true now as it always has been.

This is No-God. Beautiful, right? 

There were times when I needed No-God, and No-God was always there. I have heard No-God's voice, and No-God has touched me heart, I have felt No-God's warm embrace.

But if you should not believe me, if you think my words be false, this is fine, for I have No-God's holy book, with the words of No-God contained within, and it tells me of No-God, and No-God's way of living in peace with the universe No-God created. Where is my proof? You know the proof. You know, in your heart, that you have been approached by No-God. No-God has touched you, as well. You have heard the voice of No-God. What more proof do you need? I have some more if it is required, here's a quick list of some things that No-God has done;

1. No-God sent his/her son down to rid us of our sins.

2. No-God sent a catastrophic flood to rid us of sinners

Grape drank.

3. No-God intervenes in our daily lives, guiding us on the correct path

4. No-God gave us free will.

5. No-God created the heavens. When we die, our souls will go to No-God.

6. If you pray, they will be answered by No-God.

7. Grape drank.

Grape drank.

So you see, all this time that I've been using evidence to disprove God, it's been wasted, because I've been asking the wrong question, and seeking the wrong answers. Now that I have learnt the truth, now that I've felt the loving caress of No-God, I want you to feel that to. Open your heart, and know that there is No-God. Know that No-God created the universe, and all other things around. Know that No-God now comes with added science! Ever wondered why objects fall to the ground when dropped? No-God causes that to happen. Ever wondered why earthquakes happen? It's because No-God is punishing the gay community by moving tectonic plates in a natural fashion that is autonomous.

If you've read this, and if you've felt the touch of No-God, I want you to comment here, I want to hear (see) you shout (capslock)

"I HAVE FELT THE WARM EMBRACE OF NO-GOD! NO-GOD LOVES ME AND I CAN LIVE MY LIFE BETTER NOW THAT I HAVE NO-GOD BY MY SIDE. BECAUSE I NEED NO-GOD!"

Maybe don't shout it. Just say it. Shouting is rude.

Credit: McArthur Dairy for the grape drank. Everyone say thank you to the world. and No-God for creating the universe

Silly Philosophy Photos...

It's been a while. I don't know why... Get off my back!

This is birthed through the fact that I spend too much time on Facebook, especially at the moment, and so I have to put up with these stupid photos that people share on their walls, with ridiculous mantras about how to live your life better, that basically amount to 'do whatever you want!' which is a load of bullshit. If I did whatever I wanted, I'd go out on a fucking killing spree, and end the lives of all those who I deem unworthy of taking part in the society I'm forced to share with them! (albeit the society would be rather slim when I was done... I have high standards. Some view that as refinement.) I'm sorry, I promised myself I'd mind the profanity. I'm such a wanker.

If I have ever known more bullshit than this...

Onto the point now. The particular picture in question (There was a period of time where the picture went missing, but I've spent I'm not sure how long searching for it, and I've only gone and found it! See the picture on the right).


It started simply enough. I saw the picture, I thought "This is bullshit, I'm going to write a comment on it", and it started to spiral out, as all of my comments do. I'd like to take a moment to invite anyone who is looking for a professional comment writer to consider this an application. I need money.
At first, it appears almost kind, and you get a sense of sincerity through the white text upon a soft, caring baby blue background. And then you read it. Oh, is that all? Just be myself, live the story no else can live live the story of my own unique life, be proud be confident and be happy? That's not much then, is it?

Nothing like a little controversy...
I totally don't agree with this.

What the kind of bullshit-y thing is that, be happy? Happiness is not just something you turn on and off, it's a reward for having good things. It's an emotion, not a lifestyle choice. What kind of crack-pot, douche-bag self-help jerk-wad makes this crap up? Clearly one of those ones who walk around saying "just stop being negative." as though you're being negative for the sole purpose of making their life a little more difficult. No, generally one is negative because there's too much crappy stuff in the world. Like them.

