Submit an Article | Bookmarked Articles
Viewing Articles About All - Page 35
| What you make of it. | December 9, 2005, 2:00AM |
 by: Satchell |
|
A friend wrote a blog entry recently. In it he talked about his opinion on how life isn’t what you make of it and how you shouldn’t suppress your anger and feelings. I responded and told him that I disagree and was fairly brief but here I can be as longwinded as I want. Ok! Life is exactly what you make of it. The people who don’t believe that would argue that you cant control everything that happens and thus other people dictate the events of your life. Well that’s a good way of not taking responsibility for your actions. If you ram your car into someone else’s you have to collect his or her info etc. to say that fate directed my wheel to that car would be just downright stupid. You hit them because you weren’t paying attention. If other people’s lives dictated yours there would be no justice system. You would appear before the court and the judge would just say 'well I guess it isn’t your fault... you were looking at an interesting book. You can go. Shit happens.' but alas it is not the case. On to emotions and suppressing them. For the longest time I thought that emotions should be used as much as possible. That if you suppress them you would become unhealthy. I like to think of mud when I am explaining this. Think of a pile of mud. If you try to build a wall with it the wall will just fall apart (water being emotion and the dirt being logic.) but if you take out the water and build a wall using the water as needed it will become strong. What I am trying to get at is that control of your emotions and thoughts will make you a more mentally sound person. It’s not so much that your suppressing them, its simply you controlling them and can use them when needed. Emotion can be a pretty useful tool but like any tool has a specific purpose. You wouldn’t use a hammer to tighten a bolt. So weather your a pile of mud or a hammer... be smart about what your doing. Thanks for reading. | |
topic: Rants | |
[reply] [0 comments] |
|
| Down The Road, Not Across The Street. | December 2, 2005, 10:00AM |
 by: Hylean |
|
Many people talk about cutting, it's everywhere, on the TV (Hollyoaks in the UK), in magazines, in music and in papers. We cannot escape it anymore, even though its a taboo, and for all that we hear about cutting, very few people actually seem to know why others do it. Ignoring those people such as emos and the like (I will get back to them), lets look at those who are genuine cutters. Those who cut because they feel the need to; yes, others have problems which on the whole are much bigger, but to the cutter, their problems are just as important or as big as those. They cannot see past their problems and they cannot seem to work round them, every normal method fails them. It is often the case that they have become somewhat mentally unbalanced through their problem and thus the normal ways cannot help them. Did you know that some doctors actually recommend cutting when it seems nothing else will work? This is when cutting comes in. For all of those who do not know enough biology to realise this, cutting realises chemicals into the system, adrenalin for example, which give the cutter a buzz and a high. This alone is dangerous because it soon creates a dependancy on the cutting, the cutter needs that high again and so has to cut more and more as the body gets used to the chemicals, as with all drug addictions. So for those who feel cutting is an easy thing to give up, it is not, It is an addiction for those who truly cut and they cannot help what they do anymore than a heroine addict can. Now I know quite a few cutters, genuine ones, and I have seen how hard it was for them to pull themselves out of that pit. However, I have also seen how they fall straight back into it the moment something bad, in their opinion, happens to them. The sharp implement comes out and the cut opens with a swift jerk of the arm. Is it not that way for most drug users? I do not see you all telling them to get a laugh and stop taking the drugs, in fact many of you out there probably do take drugs, so I hope you can sympathise with a true cutter's plight. It is not easy for them. The worst thing about this type of cutting is that, aside from creating an addiction, is that the person cannot and does not learn to deal with the problems that forced them to such an alternative. That is one of the reasons it is so easy for them to fall back into that state of mind when something bad comes along: they never learned to cope in the first place. Thus, they are a more fragile kind of person and take things harder than normal people would. Often they need to go see psychiatrists and psychologists after they have managed to stop cutting, if they ever do. So next time you bitch about cutters, real ones or just in general, remember, it is not all their fault, they cannot escape it and in fact sometimes