Recently, a study into the religious composition of the American population has been released. Predictably, 78.4% of the people claim that it's still 'In G-d We Trust', the Christian one in particular. The statistics also indicated that you have just under a 1-in-50 chance of bumping into a Jew. And 0.1% more chance of sharing a lift with a Buddhist at 0.7% of the population than sharing with a Muslim at 0.6%, the jury is still out on the odds of going to the same floor, however. But what I find alarming, is that there is less than a 3-in-50 chance of meeting an atheist. In one of the most developed and educated nations in the world, less than 6 in every 100 people have worked out that religion is more trouble than it is worth.
What I find scary, is that the overwhelming majority of a global superpower think a man who provided a rather large, but otherwise somewhat lacking in variety, buffet of fish sandwiches and wine, is going to come back from the dead and save us all from a horned man underground. Even if a higher power did exist, I doubt his rep on earth would be quite so plain. Jesus' modern day equivalent would probably be an accountant from Slough called Alan. If you want to blame global warming on someone, start with Jesus. He has inspired the biggest waste of paper in the form of Jehovah's Witness leaflets known to man- that's what has done it, not those delightfully comfortable 4x4s.
So why is religion still fairly popular? Well, I think it's rather like a multivitamin. It tends to nourish the supposedly 'spiritual' aspects of our humanity that are vital for a healthy, balanced individual. But like multivitamins, its far cheaper and better to already have it in your diet without the need to 'pill pop'. I think that religion, especially when drummed into us from birth, is a familiar and easy substitute for things such as intellectual stimulation or cerebral creativity. It's far easier to chew over the supposedly deep and holy meanings of fables and prayers than actually take a challenging and introspective look at your own thoughts and emotions. I know I'd rather discuss how I actually feel about things rather than what some 'supreme being' has decided I should already be thinking. Most people would give a one finger salute to interfering busy bodies who try to tell you what to do, why should G-d be any different? Because he can damn you eternally for disagreeing? Its a reason I guess but as it isn't true I shouldn't get too worried.
I think it is about time that society begins to realise that their are productive alternatives to the fairy stories and magic spells that religions promise. It gets very tiring to constantly hear of people racked with guilt or acting against their entirely natural instincts because of what someone graffitied onto a rock once upon a time. Some might say without religion society is doomed, but as most religions hijack general humanitarian principles and claim them as their own anyway, that is highly unlikely. Like jumping into the deep end as a child, its terrifying before the plunge, but after you can have a lot more fun.
Religion may have helped when humans did not understand all that much, maybe we did need our hand holding by G-d back then. But now we must stand on our own two feet and start looking after our secular modernity and scientific infants. Its time we took the plunge and left future generations a trust fund of knowledge and progress not confusing bedtime stories.
10.2.08
Why the Arch Bishop is particularly dangerous.
Firstly I would like to compliment the Arch Bishop of Canterbury on some of his rather more intelligent observations, regarding Sharia law. He recognised the fact that Sharia law is derived from Islamic scriptures through interpretations by Islamic clergy, or indeed anyone who may find themselves in a position, requiring such views. The fact is that Sharia law varies from interpreter to interpreter, whether people recognise an interpretation as valid is a different matter. All too often people assume that Sharia law is one single set of rules that are harsh, intolerant and misogynistic. There might be a case to argue that, but again this is a different matter and greatly subjective. The key thing to note is that, even trying to define Sharia law is very very difficult, if not impossible to arrive at a set of universally agreed upon rules.
I do, however, have a few issues regarding his other comments. Primarily, his idea that there should be an adoption of Sharia law into the British legal systems. It is my opinion that our legal systems should demonstrate sensitivity and intelligent understanding of religions. However, as much as is possible, the legal system should be secular and not lean in favour of any one religion. Clearly, the adoption of Sharia law goes completely against this concept. Agreed, there are key concepts shared regarding murder and theft but after that, the rest of the law should be as secular as can be managed. This is key to ensuring that the law does not discriminate or treat people unequally. It is a simple concept, if you live in Britain, you live under secular British laws.
Some argue that Muslims should be allowed to live under their own laws. I do not think this is a possibility. You cannot have one rule for one group and other rules for other groups. The 'group' we belong to is the British group and by definition one is not exempt from the rules. This may upset alot of people, that is unfortunate but a problem for them to deal with. They could go to another country where they prefer the laws. Although, I would suggest that those who are dissatisfied with the current system change it through the open and democratic processes available. Even now, people can use arbitration via religious courts, as a way of settling lesser civil or commercial matters. To me, this should be about the legal limit of differentiation allowed within the law. Any further attempts to extend religion into our legal system would be a dangerous move indeed. These semi-courts should be a satisfactory way of dealing with day to day matters. The more serious disputes must enter the secular courts regardless of the choice by participants, that way, the truly important cases can be dealt with fairly.
