Badass Villains:

Jon, thank you for bringing this bad boy up, today's badass is the Nightmare King from Little Nemo, the best image I could get for this is from a game, but its good enough:http://www.planetnintendo.com/thewarpzone/ln/nmking.gif

Nightmares are the things which form deep in our minds and then reveal themselves in our sleep. They make us sweat, they make us wake up crying, they even sometimes make us wet the beds. In Slumber Land, the Nightmare King has sway over all nightmares. From his big, black, incredibly cliche castle in his homeland (Nightmare Land conveniently enough) he spreads his terror across the world. He abducts the good King ....Jon, I've forgotten his name, I think it was Morpheus or something like that...ANYHOO!! Little Nemo, a young boy who is clearly suffering from some kind of mental illness (just look at the dreams he has) must go and save the King so that he can save Slumber Land and win the girl, thats right! Of course, it was his fault that the King was abducted in the first place. He was given a key by the King and told that there was one door in all of Slumber Land that he shouldnt open (minus all the others which may be opened at his leisure) but just this one shouldnt be opened. Why the king would trust a young boy he's never met before with this knowledge is beyond me. Well, with the help of a little curiosity and the influence of a michevous clown guy (cant remember his name either) what does he go and do...he opens the goddam door. And all hell breaks loose. Then he has to go and make amends for his mistake by going to Nightmare Land to stop the one who's responsible. Of course, Nemo didnt take into account the Nightmare King was like 80 feet high and was just as mean and bad as he looked. all I can say is this mother fucker is one mean Badasss! Not only does he look the part, but he also apparently doesnt have any compunction about killing a wee little boy. Personally, I think the Nightmare King could've smushed Nemo anytime he wanted to, but he kept delaying and chose to have some fun with the boy first (Paedophile?) anyways, when he finally DID act, Nemo blows off his hand, yep, with a sceptre the King gave him. Now Nighty Boy gets reaaaallly angry and starts sucking up everything in his path, literally with his mouth. But then Nemo chants the magic incantation which turns the sceptre into a canon and blasts the Nighty Boy's ass away. Well now, instead of sucking up everything, he couldve just smashed the pillar that Nemo and the others were standing on and let them fall to certain death, but that probably wouldve gone against the whole idea that good guys are supposed to win, instead he just sat there and sucked up the air with the hopes that something (Nemo) would fly into his mouth so he could munch him up. Besides his many failings, the Nightmare King is still a badass. As Jonathan said, in the eyes of a young kid, the Nightmare King is literally the stuff that Nightmares are made of. I give this Badass a 7/10, I would give him 8 if i were still six years old.

Badass Villains:

Today's Badass: Ursula from the Little Mermaid, click below for an image of this crazy bitch
http://www.disneyanaexchange.com/Photobin/WZZ-Ursula.jpg

What makes her so Badass: Ursula is unlike any other Disney villain I've ever seen, because unlike the others, she is literally terrifying. She inspires fear with not only her monstrous appearance and her maniacal grin, but also because of her personality. She is cruel, manipulative, callous, and utterly self-serving. She seduces poor little Ariel (or the Little Mermaid for those of you who dont know her) to give up her voice so that she can be a human and try to get a kiss from her one true love. But Ursula wasnt motivated by any humanitarian feelings, fuck no, she's using Ariel because Ariel's father, King Triton, is apparently her arch-nemesis and she wants nothing more than to overthrow him. Ursula does everything she can to make Ariel's task of getting her man difficult. She uses her two ghoulish eels, Flotsam and Jetsam, to wreak havoc if it looks like Ariel and Derek (the guy she likes) are falling for one another. About Ursula's past we know very little, apparently she was cast out of Triton's kingdom for being a nasty and a witch on top of that. She was left to rot in some dejected crag of the sea, and she has to fume over Triton banishing her on top of that. This makes her one very pissed off bitch. When she finally does get her way and Triton is overthrown, she gets all the power she ever wanted, and becomes even bigger and uglier than she ever was. And then you know what happens? She gets impaled by Derek's ship, thats right, all that work for nothing. She went out gansta style with the sharp bow of a ship through her belly. She was ruthless to the very end and on a scale of Badass, I give this Sea Witch an 8/10.