they have been told to cut in order to help them gain some semblance of normality in their lives. I did say I would talk about the other kind of cutters, and I shall call them "cuttters" throughout the rest of this, in order to differentiate. Well, what can be said about them? I apologise for this sweeping statement, but most of these "cutters" are found in the emo culture. Yes, goths get it too, but not on such a high scale as emos do, and it seems it is because of the cutting stereotype affiliated with the emo subculture. Apologies for any insult emos take from that, but I say: take a look around you, you will see it is true, especially with new wave emo-kids. I digress, these "cutters" are idiots, I am sorry to say. Cutting does not make you any more "scene" than the next person; it does not make you any cooler; it does not make people look up to you: what it does do is get you lots of lovely attention though, doesn't it? We all love attention, well most of us, it makes us feel loved, wanted, needed and special. News flash, cutters do not flash their scars about; they do not hide them under shitty bracelets or under stupid sweatbands; in fact they generally do not cut anywhere near their wrists as they are too easily seen. They tend to cut in the armpits, inner thighs and other such unviewable places (Lisa in Hollyoaks chose the inner thighs). For all you "cutters" out there, the world is not against you; your parents do not hate you just because they wont raise your pocket money to 200 pounds a month instead of the measly 150 you are getting at the moment; your friends do not hate you just because they cannot hang with you on a certain day; and people are not speaking behind your back just because they laugh whenever you are near. Do not spread such crud and stop living in such self-pitying lives. If life is so bad for you and you really want to kill yourself like you claim: DOWN THE ROAD, NOT ACROSS THE STREET. I am sorry, but I am sick of hearing about all these "cutters" with such shit lives that want to kill themselves and then never do anything about. Nearly every cutter I know does not want to die, they just use it to get away from their problems: they never want to go down the road. I am sick of my mates who cut getting a bad reputation because of the "cutters"; my friends are too ashamed to get naked with their lovers because of the scars they have hidden about their bodies whilst the "cutters" go out there and flash their wrists off at everyone passing by. In the end, there are cutters and there are "cutters". Do not bash the cutters because of what those "cutters" portray themselves as and do in order to get attention, not everyone is like that and certainly most cutters are not. | |
topic: Rants | |
[reply] [22 comments] |
|
| What is Cutting.... | November 29, 2005, 11:53PM |
 by: Zer0 |
|
What Is Cutting? Injuring yourself on purpose by making scratches or cuts on your body with a sharp object - enough to break the skin and make it bleed - is called cutting. Cutting is a type of self-injury, or SI. Cutting is more common among girls, but guys sometimes self-injure, too. People may cut themselves on their wrists, arms, legs, or bellies. Some people self-injure by burning their skin with the end of a cigarette or lighted match. When cuts or burns heal, they often leave scars or marks. People who injure themselves usually hide the cuts and marks and sometimes no one else knows. Self-injury is not new. It's also not a very common behavior. But lately people are talking about it more. As guys and girls hear about cutting, they may feel curious about it and why people do it. Because it seems a little bit forbidden, some younger teens may think that cutting might make them seem daring, grown up, or popular. With all the talk about it, cutting can almost seem like the latest fad. But cutting is a serious problem. | |
topic: Rants | |
[reply] [3 comments] |
|
| just a though | November 26, 2005, 10:52PM |
 by: Gilberto |
|
Out Foxed Just in case anybody hasn't gotten around to watching this yet. Posted by: Scott Horton on Nov 25, 05 | 4:22 pm | Comments? | link Give Us A Break, Norm The Huffington Post is headlining the latest congressional Democrat to find his cajones when it comes to the Iraq war, and they direct us to this Seattle Times story, which relates the "agonizing" of Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Washington) over the issue, and informs us of the following rationale for Dicks "loudly and proudly" supporting the invasion: "Dicks thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and wouldn't hesitate to use them against the United States." What a load of crap: there is no other way to put it. Does Rep. Dicks really expect us to believe he was convinced the Iraqis were about to nuke Seattle? Get off it, Norm -- you aren't fooling anybody. Not even the President -- deluded as he is -- really believed that cock-&-bull story about Saddam bombing American cities from