I cannot help but feel, that the Arch Bishop might be trying to give religions, including his own, far more involvement in the law by describing it as an inevitable necessity that aspects of them should be adopted into legal systems. It has taken our country a long time to remove the powerful and sometimes controlling influence of religious institutions over the law. We still have a long way to go. I think it is time that people explain to men such as the Arch Bishop, that religion has no business interfering with the state or the legal systems.
We must make clear, that people's culture and religious institutions are afforded protections under a democracy, as long as they are not harmful to the rest of society. But the days are long gone when Church and State were intertwined. Civil harmony is only possible under secular laws. Within limits, we must accommodate religion within the context of the law but instigating religious law is to be avoided at all costs.
I do, however, have a few issues regarding his other comments. Primarily, his idea that there should be an adoption of Sharia law into the British legal systems. It is my opinion that our legal systems should demonstrate sensitivity and intelligent understanding of religions. However, as much as is possible, the legal system should be secular and not lean in favour of any one religion. Clearly, the adoption of Sharia law goes completely against this concept. Agreed, there are key concepts shared regarding murder and theft but after that, the rest of the law should be as secular as can be managed. This is key to ensuring that the law does not discriminate or treat people unequally. It is a simple concept, if you live in Britain, you live under secular British laws.
Some argue that Muslims should be allowed to live under their own laws. I do not think this is a possibility. You cannot have one rule for one group and other rules for other groups. The 'group' we belong to is the British group and by definition one is not exempt from the rules. This may upset alot of people, that is unfortunate but a problem for them to deal with. They could go to another country where they prefer the laws. Although, I would suggest that those who are dissatisfied with the current system change it through the open and democratic processes available. Even now, people can use arbitration via religious courts, as a way of settling lesser civil or commercial matters. To me, this should be about the legal limit of differentiation allowed within the law. Any further attempts to extend religion into our legal system would be a dangerous move indeed. These semi-courts should be a satisfactory way of dealing with day to day matters. The more serious disputes must enter the secular courts regardless of the choice by participants, that way, the truly important cases can be dealt with fairly.
I cannot help but feel, that the Arch Bishop might be trying to give religions, including his own, far more involvement in the law by describing it as an inevitable necessity that aspects of them should be adopted into legal systems. It has taken our country a long time to remove the powerful and sometimes controlling influence of religious institutions over the law. We still have a long way to go. I think it is time that people explain to men such as the Arch Bishop, that religion has no business interfering with the state or the legal systems.
We must make clear, that people's culture and religious institutions are afforded protections under a democracy, as long as they are not harmful to the rest of society. But the days are long gone when Church and State were intertwined. Civil harmony is only possible under secular laws. Within limits, we must accommodate religion within the context of the law but instigating religious law is to be avoided at all costs.
5.2.08
People can be wrong and my opinions can be right!
All this week it is 'Diversity and Equality week'. And in my opinion its one of the worst creations of anal liberals. The whole idea is filled with cringe worthy buzz words such as 'ethno-diversity' and 'equal opportunities'. These may have originally represented some very important and noble concepts but now they are plain annoying. At my college it had honestly been suggested that discrimination existed because male and female toilets were not in perfect uniform symmetry and, depending on your lesson, different sexes were subject to the horrors of unequal distance. A whole 60 seconds or more.
There seems to be such a fear of discrimination and racism that we have become completely and unnecessarily wary of such things. The fact is I am not racist, I don't hate people based on their heritage. And if the majority of the population knows this, why are the majorities so frightened? I absolutely refuse to endorse such fussy and crass celebrations of discrimination, albeit positive. Discrimination is discrimination and doing it positively does not change that. Statistics can be extremely tricky in this respect. The fact is that in Britain the majority of the population is Caucasian, so in the setting of things like job application, the post is far more likely to go to someone in the majority. It is, in my view, wrong to use legislation to put the scales out of balance for any criteria of discrimination.
In fact we have gone completely the other way to avoid reality, truth and things people may not find pleasant. Several displays are about in my college describing dyslexia as a 'gift' saying people with dyslexia are more creative and intuitive. The displays are based on absolutely no fact and have been put up to promote difference and diversity. The fact that it is bollocks doesn't seem to come into it. If anything it makes it seem as if a person is heavily defined by learning difficulty. In extreme cases, maybe. But otherwise, such people have to learn to deal with and manage such things, the idea that slowness in learning and difficulties in read and writing is somehow a gift they should enjoy is downright offensive. Not to mention patronising.
Such paranoid efforts to eliminate any chance that we may perform actions with the slightest ability to be interpreted as non-P.C, completely degrade truly important and noble ideas like equality and tolerance. They shouldn't be made into crass buzz words for the Guardian reader to drop into polite conversation (please excuse this coarse generalisation :-) ). The worst thing is, you are labelled a racist money-lover who beats kittens, should you be inclined to express a contrary opinion.
