Saturday, May 27, 2006
I'm back
with rants... *glares in direction of odd person*
Ignorance... quite possibly the one thing I hate in people. I was just informed that there will be a complete ban of smoking in public places (enclosed or not) starting wednesday of next week. I laughed. You'd never enforce such a thing, it would be like the Aylmer curfew - ridiculously violated by all. Did a bit of research afterwards and found out that its only enclosed public places. Thats a bit different. We then proceeded to have an argument on whether or not smoking should be banned.
Now, I make a lot of arguments based on people should be free to do as they please. But we have to look at a few facts here.
- Smoking is dangerous for your health. The reason people smoke is the nicotine in it. Its addictive and it relieves stress. But its still dangerous. Therefore, most people shouldn't be smoking in an ideal world. Is it an ideal world? No. But lets keep that in mind.
- Smoking is dangerous for the health of those around you. Second hand smoke is proven to have effects on those around you, leading to cancer. Heck, I'm cutting years off my life here as I'm at a friends place who smokes like you wouldn't believe (my family has a history of cancer too). Therefore, smoking around other people is a bad idea, regardless of how much they protest that they don't mind.
So the logical conclusion? We ban unsafe activities all the time - drinking/driving, shooting people in the head, hard drugs. Why haven't cigarettes been altogether banned? Probably because of the underground market that would spring up overnight - the reverse of all the reasons that marijuana should be legalized. You can argue its peoples choice... but its not is it? Nicotine is among the most addictive drugs, right up their with caffeine (my own little addiction). Therefore, the choice not to smoke once you've already started is much harder to make. But the solution isn't to ban cigarettes outright - its to educate people and try and find ways to help them get off their addiction. Heck, I'd like to see more family doctors recommending treatments for it - the patch, etc. Banning cigarettes in public places though makes complete sense. Letting people smoke inside will drive away customers in a business, it will cause your employees to have health concerns (Heck I'm allergic to smoke), and its generally not good for those who stay anyways. And people have a right to go around and expect a safe environment - well the studies show that that would be a smoke free environment. The argument I got to that was 60% of people smoke, so majority rules. Wrong. Majority rules? Stop giving me this democratic bullshit. Public safety people. (Even those of you who plan mass murder sprees can't argue against this because I suspect most of you don't smoke :P). The government does whats good for ALL people and smoking is good for NO ONE except to reduce your stress - and if you need chemicals to do that, maybe you should look at your lifestyle. Or try caffeine, it just rots your teeth :P. Seriously though - banning smoking in public places can only benefit the public. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being incredibly self centered about this, or possibly just isn't acquainted with the truth. Sure, you'll have public outrage from some people, but if you actually consider pros versus cons, I'm sure taking the extra minute to step outside 10 feet to smoke isn't asking too much. And if it really bothers you... try to quit. I'm sure it will bother you less afterwards.
Speaking of trying to quit, perhaps this will encourage people to quit, if there is extra work involved in going to smoke. And it will help people quit because they won't have the temptation in every public place they go. Expecting people to stay out of the shops which allow smoke and expecting them to put up with it is too much to ask. Go sit on a barbed wire fence, friend of mine who cannot see beyond her nose, and let us ban your smoking to the great outdoors. In the meantime, here's a patch.
And while I'm at it, wtf is with people thinkign their was is the best way. Seriously! Alright, it seems hypocritical after my little rant but there is something extra to consider in there - public safety. There are three levels to every position in my opinion - a personal level, a practical widespread level and a metaphysical level. Take, for example, abortion. On a personal level, I have my own feelings that it should be used as a last resort. On a practical level, you have no choice as a government but to let people have abortions if they think it is right - the alternative is back alley abortions with coat hangers. On a metaphysical level... well I don't care to go there at the moment lol. It would be an interesting question. But look at smoking - personally, I dislike smoke but I put up with it for some of my friends. Practically, the government could never ban smoking completely but should make efforts to curb it, control who has access an help people quit whereever possible as well as protecting the public's health. Metaphysically, nobody should be smoking at all - thats just a nobrainer.
But we can look at more complex issues like BDSM. On a personal level, some people are good with it (at different levels) and some people completely abhor it. Practically, again the government could never ban it and as long as it doesn't reach the level of abuse (its a fine line I know) they shouldn't be prying into my bedroom at night. Metaphysically it never reaches the level of abuse and always takes place between consenting people.