the air using unmanned drones. As the Washington Post reported "In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech, Bush mentioned a potential threat to the U.S. mainland being explored by Iraq through unmanned aircraft 'that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons.' The basis for that analysis was a single report that an Iraqi general in late 2000 or early 2001 indicated interest in buying autopilots and gyroscopes for Hussein's UAV program. The manufacturer automatically included topographic mapping software of the United States in the package. "... Senior members of Congress were told in September 2002 that this was the "smoking gun" in a special briefing by Vice President Cheney and then-CIA Director George J. Tenet. By January 2003, however, it became publicly known that the director of Air Force intelligence dissented from the view that UAVs were to be used for biological or chemical delivery, saying instead they were for reconnaissance. In addition, according to the president's commission, the CIA "increasingly believed that the attempted purchase of the mapping software . . . may have been inadvertent." Rep. Dicks is, quite simply, lying. He voted for the war for the same reason as most of his Democratic colleagues: because it was popular. Because he was caught up in the post-9/11 hysteria generated by the War Party. Because he has reflexively supported U.S. military intervention overseas, along with the Democratic party Establishment, without giving it so much as a second thought. And now he -- and plenty of others like him -- wants to do what's popular, now, and jump on the antiwar bandwagon. Not so fast, bub. These people -- yes, I'm talking about the Democrats in Congress -- need to be held accountable just as much (if not more so) than the Republicans. They, after all, empowered the War Party: they gave a bipartisan gloss to a decision that led to the worst strategic disaster in American history. They didn't just sit on their hands and let the pro-war wave wash over them -- they stood and applauded, "loudly and proudly," as the war fever reached fever pitch. To hell with them. To hell with Norm Dicks. Let them pay the political consequences of their complete lack of leadership -- and, yes, their cowardice -- as the winds of war swept away all opposition except for the stalwart resistance of a few. While the left-Democrats over at the Huffington Post are too busy attending glitzy parties and bashing Walmart for selling affordable products to working-class people who want to increase their own standard of living -- and, unlike Arianna, can't afford to shop on Rodeo Drive -- to notice that the blame for this war extends to both parties, Antiwar.com will not shy away from the truth: Norm Dicks, and every single member of Congress who voted for this war, should do the honorable thing: apologize (especially to the families of the fallen), or fall on their swords and resign. Posted by: Justin Raimondo on Nov 25, 05 | 10:26 am | Comments? | link ps. not Gilbertos work | |
topic: Current Events | |
[reply] [3 comments] |
|
| Morbus Universorum | November 22, 2005, 11:52PM |
 by: Foxblood |
|
I dedicate the following to Jonathan Swift, Baron de Montesquieu, and Mark Twain. Upon a scientific visit from Pluto, the Plutonian scientist Foxblood had this to say in a letter to his emperor. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As Your Most Excellent Plutonian Emperor is well aware, my assistants and I, ever your humble servants, have made several visits at your wish to the Morbus Universorum for the purpose of learning about this strange world. Following is a study into a few of the customs of America, the current power on this planet. While these apes have learned to tolerate the beliefs of others, the dominant “religion” of this country is Christianity. Yet these beings worship in a very paradoxical manner. For instance, their deity, Christ, is classically depicted with long hair, an unkempt beard, and loose clothing. However, when the youth of this species dresses in the same manner, such is an object of ridicule and persecution. The only conclusion that we can come to is that it must be considered a heresy – i.e., living in a manner that is unsuitable to those with power – to aspire to imitate the deity in appearance. These creatures gather every seven days to worship and listen for an hour while another recites passages from the Book of the religion, and pray and nod as he mentions the temporality and thus insignificance of physical life, after which worshippers rush out to get to the local food providers before the rest. One of the most conspicuous characteristics of the “Christians” in this nation is their obsession with material goods. This is strange, for one of the parables of their deity says that it “is easier for a camel to come through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.” This leads us to believe that while they outwardly profess a love