Its like religion and new age theories of well being. People may genuinely believe them. They may feel very strongly with regards to them. But this does not make them right. Only more deluded if they believe something that isn't correct. Deities are good example, they are nice ideas and evidently very inspiring for causes, both good and bad. But the complete lack of reliable evidence leaves their existence as highly improbable. At any rate religions are big business and the disproof of deities would cause alot of people to end up with egg on their faces. Best leave it alone then.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that hiding away from the facts just because people may get offended and going to silly lengths to wrap people up in bubbles is completely counter-productive. The ' Well that's your opinion and I think that's great' attitude is not always a good option. To avoid wars maybe. But otherwise I would prefer to see people with the courage to say 'Well that's your opinion and its wrong'. This may cause people to realise possibly upsetting truths but it is far better than living in a world of ludicrous denial.
There seems to be such a fear of discrimination and racism that we have become completely and unnecessarily wary of such things. The fact is I am not racist, I don't hate people based on their heritage. And if the majority of the population knows this, why are the majorities so frightened? I absolutely refuse to endorse such fussy and crass celebrations of discrimination, albeit positive. Discrimination is discrimination and doing it positively does not change that. Statistics can be extremely tricky in this respect. The fact is that in Britain the majority of the population is Caucasian, so in the setting of things like job application, the post is far more likely to go to someone in the majority. It is, in my view, wrong to use legislation to put the scales out of balance for any criteria of discrimination.
In fact we have gone completely the other way to avoid reality, truth and things people may not find pleasant. Several displays are about in my college describing dyslexia as a 'gift' saying people with dyslexia are more creative and intuitive. The displays are based on absolutely no fact and have been put up to promote difference and diversity. The fact that it is bollocks doesn't seem to come into it. If anything it makes it seem as if a person is heavily defined by learning difficulty. In extreme cases, maybe. But otherwise, such people have to learn to deal with and manage such things, the idea that slowness in learning and difficulties in read and writing is somehow a gift they should enjoy is downright offensive. Not to mention patronising.
Such paranoid efforts to eliminate any chance that we may perform actions with the slightest ability to be interpreted as non-P.C, completely degrade truly important and noble ideas like equality and tolerance. They shouldn't be made into crass buzz words for the Guardian reader to drop into polite conversation (please excuse this coarse generalisation :-) ). The worst thing is, you are labelled a racist money-lover who beats kittens, should you be inclined to express a contrary opinion.
Its like religion and new age theories of well being. People may genuinely believe them. They may feel very strongly with regards to them. But this does not make them right. Only more deluded if they believe something that isn't correct. Deities are good example, they are nice ideas and evidently very inspiring for causes, both good and bad. But the complete lack of reliable evidence leaves their existence as highly improbable. At any rate religions are big business and the disproof of deities would cause alot of people to end up with egg on their faces. Best leave it alone then.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that hiding away from the facts just because people may get offended and going to silly lengths to wrap people up in bubbles is completely counter-productive. The ' Well that's your opinion and I think that's great' attitude is not always a good option. To avoid wars maybe. But otherwise I would prefer to see people with the courage to say 'Well that's your opinion and its wrong'. This may cause people to realise possibly upsetting truths but it is far better than living in a world of ludicrous denial.
26.1.08
Scientology, annoying and so beautifully comic. They've improved my life immensely, through hours of ridicule fuelled laughter.
Ever heard of Scientology? If you watch television or even listen to the news the chances are you have. If you're reading this in America, unlucky, its classed as a religion there. Something which affords it far more credibility than it should probably have. Here, however, it has been refused such status thankfully. Sure, there are tons of issues with religions, but there's a limit and that limit is Scientology. Its whole appearance and set up is so rich in absurdity and sheer insanity, that even the word brings a suppressed giggle from nowhere.
It is a fairly sinister organisation, it harasses critics, preys on the vulnerable and is rather more like a profitable franchise. It even charges for its key texts- something not even a hard up church would do, well you can get beefed up Bibles for a price but most are given free. But I am not bothered about these aspects, it is unpleasant but not very dangerous- ask Joe public and they will think it as credible as the OJ Simpson defence. I want to look at the vast amounts of comedy it provides me with. Calling it a cult annoys me though, we expect such crazy ideas from cults, so let call it an organisation to amplify the humour shall we?
Firstly, let us look at who it has representing it in the public eye. The most famous is Tom Cruise. This is like the Church of England asking Borat to be their figure head. Hilarity is bound to ensue. And it did. He filmed a video about Scientology in which he stated amongst much tautologous crap, 'I won't hesitate to put ethics into someone else because I put it ruthlessly in on myself'. Oh, and did you know that Scientology is the authority on drug and criminal rehab? With Criminon and Narconon, now don't they sound like nice, safe rehab programs? Maybe Amy Winehouse should hook up with Tom. I don't know about Amy but Tom's got to be on crack.
I would like to share an experience I once has with a dear friend regarding Scientology. We were in town and had about 5 hours to waste. So we decided to go for a free 'personality test' they were offering. We of course went in under aliases. I chose a rather ordinary name whilst my dear friend thought she would go in as Regina Spector, a irony lost wasted on our testers. Thinking it would be a quick ten minute bout of suppressed laughter, we sat down in the reception area. Soon a rather large sheet with about 200 tick box questions was brought to us. Shit, we both thought simultaneously, this discrete mockery was going to take a little longer than expected. We began seriously answering the questions, up to around 15 and then went on a super speed ticking race.