I suppose the levels go like this.
Personal Level - What you individually believe should be a part of your life or not
Practical Level - What the government should or should not allow or what works/doesn't work on a large scale in the real world
Metaphysical Level - What should be happening ideally.
Communism is an excellent example of how they can differ. A person can be for or against communism depending on their position. On a practical level, communism leaves too many opportunities for corruption and doesn't fit well with the more popular democratic capitalist/socialist blended systems. On a metaphysical level though, communism works. It just can't work in the real world lol.
So, take exhibitionism and this is the argument that came up. My own personal views I'll keep to myself ;). But its ok if people have different views - some people can hate it, some people can love it. The practical level - not everyone wants to see your penis and not everyone is ready to be an exhibitionist, so lets keep it behind closed doors... or at least don't get caught as I say :P. The metaphysical level - people should do what suits them best. In a couple, if both people are ok with one (or both) taking off most clothes and showing me pictures of their tattoos on their ass, then send the photos away :P. But if you're not, then don't do it. And if you have a conflict on it, then resolve it - agree to a compromising level that doesn't involve me getting photos :( or perhaps it just isn't going to work. And other couples... STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS! Serious people. It isn't hurting anyone, it isn't hurting their relationship, so fuck off. Like one couple I know - they like threesomes and they're both good with that. I say more power to them. Others would disagree - and on a personal level, I would agree, if I'm in a serious relationship, I don't think threesomes/foursomes are the thing for me (though, experimentation never hurt). But what isn't right for me may be right for them.
Of course, there are levels to this that we need to consider. Abuse, for instance, should never be tolerated in relationships, regardless of people's agreement to the abuse because its a known fact that the abusee can not know that they are being abused. I'm not talking like, they have whips and enjoy whipping on occasion - consensual, non-life threatening BDSM is never a problem. And heck, sometimes joking fun insults go on too - it all depends on the couple, so you have to be careful. But sometimes, you gotta go with your gut instinct about their behaviour and call abuse abuse. Personal level things sometimes need to be overridden - if you, for example, are a rapist, you need to curb that tendancy, not explore it.
Bottom line is hurting other people, whether they realize it or not, is not something that we can allow. Its the general rule and probably the only moral I truly have - first, do no harm (10 points to the person who can tell me where that quote is from lol - leave a comment). My other moral is down with the Christian right-wing conservatives, because Lord knows they do more harm than good nowadays with their antiquidated manner of thinking.
Stephen Harper, banning the media from the return of the bodies of four Canadian military officiers. Reasons given are because of the families grief. Alright, understandable... I think the families of those officiers should have the right to ban the media from the return of the bodies, if they so wish, along with the funeral. But notice that the funerals were covered. Notice also that Stephen Harper did not consult any family members before he took this action. And notice that the media was not banned from the return of the latest casualty. Yes, Harper, this makes sense. Is consistancy in your foolish notions too much to ask?
Everyone my age who pays taxes take note. The budget does nothing but harm young people. First of all, I believe the majority of students who pay taxes do so in the lower tax bracket, if at all. You may take great pride in knowing you will now pay 0.5% more taxes on your money, even if you pay it on less than you would have. Take great pride in knowing that the education budget was cut, meaning your tuitions will rise... and the only new money coming into education is in the form of what... $80 off of your text books? Finally, we're backing out of Kyoto... to hell if we can't meet our goals, does that mean we give up trying? FUCK NO. And peolpe will point to the plan the Americans follow as well as the Australians. The differences between the plans, as I understand them, is that one involves cutting actual greenhouse gas emissions and the other involves better cleaning of the greenhouse gas emissions. Now... these are not mutually exclusive goals. Better filtration technology, combined with slashing emissions? Hell, I say go for both plans. But no... instead, we put money into defence.
Eve says the planet is fucked... I agree. As long as people like Harper and Bush are allowed to run countries, the planet is going nowhere... because they are stuck in the past. They don't focus on modern issues - they can't accept people as people, forget the politics and work together with the rest of the world. And no, I'm not saying let terrorism win. The terrorists have the same problem - they're stuck in their own little world where they're right and America is wrong and they can't let people be people. And neither side seems to want to back down. Its really this simple guys. America - fine, be Catholic. But respect other peoples right (that includes your own citizens who are supposedly members of the most powerful 'free' nation on Earth) to not be Catholic and don't take it as a personal insult. Middle East - same thing, but insert Muslim instead of Catholic. If you both can do that and stop viewing the others customs as an affront to yours, then perhaps we can relax. And I know - it isn't all Americans nor is it all Middle Easterns (I use Middle East because there are numerous countries), its the extremists. The damn Christian right-wingers and the Muslim right-wingers.