of their deity, the true God of Americans is a green fabric that is carried in the pockets. For, while disguised as one of these humans (for all I had to do was wear the skin one of its cousins, the gorilla), I was told that the world stopped without it, that anything could be had by it, and that nothing was done without consulting it. It would not be unreasonable to guess that if Christ existed today, he would be despised; for he had long hair, an unkempt beard, loose clothing, and was poor. From here I proceed to the politics of this nation. While this country is apparently the land of equal power and opportunity, such is obviously not the case. It is observed that, in the elections, most votes are cast by the middle and upper classes; for, public education being generally of such poor quality, many are too concerned with feeding themselves than to listen to those fighting for power argue. Thus, like every other nation in the history of this planet, the power ultimately rests in the hands of the fortunate. The electoral system itself is an oddity. The ritual proceeds thus. Those who wish for power first get their chances by doing favors for special interests (many of these are called “brown noses,” though we have not yet uncovered the etymology for this term). Next, when in the position to run for power, the politicians court other special interests in order to court their finances also. Once enough money is acquired from the great “corporations” (i.e., a faction representing a corner of a market, run by men with a nose for opportunity and a feel for green fabric), these finances are used by the candidates to tour the country and bribe various powerful people. The speeches proceed in much the same way, where the candidate makes great promises he pretends he’ll keep and the listeners pretend to believe them. Thus, not the greater administrator, but often the superior liar comes out on top. Last, popular culture presents quite the spectacle. When going to formal occasions or work, the males often wear something akin to a colorful upside-down noose around their necks, and, in the latter case, countenances to match that of an impending hanging. The youth culture is just as odd. It is found that what is admired among many youths is the imitation of the ignorant. “Pimpin’ hos,” “smokin’ crack,” and “bustin’ caps,” are among the ideals of this faction. The opposite end of the spectrum is just as interesting. On this end we have surly youths in dark colors that spend too much time on the internet, bemoaning their insignificance and sadness, debating unanswerable philosophical questions and conspiracy theories, and writing satirical articles on modern society. This only scratches the surface of all the strange customs of this culture, and we will go into further detail at a later time upon more research, if you so wish. Perhaps next I will write on the strange nature of the wars of this wretched planet. Ever your most humble servant, -Foxblood ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If this receives a favorable response, I may continue these. | |
topic: Essays | |
[reply] [25 comments] |
|
| You Better Watch Your Language! | November 20, 2005, 11:16PM |
 by: Saturnalia |
|
-----WARNING: REALLY FUCKING EXPLICIT CONTENT!----- -This article is rated [FU] for shitty language- It was just another rainy day in April in 2001 at Wayne High School in Huber Heights, Ohio. At this particular point in history, the country was at ease, so much so that the president felt safe (or lazy) enough to take the first 3 months of his term on vacation, and few people had ever heard of Bin Laden, the Radical Religious Right, or Janet Jackson's bare breast. This is the day that I walked into my Acting Class five minutes late. But unbeknownst to me, I would soon be walking out with the prevailing theme for the rest of my life so far. That day we were supposed to perform a short comedy skit we had created with our partners. I realized that I might actually have some time to rehearse before the teacher started calling on people to do their skits, so I grabbed my partner and sat down at a desk near the front to rummage in my bag for the script I had made. Wait a minute.. the script wasn't in my bag. I must have left it at home! To myself and the general area around me, I exasperatedly exclaimed, "Oh, fuck!" "Miss Pacella, would you come here for a moment," I heard from the front of the classroom. Shit, the teacher must know I'm not prepared. I'm so going to get an "F". Dammit, dammit, dammit! But then something happened that caught me quite off guard. As I arrived at the teacher's desk, I noticed he was writing out a detention slip. I asked him what it was for and he told me to read it. In the part designated for the reason the detention was given was written, "said 'fuck'". I couldn't bloody believe it. Was I actually getting a detention for language in my Acting class? Was he really challenging my freedom of speech? I was offended! I had to sign the damn thing, so while I was signing it, I wrote in my own two cents after "said 'fuck'", being, "and I liked it". Well, when he saw this he was extremely displeased. Long story short, I got a one way ticket to the Vice Principle's office where I was promptly suspended for 10 days. yes, that's right. 