Having realised, we had answered 200 deep, introspective questions in under 5 minutes, the woman with a permanent smile came over and took our results to go and be analysed. We were each given a book to muse over whilst we waited for out consultation on how toxic we were. This time, however, was used to run through our story and fake addresses . Again, the irony of No. 12 Existential Road seemed lost on them. Now our mockery became how far we could push the boundaries of absurdity. Seeing as they deal in this commodity already, we must have seemed like amateurs in comparison. After much waiting, I was the first to be taken to a consultation booth. I was lead there by a man who had clearly been a car salesman in his past. A suit that left much to be desired and an ill fitted shirt flagged up the fact that the drug addicts he exploited in this area weren't particularly lucrative.
Appearances aside, he told me that overall I get nervous, can be fairly happy too and predicted that I was someone who engaged in the act of breathing on a very regular basis. What revelations I thought to myself. However, I had told my accomplice that I was going to play two personalities. One mumbling and insecure one and one coherent confident one. I began by uming and erring and using completely inappropriate adjectives, apparently my life was very 'mauve' and I can find social situations 'pulsating' and 'salty'. Then half way through one of the many confused sentences I confessed, as lucidly and swiftly as possible, that socialising was very agreeable and that life was good. To say he looked confused is an understatement. But he was damned if he was going to lose a sale, oops- I mean the chance to enlighten. Eventually, the consultation finished with not one fact being mentioned the entire time. But then fact and Scientology are not particularly chummy.
Pretty soon I found myself talking to the woman with the permanent smile, whilst by friend was in a booth whilst the curious man told her that she is female and probably uses her legs to walk. And that because he knows such intimate and powerful information, she should buy his books and posters about people with permanent smiles. Anyway, I sat there as the woman with a permanent smile pointed out flaws in the theory of evolution. Apparently, because 'she feels like a spiritual being, adaptation and evolution just don't seem plausible'. Well, if that's not conclusive proof I don't know what is!
I've come to a little conclusion of my own. I think the secret is all in the permanent smile. My theory is that, once a full member, they tell you that Scientology was actually set up as a practical joke but as it proves to be lucrative and few have caught on, they're just continuing with it. Like becoming a millionaire for using a Whoopy Cushion. The only way they can hold the years on held back laughter, is by steadily releasing it through smiles. Even Tom Cruise is subject to the occasional unstoppable bout of laughter. Who couldn't?
Like the Monster Raving Looney Party, I reckon Scientology is almost slap stick satire. Its a shame reporters and drug addicts are the victims of their practical joke. Still everyone likes a laugh. If you need proof, just go on their websites, you'll encounter a big toothy grin within a few seconds. Cherie Blair would be jealous.
So here's to Scientology! The most amusing cultural faux-pas since witch hunts.
It is a fairly sinister organisation, it harasses critics, preys on the vulnerable and is rather more like a profitable franchise. It even charges for its key texts- something not even a hard up church would do, well you can get beefed up Bibles for a price but most are given free. But I am not bothered about these aspects, it is unpleasant but not very dangerous- ask Joe public and they will think it as credible as the OJ Simpson defence. I want to look at the vast amounts of comedy it provides me with. Calling it a cult annoys me though, we expect such crazy ideas from cults, so let call it an organisation to amplify the humour shall we?
Firstly, let us look at who it has representing it in the public eye. The most famous is Tom Cruise. This is like the Church of England asking Borat to be their figure head. Hilarity is bound to ensue. And it did. He filmed a video about Scientology in which he stated amongst much tautologous crap, 'I won't hesitate to put ethics into someone else because I put it ruthlessly in on myself'. Oh, and did you know that Scientology is the authority on drug and criminal rehab? With Criminon and Narconon, now don't they sound like nice, safe rehab programs? Maybe Amy Winehouse should hook up with Tom. I don't know about Amy but Tom's got to be on crack.
I would like to share an experience I once has with a dear friend regarding Scientology. We were in town and had about 5 hours to waste. So we decided to go for a free 'personality test' they were offering. We of course went in under aliases. I chose a rather ordinary name whilst my dear friend thought she would go in as Regina Spector, a irony lost wasted on our testers. Thinking it would be a quick ten minute bout of suppressed laughter, we sat down in the reception area. Soon a rather large sheet with about 200 tick box questions was brought to us. Shit, we both thought simultaneously, this discrete mockery was going to take a little longer than expected. We began seriously answering the questions, up to around 15 and then went on a super speed ticking race.
Having realised, we had answered 200 deep, introspective questions in under 5 minutes, the woman with a permanent smile came over and took our results to go and be analysed. We were each given a book to muse over whilst we waited for out consultation on how toxic we were. This time, however, was used to run through our story and fake addresses . Again, the irony of No. 12 Existential Road seemed lost on them. Now our mockery became how far we could push the boundaries of absurdity. Seeing as they deal in this commodity already, we must have seemed like amateurs in comparison. After much waiting, I was the first to be taken to a consultation booth. I was lead there by a man who had clearly been a car salesman in his past. A suit that left much to be desired and an ill fitted shirt flagged up the fact that the drug addicts he exploited in this area weren't particularly lucrative.