Now I don't have a problem with religion - I think most people would consider me religious (or at least, not atheist lol), albeit in my own complex way, as are most things I put the time to think about where I stand on them are. I have a problem with religion extermists. The Christian right wing conservatives, especially the Catholics, who believe everyone who doesn't follow their religion to be a sinner. And we wonder why people don't follow your religion eh? Those who take personal affront to anything that goes against their religious teachings - abortions, homosexuality, condoms even! And the jehovah's witnesses... don't get me started on them. The last thing I need on a Sunday is somebody knocking on my door, telling me how wonderful their religion is and how many eternities I'll be spending in hell (its a lot, I can tell ya that). I swear, I'm going to take to wandering around my house dressed in black satanic robes with a pentacle and a bloody knife. The cops will sympathize, I'm sure lol. Seriously - my favorite of all religion-like teachings that I have bothered to inform myself of is Wicca... solely for the fact that part of their teachings (as I learned them) is that new members are not solicited, nor is there 'one way' to practicing Wicca. It is, instead, a very personal religion. And I like that.
I personally would describe myself as a Wiccan, because my beliefs go down the same general road, though I incorporate science into the theories (not a Scientologist though lol). Instead, I look to science to explain natural phenomena - Wiccan and science are not diametrically opposed as science and religion usually are. I believe, however, that every religion has something valuable - they are all different ways of looking at the spiritual world, everyone a facet on a giant gemstone if you will. And thus, in addition to being Wiccan, I incorporate parts of religions as I find them to be true for myself into my own believes, therefore it is continually evolving as I evolve and learn new things. The whole actual concept is rather lengthy, so I won't get into it tonight - ask me sometime, when I have a better keyboard.
My hand is cramping though, so I'm going to leave you for tonight.
Farewell, my faithful readers and thank you for reading this far!
- Dep
Ignorance... quite possibly the one thing I hate in people. I was just informed that there will be a complete ban of smoking in public places (enclosed or not) starting wednesday of next week. I laughed. You'd never enforce such a thing, it would be like the Aylmer curfew - ridiculously violated by all. Did a bit of research afterwards and found out that its only enclosed public places. Thats a bit different. We then proceeded to have an argument on whether or not smoking should be banned.
Now, I make a lot of arguments based on people should be free to do as they please. But we have to look at a few facts here.
- Smoking is dangerous for your health. The reason people smoke is the nicotine in it. Its addictive and it relieves stress. But its still dangerous. Therefore, most people shouldn't be smoking in an ideal world. Is it an ideal world? No. But lets keep that in mind.
- Smoking is dangerous for the health of those around you. Second hand smoke is proven to have effects on those around you, leading to cancer. Heck, I'm cutting years off my life here as I'm at a friends place who smokes like you wouldn't believe (my family has a history of cancer too). Therefore, smoking around other people is a bad idea, regardless of how much they protest that they don't mind.
So the logical conclusion? We ban unsafe activities all the time - drinking/driving, shooting people in the head, hard drugs. Why haven't cigarettes been altogether banned? Probably because of the underground market that would spring up overnight - the reverse of all the reasons that marijuana should be legalized. You can argue its peoples choice... but its not is it? Nicotine is among the most addictive drugs, right up their with caffeine (my own little addiction). Therefore, the choice not to smoke once you've already started is much harder to make. But the solution isn't to ban cigarettes outright - its to educate people and try and find ways to help them get off their addiction. Heck, I'd like to see more family doctors recommending treatments for it - the patch, etc. Banning cigarettes in public places though makes complete sense. Letting people smoke inside will drive away customers in a business, it will cause your employees to have health concerns (Heck I'm allergic to smoke), and its generally not good for those who stay anyways. And people have a right to go around and expect a safe environment - well the studies show that that would be a smoke free environment. The argument I got to that was 60% of people smoke, so majority rules. Wrong. Majority rules? Stop giving me this democratic bullshit. Public safety people. (Even those of you who plan mass murder sprees can't argue against this because I suspect most of you don't smoke :P). The government does whats good for ALL people and smoking is good for NO ONE except to reduce your stress - and if you need chemicals to do that, maybe you should look at your lifestyle. Or try caffeine, it just rots your teeth :P. Seriously though - banning smoking in public places can only benefit the public. Anyone who thinks otherwise is being incredibly self centered about this, or possibly just isn't acquainted with the truth. Sure, you'll have public outrage from some people, but if you actually consider pros versus cons, I'm sure taking the extra minute to step outside 10 feet to smoke isn't asking too much. And if it really bothers you... try to quit. I'm sure it will bother you less afterwards.