10 days. The standard for fighting was only 3-5 days. Apparently, saying a "bad word" is much more serious than punching someone in the face. Oh, they tried to explain it away as a "blatant disreguard for authority." To which I replied, "what exactly is it that makes authority right in EVERY case? Can't authority be wrong sometimes?" Apparently not. Whatever, I was only 17. To me, it was a free vacation. Oh, how wrong I was. I arrived back at school 14 days later (you know, weekends and whatnot). Skip ahead to 3rd period, my favorite period, Pottery Class. I'm not there for more than 20 minutes when I'm called to the Vice Principles office. So I get there and I'm sitting in that really uncomfortable chair in front of the Vice Principle's desk waiting for her when she walks in with the Principle himself. Woah, how serious was this if he was showing up? I didn't even know what I had done wrong yet! Then the Principle said that they were very sorry, but they felt it would be best if I left school. I was being expelled. They threw around that whole "disreguard for authority" thing again and something about not tolerating such language. When I finally spoke up and pointed out that when that gangsta-wannabe girl in my P.E. class had slapped a girl in the face and then pulled her eyebrow ring out she had only gotten suspended for a week and detention for a month, they decided to change the subject to my attendance record. oh, that makes sense; kick me out of school for not showing up to school often enough. These people were obviously on crack. ------ Let me just start off by saying THERE ARE NO BAD WORDS. There are bad actions, bad intensions, and bad food, but the difference here is that those three things CAN actually harm someone. Has a four-letter word ever kicked you in the crotch? Has an obscene remark ever cheated on you with the pizza boy while you were at work? Have you ever gotten salmonella poisoning from a dirty joke? No? I didn't think so. Oh! But wait! There was that time when someone called you a rancid goat cunt and it really twisted your panties. It wasn't the fact that they called you a name, but that they called you a Cunt, which puts more bite to it. But you got over it, right? Let's examine that for a moment. You know you're not actually a big festering vagina, so why get offended? In some cultures, there is no such thing as "bad words." The worst thing you can tell someone, is that the assortment of fruits and vegetables they are selling are of poor quality. If you called them a vagina, they would only look at you like you were crazy and go on about their business. What ever happened to being in control of your own emotions. Doesn't one have the ability to choose what to get offended over? Of all the things in the world to be offended by, why words? Words are harmless. You are not making the world a better place by not saying certain words, and absolutely nobody wants to hear you utter the words, "excuse me! Would you please not say that! That's offensive!" Here's an idea, why not spend a little less time petitioning the FCC to have South Park banned from the airwaves and spend a little more time being offended by stuff that REALLY matters. Here's a short list: starving children, mass genocides , AIDS, poor quality education, deficites, treason, thousands dying in war, outrageously high gas prices, child molesters, gang members, discrimination, sexism, religious intolerance, hate of any kind, cancer, and the continued existance of Paris Hilton. (okay, so I threw that last one in just to be a twit) "But what about the children!?" What about them? Children are not born with a prejudice aganst certain words. This is taught to them by their parents. Parents teach their kids not to say certain words because they fear someday they might say those words in public. Why don't these parents want their children to say these words in public? Well, they could say it in front of an adult, and that adult would get offended, something that adult could easily choose not to do. Or maybe they are afraid of their child going to school and saying a bad word to another child. No harm there, but if that other child goes home and tells that word to their parents, then their parents will get offended and demand to know where the child heard he word. So in that case they are still only worried about another adult getting offended. And that's another thing! Why is it called "Adult Language" if adults aren't even allowed to say it half the time!? I can't even begin on how much I think -this- shouldn't even be an issue, but lets talk about the Bible. Some people say, "the Bible says 'no cursing!'" You're