Appearances aside, he told me that overall I get nervous, can be fairly happy too and predicted that I was someone who engaged in the act of breathing on a very regular basis. What revelations I thought to myself. However, I had told my accomplice that I was going to play two personalities. One mumbling and insecure one and one coherent confident one. I began by uming and erring and using completely inappropriate adjectives, apparently my life was very 'mauve' and I can find social situations 'pulsating' and 'salty'. Then half way through one of the many confused sentences I confessed, as lucidly and swiftly as possible, that socialising was very agreeable and that life was good. To say he looked confused is an understatement. But he was damned if he was going to lose a sale, oops- I mean the chance to enlighten. Eventually, the consultation finished with not one fact being mentioned the entire time. But then fact and Scientology are not particularly chummy.
Pretty soon I found myself talking to the woman with the permanent smile, whilst by friend was in a booth whilst the curious man told her that she is female and probably uses her legs to walk. And that because he knows such intimate and powerful information, she should buy his books and posters about people with permanent smiles. Anyway, I sat there as the woman with a permanent smile pointed out flaws in the theory of evolution. Apparently, because 'she feels like a spiritual being, adaptation and evolution just don't seem plausible'. Well, if that's not conclusive proof I don't know what is!
I've come to a little conclusion of my own. I think the secret is all in the permanent smile. My theory is that, once a full member, they tell you that Scientology was actually set up as a practical joke but as it proves to be lucrative and few have caught on, they're just continuing with it. Like becoming a millionaire for using a Whoopy Cushion. The only way they can hold the years on held back laughter, is by steadily releasing it through smiles. Even Tom Cruise is subject to the occasional unstoppable bout of laughter. Who couldn't?
Like the Monster Raving Looney Party, I reckon Scientology is almost slap stick satire. Its a shame reporters and drug addicts are the victims of their practical joke. Still everyone likes a laugh. If you need proof, just go on their websites, you'll encounter a big toothy grin within a few seconds. Cherie Blair would be jealous.
So here's to Scientology! The most amusing cultural faux-pas since witch hunts.
10.1.08
Beggars can't be choosers. They can't have mansions or morals.
Today Britain and much of western society is hailed as a free, liberal and opportunity filled land of promise. There has never been such good access to education, training and advice. So naturally there should be a cornucopia of choice and power over your own life. In such a setting then, we would think that people could easily adhere to and uphold admirable moral and ethical lifestyles. A stable and lawful country should be a haven of ethical citizens. But I would argue there is another hugely important factor that allows people to act morally, that is wealth. Think about it for a moment, go back in history, who is it working in the whore houses or pickpocketing? Its those at the bottom of society, the impoverished and hapless.
In the majority of cases, however, the circumstances of the poor made necessary their actions. The prostitutes didn't have childhood dreams of being a prostitute, poverty necessitated it. Nor did the starving child wish to be in the situation where he had to steal in order to go on breathing. It was all very well for the rich to look in disgust at those whose lives were filled with depravity and crime. The wealth of the rich afforded them the privilege of higher morals. Placed in the same situation any member of the aristocracy would be forced to act the same.
Although less prominent, it is still the case today. It is the wealthy who can buy the free range organic chicken and the Fairtrade clothing ranges. The poor are still left with the cruelly produced poultry and sweatshop manufactured T-shirts. Their financial circumstances dictate how ethical their actions can be. Those who are in the position of the privileged can sit back with a clear conscience, knowing they're helping a farmer in Brazil somewhere. Whilst the rest must sit there with the guilt of buying from businesses exploiting children in China. Hardly what you would call equal is it?
I'm not saying we don't all have the desire to be ethical consumers and uphold our moral codes through actions- but we don't all have the choice. There may be far more equality and better living standards than a hundred years ago but there's still a very long way to go before we are all sufficiently free to be clear in conscience.
A key concept to understand is the fact that morality and ethics can never truly exist outside reality. Our ideals and actions can often be two very separate things, even when given a multitude of choices. So when presented with only a few choices, one can only be as ethical as the available choices allow. Thus, if you're in the situation where wealth affords greater choice, it stands to reason that you are presented with greater opportunity to be more ethical.
So does that mean that the poorer you are, the less moral you are? In principle no, in action probably. Your desires may be ethical, however, your consumption can only be as ethical as the variety available.
It would appear morality is as subject to economic forces as any other commodity and those with the money can have the finest. Even in the modern age, equality is as sluggish as ever.
In the majority of cases, however, the circumstances of the poor made necessary their actions. The prostitutes didn't have childhood dreams of being a prostitute, poverty necessitated it. Nor did the starving child wish to be in the situation where he had to steal in order to go on breathing. It was all very well for the rich to look in disgust at those whose lives were filled with depravity and crime. The wealth of the rich afforded them the privilege of higher morals. Placed in the same situation any member of the aristocracy would be forced to act the same.