The whole tone of the piece is massively condescending, with it's "here's what you need to do to..." For what reason? Surely I'm not the only one who sees this is circular reasoning? Is this just general directions to living life? To what gain? If it's general directions, then it should surely include "treat others with the same respect you assign to yourself" and "look both ways before crossing the road"? Or are these supplementary to being happy? Does it not matter whether or not people think you're a 'grade A' muff cabbage so long as you're confident, proud, "and most of all" happy? Oh, and yourself, of course, as if you could be anyone else. What a load of shit. What if the person you are is an evil, manipulative and disgusting example of a human being? Is it still ok to "live the story" of a psychopathic head collector who locks postmen in his basement for the sole purpose of sorting his heads into categories, smallest to largest, darkest to lightest, most hair to least hair, and so on, so long as he's confident, proud, and happy?

This idea that the key to happiness is being yourself should never have been conceived. I'm ashamed to share the planet with the person. They must have been a prepubescent girl. If the problem with how you are is who you are, how is just being yourself going to help it? Surely it should instead be "Be adaptable and considerate."? I don't know, I don't have the answers, though this is what I would submit. Those 2 things alone would do so much good to the world, we'd have less fighting and more advances. What more could we need? We'd probably have less can-based cheeses as well...

Not related. I just think this is stupid.

So, to close this terrible tale of terrible... Ness... Ignore every picture you see on facebook, unless it comes with an author. And if it does, research that author. Or come to me and ask me what I think of them. I'm very opinionated, and I hold my opinion higher than most peoples opinions. Because it's right.

ALL CREDITS FOR PHOTOS:

The internet. No sources found - contact me if this is your intellectual property.

Hope... The final frontier

I am an Atheist, I make no qualms with keeping this a secret, generally. I disagree with religion, and I feel that a lot of the time, we could be better off if we all shrugged off our primitive childish delusions of imaginary friends. While they were useful as children to enable us to grow better communication or logic skills (arguing with oneself builds the mind in places where there is only you, there have been numerous studies into talking to yourself and imaginary friends, it is not a sign of madness.) when your imaginary friend does nothing but that which you want them to, it kind of loses reason...

So I move on to the point of this here blog, the one I'm writing right now (blogception)

Hope.

This is the last bastion of religion. The one remaining trump card, the only reason why people hold onto tattered outdated scriptures and laws and beliefs. It's the very thing which makes it OK to do things without thought, and to do nothing when something is called for. But without it, how can we have hope?

Let me elaborate.

What is the point of having hope, when the only purpose it serves is to provide hope? Further this, what is hope?

Hope is either one of 2 things, it's requesting favour for the simple reason that you have requested it, or it can also be the comfort that you provide yourself with positive thought when you are stacked with unattainable odds.

If it is trusting that despite there being immeasurably large and negatively leaning probability that your chosen outcome will be the outcome, then how is this a logical decision? That's not to say that it is wrong to think that there is a chance, because to make a probability, there must be a chance of success, otherwise it is a law (a physical one, not a pesky 'enforced by men in uniform, because without enforcing there is not true standing for it' one, though I'll talk more about that another day) and laws cannot be changed because we just want them to. Unless you're religious, in which case the world does what you want, apparently. Besides, rare and incredible things happen all the time. look at the probability that there should be life, and yet, here we are.

Hope and luck are best buddies. They go together like butter and toast, or whiskey and coke. With a lot of luck, you can have whatever you hope for, or if you hope hard enough, you might get lucky. So it's pretty much fair to say that those who are lucky, (that is, those who probability fairs best) are the ones who benefit from hope. Not everyone then. So why does anyone hope? Luck and hope are more or less extensions of prayer. Prayer is a way to ensure hope, because even when your prayer wasn't granted, you can guarantee that there is something to be learned from it, just ask any priest! But surely, asking for favour just because you're 'well in' with the big guy is immoral? If every person was a good christian, and was nice to God and his son, then everyone would have their prayers granted, right? everything would be paradise. Which would be hell, ask any rational human being. Eternal joy is nothing to be wished for. Because we wouldn't appreciate the good without the bad to compare. Slowly, we'd begin to class some of the smaller, not as fantastic things as bad times, and we'd rediscover what it is to feel bad, but improperly. We'd base our comparison upon wasted things, like 'I wish instead I'd chosen strawberry icre cream instead of vanilla'. The idea of paradise is truly a loathsome concept. But that's not what this is about.