right, the Bible does say that. It does NOT, however, say, "here's a list of English words you aren't allowed to say." No cursing means no wishing of ill will upon another. It also says not to take the Lord's name in vain, but that just means think before you invoke the name of God and make sure you are using it in a proper manner. Hopefully a few of you Christ Crispies out there will read this and have your piousness rearranged a bit. So why is it that we can watch people blow each other up on CNN, but Comedy Central gets fined $500 for every "shit" that Eric Cartman says? Why is it okay for news media talking-heads to speak of "going to Iraq and converting them all to Christianity and killing those who don't convert," yet Howard Stern gets driven from terrestrial radio altogether because of the fun-loving content of his show? I'm tired of having to walk on egg shells all the time just because there is some twat who thinks they have higher morals than I do who will get all uppity with me for speaking my mind. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? doesn't freedom of speech mean ALL speech just as freedom of religion means ALL religion? Aren't you tired of seeing the FCC take millions of dollars every year from people who barely even hint at "foul speech"? I sure as fuck am! | |
topic: Rants | |
[reply] [12 comments] |
|
| sex aids in highstreet stores | November 17, 2005, 2:37PM |
 by: Alexandria |
|
I recently read a poll and took part in the same poll on Sex aids being sold in highstreet shops such as superdrug. This poll btw was done by Morbidserenity. And I thought, jez that's bad that highstreet stores that little kiddies go into are selling such things - obviously this is my own opinion btw and I know a lot of you will have a different opinion to this - because as a lot of people who commented on the poll said, how embaressing will that be for parents whose kids are asking or knock over a shelf of them? Anyways, well not only was it bad enough that highstreet stores are selling such things - though I havent anything against sex aids/toys but personally think they should be kept to sex shops or at least the back of shops - but then I switched over from my poll to my msn messenger main window and guess what.... you know the little advertising bit? Yes well guess what mine was advertising....well heres what it said anyways: "free your mind take the scenic route and discover a world of vibrations" It then had beside that a nice picture of what looked like a metal dildo and then beside that it said "durex play available at superdrug".....WTF?! Why is msn messenger advertising that?!?! Dont they realise kids have msn and not only that it gives you a nice little site as well which provides more sex toys. Personally I think advertising such thing is a REALLY bad move for msn. Like they wouldnt advertise sex shops or dildos in sex shops, but the moment its superdrug its fine to advertise it. Really, I think such advertising on a family thing such as msn is bad. Imagine as a child clicking on that by accident cos your computers slow and your clicking away and then things like that coming up and your mum coming in how dead you would be? Well, theres my 2 cents on msns BAD advertising, what do the rest of you think? Did anyone else have this advertisement? I must say as much as I disagree with it it doesnt really stand out to much like some msn advertisments, it kinda blends in with the background cos I didnt really notice it, but still I think it' wrong. | |
topic: Rants | |
[reply] [6 comments] |
|
| The Importance of Scepticism in Determining Truth | November 11, 2005, 6:40PM |
by: Foxblood |
|
The following is an article from a Hindu newspaper; I found it incredibly interesting. Please note that this is not directed towards anyone on this site, it's just a good article on the best technique in the search for truth. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Distortion of history worries Amartya Special Correspondent "Scepticism is exactly what we have to generate before any newer understanding" # Scientific objectivity undermined by sectarian traditionalists # Some general mistrust of very idea of social science prevails # Starvation is associated with decline in economic means THOUGHT-PROVOKING: Nobel laureate Amartya Sen at a lecture on Science, Argument and Scepticism organised by the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai on Saturday. MUMBAI: Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate and Lamont University Professor of Economics and Philosophy, has expressed doubts and unhappiness about the way history and culture are invoked in ongoing political debates in India today. Prof. Sen was delivering a public lecture on Saturday on "Science, argument and scepticism" at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) on the occasion of its 60th anniversary. Raw deal "My dissatisfaction related on the one side, to the distortion of history and the