Although less prominent, it is still the case today. It is the wealthy who can buy the free range organic chicken and the Fairtrade clothing ranges. The poor are still left with the cruelly produced poultry and sweatshop manufactured T-shirts. Their financial circumstances dictate how ethical their actions can be. Those who are in the position of the privileged can sit back with a clear conscience, knowing they're helping a farmer in Brazil somewhere. Whilst the rest must sit there with the guilt of buying from businesses exploiting children in China. Hardly what you would call equal is it?
I'm not saying we don't all have the desire to be ethical consumers and uphold our moral codes through actions- but we don't all have the choice. There may be far more equality and better living standards than a hundred years ago but there's still a very long way to go before we are all sufficiently free to be clear in conscience.
A key concept to understand is the fact that morality and ethics can never truly exist outside reality. Our ideals and actions can often be two very separate things, even when given a multitude of choices. So when presented with only a few choices, one can only be as ethical as the available choices allow. Thus, if you're in the situation where wealth affords greater choice, it stands to reason that you are presented with greater opportunity to be more ethical.
So does that mean that the poorer you are, the less moral you are? In principle no, in action probably. Your desires may be ethical, however, your consumption can only be as ethical as the variety available.
It would appear morality is as subject to economic forces as any other commodity and those with the money can have the finest. Even in the modern age, equality is as sluggish as ever.
4.1.08
Steal This Movie? No thanks.
I was talking to my dearest cousin and she was telling me all about www.stealthisfilm.com and how she agrees with their philosophy. That is their philosophy that current copyright laws are wrong and that 'file sharing' copyrighted files should not be prevented, they then claim this comes into the arena of free speech and freedoms afforded to you as a human being.
All these issues are based around a raid made upon a basement where servers, being used to host a file sharing website, were being kept. To cut a long story short- the website didn't exactly break the law and American companies pulled some strings to get action from the police in Sweden where the website was being hosted. The American film industry ended up being able to do nothing to shut the website down. All the while, the Swedish people hosting the website cried injustice as the police tore through their basement.
I suggest you go watch the film and read the website.
I'm sure many of us have downloaded movies and music from file sharing sources. And I think most of us aren't in any doubt that it is a form of stealing, thus illegal. We know its wrong, it doesn't do that much harm- the music industry is still alive let's face it. But the chances of getting caught are extremely slim and everyone does it so we feel fairly guilt free and safe in doing it. However, its not this that annoys me greatly, its when people claim they are entitled to download copyright, that the media industry is evil for making examples of innocent file sharers and that they are upholding human rights and freedom of information through their actions.
To put it plainly, they are choosing to get music and video from peer to peer networks because its free and requires a lot less effort than going out to buy CDs or get a job to pay for legally downloaded music. In the spirit of being outspoken let me just say this- I don't care what a bunch of greasy, ethnic-peace bicycle-riding, jobless hippies have to say. Its just annoying that they decide to get all self righteous, when really they're just being cheapskates. Be cheapskates by all means, but don't get preachy and try to justify theft, whilst hiding behind differences in international laws. Then you're not so much of a hippy, but a prick.
The industries are complaining because, quite simply, every time someone illegally downloads a music track or film, they lose out financially. That's profit from the fruit of their labours that people are simply taking for free. It might not put them out of business, but if people stole 10% of a greengrocers produce, you can imagine he would get pretty pissed. And quite right too, theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up or whether you get caught. Its not so much a case of 'save the dying media industry' but 'don't complain when they try to stop people stealing from them'. Don't moralise and try to say you did it for the good of the people, you didn't and if you thought you were then you are rather simple.
The film claims that the media industry kicked up a fuss when video recorders were introduced, saying the video recorders would destroy them. It didn't. The industry adapted and eventually made money by selling cassette and video tapes. But this isn't a logical justification for stealing, no matter how you phrase it.
They are well within their rights to prevent stealing through legal and technological means. Nowadays many DVD recorders detect and stop recording copyright material. Its very annoying but fair play, they used the law and technology to stay one step ahead of the game. So now when the hippies tell the industry 'tough luck if we steal, you have to adapt' the industry can smile politely and walk away. Whilst listening for the angry shouts from the living room as someone tries to record Pirates of the Caribbean onto DVD. Its not really that fair that the industry has to adapt because it can't rely on the law to prevent theft. But then life's not fair.
I don't think file sharing illegally will ever really go away completely. People will always try to get something for free, easily. And that's just what illegal downloading is. It takes a fair amount of money away from the industry but, for the moment at least, the industry is doing fine. It is also legally and for most, morally wrong. However, we aren't stabbing someone or setting fire to a pile of newborn kittens and puppies when we download copyright, it is a comparatively minor offence. But the next time Madonna's latest track is illegally downloading to your ipod, don't think of yourself as doing your bit for the freedom of speech or human rights- you're just cutting costs. Its like going around stabbing arthritic pensioners, claiming you're doing your bit for compassionate euthanasia. You're not!