Speaking of trying to quit, perhaps this will encourage people to quit, if there is extra work involved in going to smoke. And it will help people quit because they won't have the temptation in every public place they go. Expecting people to stay out of the shops which allow smoke and expecting them to put up with it is too much to ask. Go sit on a barbed wire fence, friend of mine who cannot see beyond her nose, and let us ban your smoking to the great outdoors. In the meantime, here's a patch.
And while I'm at it, wtf is with people thinkign their was is the best way. Seriously! Alright, it seems hypocritical after my little rant but there is something extra to consider in there - public safety. There are three levels to every position in my opinion - a personal level, a practical widespread level and a metaphysical level. Take, for example, abortion. On a personal level, I have my own feelings that it should be used as a last resort. On a practical level, you have no choice as a government but to let people have abortions if they think it is right - the alternative is back alley abortions with coat hangers. On a metaphysical level... well I don't care to go there at the moment lol. It would be an interesting question. But look at smoking - personally, I dislike smoke but I put up with it for some of my friends. Practically, the government could never ban smoking completely but should make efforts to curb it, control who has access an help people quit whereever possible as well as protecting the public's health. Metaphysically, nobody should be smoking at all - thats just a nobrainer.
But we can look at more complex issues like BDSM. On a personal level, some people are good with it (at different levels) and some people completely abhor it. Practically, again the government could never ban it and as long as it doesn't reach the level of abuse (its a fine line I know) they shouldn't be prying into my bedroom at night. Metaphysically it never reaches the level of abuse and always takes place between consenting people.
I suppose the levels go like this.
Personal Level - What you individually believe should be a part of your life or not
Practical Level - What the government should or should not allow or what works/doesn't work on a large scale in the real world
Metaphysical Level - What should be happening ideally.
Communism is an excellent example of how they can differ. A person can be for or against communism depending on their position. On a practical level, communism leaves too many opportunities for corruption and doesn't fit well with the more popular democratic capitalist/socialist blended systems. On a metaphysical level though, communism works. It just can't work in the real world lol.
So, take exhibitionism and this is the argument that came up. My own personal views I'll keep to myself ;). But its ok if people have different views - some people can hate it, some people can love it. The practical level - not everyone wants to see your penis and not everyone is ready to be an exhibitionist, so lets keep it behind closed doors... or at least don't get caught as I say :P. The metaphysical level - people should do what suits them best. In a couple, if both people are ok with one (or both) taking off most clothes and showing me pictures of their tattoos on their ass, then send the photos away :P. But if you're not, then don't do it. And if you have a conflict on it, then resolve it - agree to a compromising level that doesn't involve me getting photos :( or perhaps it just isn't going to work. And other couples... STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THEIR BUSINESS! Serious people. It isn't hurting anyone, it isn't hurting their relationship, so fuck off. Like one couple I know - they like threesomes and they're both good with that. I say more power to them. Others would disagree - and on a personal level, I would agree, if I'm in a serious relationship, I don't think threesomes/foursomes are the thing for me (though, experimentation never hurt). But what isn't right for me may be right for them.
Of course, there are levels to this that we need to consider. Abuse, for instance, should never be tolerated in relationships, regardless of people's agreement to the abuse because its a known fact that the abusee can not know that they are being abused. I'm not talking like, they have whips and enjoy whipping on occasion - consensual, non-life threatening BDSM is never a problem. And heck, sometimes joking fun insults go on too - it all depends on the couple, so you have to be careful. But sometimes, you gotta go with your gut instinct about their behaviour and call abuse abuse. Personal level things sometimes need to be overridden - if you, for example, are a rapist, you need to curb that tendancy, not explore it.