undermining of scientific objectivity by sectarian traditionalists (including the Hindutva movement) and on the other, to the rootlessness and historical innocence of the obdurate modernist," he said. The tradition of science and mathematics tends to receive a fairly raw deal from both sides of the divide between sectarian traditionalism and rootless modernism, according to Prof. Sen. He said he was dismayed by the fact that the intellectual links between the strong heritage of scepticism and heterodoxy, on one side, and scientific pursuits and creativity on the other hand, received so little attention. Earlier, explaining the reasons for choosing this topic for a lecture, he said that while the TIFR was founded in response to a "capacious vision of science and society," that vision included the pursuit of scientific excellence but combined it with a clear understanding of the role of science in society as well as the role of society in science. "Our unwillingness to remain satisfied with ongoing understanding and knowledge can be very important for the motivation behind the development of science. Arguments and scepticism are central to the two-way relationship between science and society," he said. Another reason for the topic, he said, was his book of essays called The Argumentative Indian, which was prompted by a general curiosity about the historical and intellectual background of India, among other motivations. "We cannot live without the past even though we cannot live within it either. Second, when history is distorted for one purpose or another, it requires correction. Veracity was important for history as it is for science," he pointed out. "We do not have to be imprisoned in history to take it seriously," he remarked. Examining these issues in his lecture, Prof. Sen said cultivation of doubts and the sharpening of questions lie at the root of most scientific inquiries. He pointed out that India had had a truly exceptional heritage of being doubtful and sceptical. But he regretted that this legacy had tended to be fairly comprehensively neglected both by traditionalists who emphasise faith (particularly religious faith) rather than doubt, and by modernists who have tended to attribute the origin of Indian scepticism to Western, particularly British influence. Using the example of the Vedas, he said what was missed out was the way the 3500-year-old Rig Veda raised central doubts about religious accounts of the world, for example that of creation. These foundational doubts about the creative power and even omniscience of any god like figure would recur in Indian critical debates again and again. In fact, Sanskrit had a larger volume of agnostic or atheistic writings than in any other classical language, he said. Doubts sometimes take the form of agnosticism and sometimes that of atheism. Buddhism, which originated here and which was its principal religion for thousands of years, "is the only world religion in which the morality of behaviour did not invoke God in any way." He referred to the "Lokayata" philosophy of sceptical materialism, which flourished from the first millennium BC, and Carvaka's arguments against Krishna's advice in the Mahabharata to illustrate how atheism and materialism continued to attract adherents and advocates over many centuries. An understanding of Indian heterodoxy was particularly important for appreciating its range in the country's intellectual background and diverse history. Moving to the constructive role of science in the development of scepticism in society, Prof. Sen said economic problems were central to the maladies of famine and chronic hunger, relentless poverty and persistent inequality, among other issues. While the dismal nature of economics was certainly not in dispute, what about its claim to science, he asked. No economist could be unaware of the scepticism that was widely shared about the economist's ability to carry out objective investigations and to make reliable predictions. "There is even some general mistrust of the very idea of social science." He said that, "We must make room for the inherent ambiguities of many economic and social concepts such as poverty, inequality, class or community." In his examination of the causes of famine, he found that many of the major famines had in fact occurred without any reduction at all of food availability per head. Some famines had occurred in years of peak food availability (for example, the Bangladesh famine of 1974). He also found that starvation in famines was typically associated with the selective decline in the economic means and entitlements of particular occupation groups related to factors such as fall in real wages. But despite these findings many people remained convinced that it had to be a matter of food supply after all. "Scepticism is exactly what we have to generate before any kind of a newer understanding can take root." © Copyright 2000 - 2005 The Hindu | |
topic: Philosophy | |