All these issues are based around a raid made upon a basement where servers, being used to host a file sharing website, were being kept. To cut a long story short- the website didn't exactly break the law and American companies pulled some strings to get action from the police in Sweden where the website was being hosted. The American film industry ended up being able to do nothing to shut the website down. All the while, the Swedish people hosting the website cried injustice as the police tore through their basement.
I suggest you go watch the film and read the website.
I'm sure many of us have downloaded movies and music from file sharing sources. And I think most of us aren't in any doubt that it is a form of stealing, thus illegal. We know its wrong, it doesn't do that much harm- the music industry is still alive let's face it. But the chances of getting caught are extremely slim and everyone does it so we feel fairly guilt free and safe in doing it. However, its not this that annoys me greatly, its when people claim they are entitled to download copyright, that the media industry is evil for making examples of innocent file sharers and that they are upholding human rights and freedom of information through their actions.
To put it plainly, they are choosing to get music and video from peer to peer networks because its free and requires a lot less effort than going out to buy CDs or get a job to pay for legally downloaded music. In the spirit of being outspoken let me just say this- I don't care what a bunch of greasy, ethnic-peace bicycle-riding, jobless hippies have to say. Its just annoying that they decide to get all self righteous, when really they're just being cheapskates. Be cheapskates by all means, but don't get preachy and try to justify theft, whilst hiding behind differences in international laws. Then you're not so much of a hippy, but a prick.
The industries are complaining because, quite simply, every time someone illegally downloads a music track or film, they lose out financially. That's profit from the fruit of their labours that people are simply taking for free. It might not put them out of business, but if people stole 10% of a greengrocers produce, you can imagine he would get pretty pissed. And quite right too, theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up or whether you get caught. Its not so much a case of 'save the dying media industry' but 'don't complain when they try to stop people stealing from them'. Don't moralise and try to say you did it for the good of the people, you didn't and if you thought you were then you are rather simple.
The film claims that the media industry kicked up a fuss when video recorders were introduced, saying the video recorders would destroy them. It didn't. The industry adapted and eventually made money by selling cassette and video tapes. But this isn't a logical justification for stealing, no matter how you phrase it.
They are well within their rights to prevent stealing through legal and technological means. Nowadays many DVD recorders detect and stop recording copyright material. Its very annoying but fair play, they used the law and technology to stay one step ahead of the game. So now when the hippies tell the industry 'tough luck if we steal, you have to adapt' the industry can smile politely and walk away. Whilst listening for the angry shouts from the living room as someone tries to record Pirates of the Caribbean onto DVD. Its not really that fair that the industry has to adapt because it can't rely on the law to prevent theft. But then life's not fair.
I don't think file sharing illegally will ever really go away completely. People will always try to get something for free, easily. And that's just what illegal downloading is. It takes a fair amount of money away from the industry but, for the moment at least, the industry is doing fine. It is also legally and for most, morally wrong. However, we aren't stabbing someone or setting fire to a pile of newborn kittens and puppies when we download copyright, it is a comparatively minor offence. But the next time Madonna's latest track is illegally downloading to your ipod, don't think of yourself as doing your bit for the freedom of speech or human rights- you're just cutting costs. Its like going around stabbing arthritic pensioners, claiming you're doing your bit for compassionate euthanasia. You're not!
28.12.07
Disney, Childhood and all the Bitter-Sweetness.
So I sat there amongst friends, all gathered around the television, with a not-so-subtle Yuletide atmosphere skipping merrily through the room, whilst we watched Enchanted- the new Disney movie. Idyllic you might think. Not quite. Something was tainting the ambience- it wasn't the company though, it was the Disney. I know I'm supposed to like it, being magically transported back to my carefree child hood and everything- but I just don't,. Short of being submerged in a pool of cold sick its one of my least favourite things and I'll tell you why.
Disney is supposed to provide family entertainment- that's for children and adults. Flawed and predictable plots executed through superficial clichés are okay for kids. But what about those aged 8+? Liking Disney above primary development hardly speaks well for your cognitive abilities. If we were to compare, films in terms of nutrition, a Spielberg is perhaps a lively stir fry, a Tarantino, probably, vibrant sushi. Whereas Disney is more like some stale Monster Munch- tolerated by those who have never had better but looked upon in slight disgust but mainly complete indifference, by the rest.
Anyone who tries to convince you that Disney has sophisticated nuances or fine examples of artistic mastery is simply mad. And I'm not talking about zany or offbeat madness, I mean clinically insane, as in they wake up each morning and literally believe they are a cabbage. Unless you have taken a vast quantity of drugs or are unbelievably stupid there's nothing visible to Disney's merit and pretending otherwise is nothing short of pretentious deception. Its not even cute or adorably funny, you're only laughing because its Disney and you feel you must. Either that or you are a simpleton. Its not big, its not clever and its definitely not original. In fact, the laughter in the room of people I was sat in seemed only to exist through some sort of mutual, unspoken form of consent, that- 'we'll all laugh at the appropriate points in the film'.