But as I've been reminded, it's not the only use for hope. It can 'influence' the outcomes of eventualities. Not literally, that would be weird. But in through the efforts of positive thinking. That wonderful irritation. There have been numerous studies on positive thinking, and the science proves it. Why it happens, that's another story. Though I would have to say that it's probably all down to 'thinking something good is going to happen, and you're probably going to make it happen... If you're a positive thinker person'. Not all people are. If we were, then it would be too easy. And there would be no place for comedy if everything went right. So it's not all bad. For a number of people, it can work. Not all the time, there will be failures, that should be kept in mind.

So, this has changed my conclusion. Instead of the original, full of nasty, seething hatred towards hopeful individuals, I get to offer people an actual nugget of proper, unbiased assistance. Hope, while being mostly useless and selfish, for the above outlined reasons, can actually come into useful sometimes, in the way that positive thinking can at times change the outcome. Of course, you should stay positive. But you shouldn't really rely on hope to make that happen. You should be confident, and rely on the truth to make you confident. If you don't have the confidence, or the truth isn't quite in line with you, don't lie. Don't go around going 'well, I don't really have what it takes, so I'm gonna just hope that I do it...' Go out there and just give it a shot. It's nothing about hope. As they say, the winner isn't always the best, it's sometimes the person who wants it the most.

God and Freewill vs Determinism.

The one thing many religious people will state, is that God gave us free will. He gave us free will in order to live our lives freely, quite simply. It's the explanation for human suffering, it's the very reason that we live on earth, and not in heaven, thanks to the 'original humans' (I still find it fascinating that this was taught in schools.) But conversely, there is another explanation for why we do anything. Determinism. This big bad boy states that the things which we do are directly influenced by our surroundings, we really don't have much of a choice. A bit dank and depressing, but just watch the nature channel, that will cheer you up! (evil wolf, trying to kill that ox! it's good that you failed, you evi... oh no, no food for the babies!) But not only is this dank and depressing... It makes a whole lot of sense. To me, anyway. But onto my point, no dilly dallying around! (I can't believe dilly dally are real words...) God!

This essay is set about to prove or disprove the existence of God, using these psychological theories (and maybe some of their friends). I will begin by setting the premise of the question, and then work about giving the evidence (and counter-evidence, and some counter-counter...) of my chosen theory. It's pretty complicated and intelligent stuff, but I'm only as smart as you are, so if I can write it, you can read it!

Right, down to business.

Free will, a recognised fact since the very early early days, stating that we do what the fuck we want. By the theory of free will, we don't have to listen to any laws, they just have to exist, to 'help' us make a choice. This of course, is essential to defining whether or not someone has commited a crime, without free will, then the choice made is incredibly diminished. Scary thought. With free will, we are not controlled by the media, we are not influenced by computer games, we are not hypnotised, it's our choice to be hypnotised, anyone who's ever been hypnotised has been lying. Psychological addiction could also be technically nullified, since this means it's not our choice to be mental connected to something.

Determinism is a theory which follows like the universe. She is controlled by a set of laws, which act and react on one another in a particular fashion, and human action is the same. By the logic of determinism, if we know the history of a person, and the current stimulus is all known, then we can confidently predict how an individual will react. Behaviourists also agree with this, B. F. Skinner argues that 'All behaviour is determined by environmental events and that humans tend to repeat behaviours that are rewarded'. He also states that free will is an illusion. < br/>
Ever heard of a Freudian slip? I'm sure you have, if not, then allow me to enlighten you; It is a seemingly random action where we say not what we intend, but what we wished to have, such as saying someone else's name. freewill would decide that this is a purely accidental thing, with no real relevance, because it's entirely un-controlled by other stimulus, but determinism actually believes that these are motivated errors, and they actually 'reveal a persons true desires'

I think that's enough of an introduction. To the matter at hand!

In order for God to still supply us with freewill, He would need to never expect us to do as he tells us. If he does, then this is determinism. But how are you to know he doesn't? Original sin. Then again, this could have existed before freewill (it wasn't, it was pretty explicitly explained that they could do whatever they wanted in the garden of Eden, so long as they didn't eat from the tree of knowledge, I'm just humouring a possibility) But then why the promise of heaven for good people, and the promise of hell for bad? This, once again, is not freewill, but determinism.