[reply] [0 comments] |
|
| Rememberance Day | November 11, 2005, 3:24PM |
 by: insomniatic.honeybee |
|
11th of the 11th 2005 almost 100 years on and we still remember. Many of us have varied opinions on whether or not we should remember. Let me just tell you some of things which might interest you or bore you completely....... If all of the soldiers killed in the first world war alone would walk through my sportshall in single file it would take almost 6 years for them all to pass through from one side to the other. In late Janurary this year i went to the Somme in Belgium/France and we visited graves, memorials and the like for just under a week, i was shocked to see just how enormous the extent of the damage. Still many bombs and corpses are unearthed, the bodies are given names and Countries of origin whereas some of the bombs often cause more deaths. Some areas we visited were mass graves where up to 600 named german soldiers lay in a heap under shrubbery, beside is a plaque with each of their names, in that grave yard alone more than 8,000 german soldiers lay dead as doornails(though i like Charles Dickens dont particularly see what is so dead about a doornail). Now as i said almost 100 years on we still have to remember the dead, still the last march is played to comemorate each of the unnamed french soldiers killed, this ceremony will continue every night until 2040 if to play for each life lost. What happened to lest we forget? How are we supposed to forget if the damage or current events cause us to remember..... This morning at 11am our claxon did not sound and during our break without watches or clocks the majority of my school kept talking, myself included, only when it was five past did we notice and shut it abruptly... i was incredibly peeved because not only had our headteacher promised us that the calxon would sound at 11am to innitiate the silence but we also missed the union of so many nations where for just two minutes confliclts are put on hold..... Rememberance day is a day for reflection and a day to cleanse, to forgive and to start anew, to think of lives lost in Wars, acts of terrorism and selfishness and to contemplate on how it will continue affecting us, rememberance day is a day for rememberance and i hope we keep remembering, for one day rememberance may be the saviour of us all I'll end with this.... The Poppy was the only thing which grew in the aftermath of the complete devastation. McCrae, a doctor serving there with the Canadian Armed Forces, deeply inspired and moved by what he saw, wrote these verses: In Flanders' Fields John McCrae, 1915 In Flanders' Fields the Poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place: and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders' Fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe; To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high, If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though Poppies grow In Flanders' Fields. | |
topic: Current Events | |
[reply] [0 comments] |
|
| Remembrance Day | November 11, 2005, 3:08PM |
 by: TalentedShadow |
|
I've had people whining at me all day to buy a red poppy, One girl in particular, a "friend" of mine at school really had a go at me. The conversation went a little bit like this: "By a poppy! Buy a poppy!" "No." "Why not?" "Because I don't want to." "Why not? You're so heartless." "Sell white poppies, and I'd get one." "Why not red poppies?" "I prefer to spend my money or preventing war, death, massacre in the future than commemorating the past and wasting it on the slaughter that happened ages ago. My money will go towards the peace movements alone thanks." "If it weren't for those people who died you wouldn't be here!" "Oh really? So Hitler taking over, or some new and awful regime stops people being born now, does it? I'd still be here, it just wouldn't be quite the same. I probably wouldn't realise how "awful" the regime that I would be living in would be though, seeing as I'd be born into it." "You're wrong, and heartless! Buy a poppy!" "Sell white ones." And she kept this up all day long. You can agree with her and call me heartless but I really don't see why people think they have the right to yell abuse at me all day because I refrain from spending money on slaughter that happened years ago. The white poppies, however, are a similar fund-raising organisation that sells white poppies around Remembrance Day and all the proceeds goes to peace movements. Wouldn't you be happier knowing that your money could help to stop a war, and save lives rather than waste it on the past? The whole notion that if those men hadn't died then I wouldn't be here is crazy though, as I told my "friend" the world would be a very different place, but life would go on. I'd like to know if I'm the only one who thinks this way, or if I really am just being heartless. | |
topic: Rants | |
[reply] [0 comments] |
|
| pages: back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 next |