Why do we do it to ourselves and more importantly why do we precondition our children when they are vulnerable and young? We simply set them up for the same social car crash in the future. Like 'The Force' in Star Wars, the unknowable force of Disney always seems to manage to sew the brand, merchandise and memories into the reminiscent fabric of our childhoods. An unwelcome guest in the house of our past, society made it a resident and it'll be going nowhere fast. So, it seems we have no choice. We may not like the false-sentiment-filled Disney films but its in our childhoods now and if we resent 'cherished' parts of our childhoods we're going to end up rather miserable- fucked in other words. Better to play it safe then.
Some may claim that I'm rather bah Humbug! I'm not, I'm just prepared to stand up proud and say (in the style of an AA meeting) 'Hi, my name is Adam. And I don't like Disney'. Some may try to say they adore Disney and that it is the most amazing thing ever, verging on inspirational. But the Lady doth protest too much I think. Its exactly those people that desperately clutch at the mere hint of possible innuendo in a Disney film. Its hard, I know, but its possible to face the trauma. The fact is, adults no longer live in a world where Santa is real or where monsters live under the bed. Disney may have applied to our world when we were young but its unrealistic and unconnected to the reality adults face now. You remember enjoying Disney when young (possibly) because we watched it through a different set of eyes. Watching it now, any enjoyment one tries to squeeze from the film is nothing but delusion. You don't escape into a Disney film as an adult, you escape into your childhood memories. Adults see Disney through the mind's eye, children don't they haven't enough of an archive to look at.
Watching Disney as a grown-up is nothing but regression. There's nought interesting in watching an anorexic, beauty pageant-esque, superficial animation prance about -LSD world and ball gowns, all the colours of the neon CGI rainbow, in tow. So let's plunge a knife into the DVD player and snatch our children away from the snapping jaws of the only real childhood monster- Disney.
Disney is supposed to provide family entertainment- that's for children and adults. Flawed and predictable plots executed through superficial clichés are okay for kids. But what about those aged 8+? Liking Disney above primary development hardly speaks well for your cognitive abilities. If we were to compare, films in terms of nutrition, a Spielberg is perhaps a lively stir fry, a Tarantino, probably, vibrant sushi. Whereas Disney is more like some stale Monster Munch- tolerated by those who have never had better but looked upon in slight disgust but mainly complete indifference, by the rest.
Anyone who tries to convince you that Disney has sophisticated nuances or fine examples of artistic mastery is simply mad. And I'm not talking about zany or offbeat madness, I mean clinically insane, as in they wake up each morning and literally believe they are a cabbage. Unless you have taken a vast quantity of drugs or are unbelievably stupid there's nothing visible to Disney's merit and pretending otherwise is nothing short of pretentious deception. Its not even cute or adorably funny, you're only laughing because its Disney and you feel you must. Either that or you are a simpleton. Its not big, its not clever and its definitely not original. In fact, the laughter in the room of people I was sat in seemed only to exist through some sort of mutual, unspoken form of consent, that- 'we'll all laugh at the appropriate points in the film'.
Why do we do it to ourselves and more importantly why do we precondition our children when they are vulnerable and young? We simply set them up for the same social car crash in the future. Like 'The Force' in Star Wars, the unknowable force of Disney always seems to manage to sew the brand, merchandise and memories into the reminiscent fabric of our childhoods. An unwelcome guest in the house of our past, society made it a resident and it'll be going nowhere fast. So, it seems we have no choice. We may not like the false-sentiment-filled Disney films but its in our childhoods now and if we resent 'cherished' parts of our childhoods we're going to end up rather miserable- fucked in other words. Better to play it safe then.
Some may claim that I'm rather bah Humbug! I'm not, I'm just prepared to stand up proud and say (in the style of an AA meeting) 'Hi, my name is Adam. And I don't like Disney'. Some may try to say they adore Disney and that it is the most amazing thing ever, verging on inspirational. But the Lady doth protest too much I think. Its exactly those people that desperately clutch at the mere hint of possible innuendo in a Disney film. Its hard, I know, but its possible to face the trauma. The fact is, adults no longer live in a world where Santa is real or where monsters live under the bed. Disney may have applied to our world when we were young but its unrealistic and unconnected to the reality adults face now. You remember enjoying Disney when young (possibly) because we watched it through a different set of eyes. Watching it now, any enjoyment one tries to squeeze from the film is nothing but delusion. You don't escape into a Disney film as an adult, you escape into your childhood memories. Adults see Disney through the mind's eye, children don't they haven't enough of an archive to look at.
Watching Disney as a grown-up is nothing but regression. There's nought interesting in watching an anorexic, beauty pageant-esque, superficial animation prance about -LSD world and ball gowns, all the colours of the neon CGI rainbow, in tow. So let's plunge a knife into the DVD player and snatch our children away from the snapping jaws of the only real childhood monster- Disney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)