So what? What difference does that make? Well, I know you didn't really ask that, I'm just doing this for dramatic effect, after all, we, as humans, crave drama! SO MANY COMMAS! This means that God either a) Lied to us, or b) Doesn't understand that which he created. This, or he's really shit at explaining things. If so, then he can't be perfect. He knows we aren't perfect. That's why he gave us such a long, and boring, manual. So, if he lied to us, then how can he preach to us not to lie? If he doesn't understand that which he as created, then he, once again, isn't perfect.

So let's say, for arguments sake, that he isn't perfect (there's a lot of evidence for this, look at the contradictions all through the bible, I won't cite them here, I'm already bored of writing this much) and he didn't explain what he meant by freewill, and actually meant determinism. What implication would this make? Again, I'm glad I asked for you.

If God was to have created determinism as freewill, everything he would do would govern what He we do (As you can see, I'm dropping capitals. I don't really see the point in capitalising the h every time I write He or Him. It's pedantic, and I'm sure he doesn't care too much. If he does, he should strike me down before I'm finished writing this). This means, that he couldn't send his son down to relieve us of our sins, he couldn't tempt us with heaven, or threaten us with hell. In fact, he would not even be able to exist to avoid controlling our freewill. If God was to exist, then people are going to start to do what he tells them to, be it truth that people can be spoken to by God, or be it false, and they are just doing it to give a reason for their despicable and inhumane actions.

So, without further ado, I bring you my closing statement.

Determinism is highly likely (though not officially) freewill, as we know it. Rather than being entirely free to make our own choices, we are governed by our environment, as in, we have the freewill to not take a coat when we go outside, but it's raining, that would be daft (another circumstance changing eventuality). Since this is the case, and God, being the all-knowing all creating creator of everything, even... himself... He would know this, also, and be unable to exist in order to avoid affecting our freewill. As confusing as this is, is how paradoxical it truly is. Of course, if I am wrong, and freewill DOES exist, then, as has been said before by greater and mightier minds than myself, he cannot hold us responsible for his own misjudgment of our ability of reasoning that he didn't really give us all too well. That's to say how can he hold US responsible for tempting us into sin, with his own creations? Perhaps I'll go more into the story of Adam and Eve story another time, as this is a big massive contradiction in itself. Right now, I'm just happy I managed to finish this.

Anyway, I hope this has given you something to think about at the very least, I'm not aiming to give facts or solutions, but rather asking you to not be afraid of thinking. It's a scary thing, but only because God doesn't want you to, He wants you to do what ever you want to so long as it's not what he wants you to not do... It's just too much!

Quick update: I've done nothing for a while, I know. I'm working on it. Got a couple things in the works, things always being born, things always being thought about... There is too much in my mind even for this blog. So be patient. My next update is to be on the subject of freewill. It's a pretty exciting piece of writing for me, I feel like such an Ancient Greek Philosopher! Stay tuned lovely povelies.

In the beginning...

God did not create the earth. Nor did he create the bible. How do I know this? Because he did not create the earth. This blog was began in a sort of vain and arrogant attempt at keeping up with the great minds, The LED lights shining in the vast expanse of the basement, while I myself being very much of a match. By that, I mean in the physical instrument of fire sense, not comparitively.

But I divulge.

It all began when I started to make sense of the 'Big Question', in a very theoretical sense. Such as how did the universe begin? Or why are we just so damn stupid, despite all we have 'achieved'? As I may have insinuated, it's not so much aimed at people who already have the knowledge and information, because that would be silly. They have the information. I want to expand others, to create new minds, to help the world. That being said, I can't do that alone. If you're truly on the path for a better world, you must first better yourself, by opening your mind.

I will not very often make bold claims or statements. Most of what I write will be from a hypothetical standpoint, or in a manner which I ask for you to understand yourself. I dream of a world without religion, one where we are free to think what we like and seek information where we please, it's not very good if I start going around slinging facts here and there, unless they really are facts...

Most of all, I hope you enjoy your stay. Share with your friends, click on the ads to earn me some cash, touch yourself over my mind. There is no judging here friends. Only mind expanding drugs...