Bottom line is hurting other people, whether they realize it or not, is not something that we can allow. Its the general rule and probably the only moral I truly have - first, do no harm (10 points to the person who can tell me where that quote is from lol - leave a comment). My other moral is down with the Christian right-wing conservatives, because Lord knows they do more harm than good nowadays with their antiquidated manner of thinking.
Stephen Harper, banning the media from the return of the bodies of four Canadian military officiers. Reasons given are because of the families grief. Alright, understandable... I think the families of those officiers should have the right to ban the media from the return of the bodies, if they so wish, along with the funeral. But notice that the funerals were covered. Notice also that Stephen Harper did not consult any family members before he took this action. And notice that the media was not banned from the return of the latest casualty. Yes, Harper, this makes sense. Is consistancy in your foolish notions too much to ask?
Everyone my age who pays taxes take note. The budget does nothing but harm young people. First of all, I believe the majority of students who pay taxes do so in the lower tax bracket, if at all. You may take great pride in knowing you will now pay 0.5% more taxes on your money, even if you pay it on less than you would have. Take great pride in knowing that the education budget was cut, meaning your tuitions will rise... and the only new money coming into education is in the form of what... $80 off of your text books? Finally, we're backing out of Kyoto... to hell if we can't meet our goals, does that mean we give up trying? FUCK NO. And peolpe will point to the plan the Americans follow as well as the Australians. The differences between the plans, as I understand them, is that one involves cutting actual greenhouse gas emissions and the other involves better cleaning of the greenhouse gas emissions. Now... these are not mutually exclusive goals. Better filtration technology, combined with slashing emissions? Hell, I say go for both plans. But no... instead, we put money into defence.
Eve says the planet is fucked... I agree. As long as people like Harper and Bush are allowed to run countries, the planet is going nowhere... because they are stuck in the past. They don't focus on modern issues - they can't accept people as people, forget the politics and work together with the rest of the world. And no, I'm not saying let terrorism win. The terrorists have the same problem - they're stuck in their own little world where they're right and America is wrong and they can't let people be people. And neither side seems to want to back down. Its really this simple guys. America - fine, be Catholic. But respect other peoples right (that includes your own citizens who are supposedly members of the most powerful 'free' nation on Earth) to not be Catholic and don't take it as a personal insult. Middle East - same thing, but insert Muslim instead of Catholic. If you both can do that and stop viewing the others customs as an affront to yours, then perhaps we can relax. And I know - it isn't all Americans nor is it all Middle Easterns (I use Middle East because there are numerous countries), its the extremists. The damn Christian right-wingers and the Muslim right-wingers.
Now I don't have a problem with religion - I think most people would consider me religious (or at least, not atheist lol), albeit in my own complex way, as are most things I put the time to think about where I stand on them are. I have a problem with religion extermists. The Christian right wing conservatives, especially the Catholics, who believe everyone who doesn't follow their religion to be a sinner. And we wonder why people don't follow your religion eh? Those who take personal affront to anything that goes against their religious teachings - abortions, homosexuality, condoms even! And the jehovah's witnesses... don't get me started on them. The last thing I need on a Sunday is somebody knocking on my door, telling me how wonderful their religion is and how many eternities I'll be spending in hell (its a lot, I can tell ya that). I swear, I'm going to take to wandering around my house dressed in black satanic robes with a pentacle and a bloody knife. The cops will sympathize, I'm sure lol. Seriously - my favorite of all religion-like teachings that I have bothered to inform myself of is Wicca... solely for the fact that part of their teachings (as I learned them) is that new members are not solicited, nor is there 'one way' to practicing Wicca. It is, instead, a very personal religion. And I like that.
I personally would describe myself as a Wiccan, because my beliefs go down the same general road, though I incorporate science into the theories (not a Scientologist though lol). Instead, I look to science to explain natural phenomena - Wiccan and science are not diametrically opposed as science and religion usually are. I believe, however, that every religion has something valuable - they are all different ways of looking at the spiritual world, everyone a facet on a giant gemstone if you will. And thus, in addition to being Wiccan, I incorporate parts of religions as I find them to be true for myself into my own believes, therefore it is continually evolving as I evolve and learn new things. The whole actual concept is rather lengthy, so I won't get into it tonight - ask me sometime, when I have a better keyboard.
My hand is cramping though, so I'm going to leave you for tonight.
Farewell, my faithful readers and thank you for reading this far!
- Dep
// posted by Dep @ 1:55:00 a.m.