The Changing Face of the World

Globalization is a big thing nowadays, we have a literal deluge of people on this planet. And of course, with people come huuuuge structures and thousands upon thousands of houses. With every new person (in Canada at least) comes a new car and a new group which consumes resources. I ask myself, how long can the abundance of North America last? Nothing lasts forever and I think personally that we're living in the best and last days of this civilization. Times are changing, where once there were only white people and black people in North America, now there are brown people and yellow people, each with their own way of life and their own way of thinking. With resource consumption at an all time high, we are headed for an inevitable downward spiral if you ask me. With all our industry comes the tiny little molecules of literally floating shit that we call pollution. Pollution is heavy, and it touches too many places to count. Air pollution, Light pollution, Food poisoning and vegetable poisoning with pesticides, Water pollution, and of course, the joyfully beaming rays of the sun. Against all this, we have our grand civilization. If you ask me, the times we're living in where similar to the times that the Ancient Romans were living in. Sure we're more advanced, but look at this for a moment: Rome/America, can both be considered the capitals of the world in a sense that they possess the most power, In Ancient Rome, sexual debauchery was just as widespread as it is today, Rome was a cosmopolitan country, as North America is gradually becoming, and of course, Rome collapsed which is what our society will probably do in the end as well. If you ask me, America's bid for the very top is gradually coming to end. Who's going to replace them? I'll tell you: CHINA. The Chinese are coming up in the world and they're begininng to show some muscle. There are so many people in China that once the economy can match the United States, the States wont have a chance. Another thing about our world which has changed, or gone back to the way it was, is the cult of violence. At least in North America, violence, like sex, is a commodity which appears widespread. The more violent society gets and the more violence that is shown, the more our young generation can become de-sensitized by it. If there are people who are campaigning to get rid of the violence, then they are from a generation which was born in a time when violence was nothing of what it is today. My parents always told me that back in their day, you'd never hear of people getting shot so many times. I dont know whether that was because people never really got shot, or because the media couldnt touch down on all corners of the globe yet to report that shooting. In any case, our generation is much more inured to the violence around us. In fact, North America seems to encourage the very traits that some psychopaths possess. Are we in danger of creating a psychopathic civilization? No, because even if everyone was a psychopath, one psychopath can't con another because psychopath's dont trust others. There must always be more victims than psychopaths for them to truly succeed, so I think we're safe...for now. In any case, I think as the racial distinction between people and cultures start to blur, perhaps we'll get a unified human race. The alternative to that is that everyone polarizes into their own factions and destroy eachother in an apocalyptic war which will reduce the world to dust. But that seems like a long way off, so we're all smiles here.

Case Scenario:

I'm with a freind of mine (Imran) playing some tennis at around 9 pm. A chinese man with his family comes a little later than us and sits down and start to wait. We were playing pretty good in my opinion. Imran was kinda down because someone at Mosque stole his shoes which were worth $200. It was all going pretty good until the guy started making noise. He asked rudely "how long will u guys be!?" Imran responded harshly "just 2 more games man! Can you wait!?" The guy was making noises the whole time and Imran gave him a few faces. Eventually he asked again and Imran started making fun of his accent and was saying "Do you speak any English?" the guy got mad at that and said "you want me to call 911, I'll call the police!" He got up and came to the fence that seperates the bench from the tennis court. Imran was making fun of him and he started to yell now. All the while his poor family was trying to restrain him. He had a wife and about three girls, one of which was a teen. They were all afraid that their daddy was gonna fight Imran, and if my dad wanted to do the same, I'd be scared for him too. But this guy was old, at least 55. and short. Imran was a big brown guy who looks like he's 20. The guy clearly didnt have his head on straight. It escalated to yelling, the guy literally yelled "1 hour! You play for 1 hour, now we play!!!" Imran yelled, "Shut up BITCH!!!" then the guy started coming round the fence and his family tried to restrain him. We did leave the court and the guy was really angry. He was shouting at Imran and pointing at him to which Imran replied, "dont point your finger at me." To which he stopped doing it. Why did this situation escalate? I think it was because of Imran, he was making some childish comments and I can see the man taking offense, however he has no right to be so rude when we're playing. All the while, I just kinda stood by and watched all this, I felt sorry for the mans family. I wasnt scared for Imran. If anything the guy wouldve been decked and put into a coma. After we left and were headed home I went back and apologised to him for what happened. I'm not exactly the go fight em up type. I said sorry to his wife and his kids and headed on my way (I said all this when Imran was gone mind you) I dont know why people cant just wait, but theres a good thought. He said he came with his family and lights do go off at eleven and we were pushing it, but he was acting like a child just as much as Imran. I dont care how much someone insults you, you shouldnt blow your top like that and put yourself and your kids in danger. For all he knew, we couldve been two teens who would have no compunctions about taking out knives and doing him in. You just dont know these days. The real question is, did the man get what he deserved, or was Imran in the wrong? I think its a little bit of both. If Imran had just been more polite, maybe it wouldnt have escalated, but the guy is still a fucking dick for doing what he did in front of his family.

The World of Psychopaths Part 2

Kay, for this part I'm digging right into the facts, but if you find anything you dont like, show no mercy, do an entire post ripping it to pieces!! Alright here it is. Psychopath's have traits which mark them out from most people. The problem with identifying these traits is the psychopath's penchant for manipulation, which can fool even some professionals. Here are the traits and a short description of each:

Glib and Superficial: Psychopath's are often witty and articulate. They can be amusing and entertaining conversationalists, ready with a quick and clever comeback, and they can tell convincing stories placing themselves in a good light. To some people though, they appear too slick and too convincing, too obviously incincere and superficial. Astute observers often get the impression that psychopath's are 'play acting', mechanically reading their lines. Typically, they appear to be familiar with sociology, psychiatry, medecine, psychology, philosophy, poetry, literature and art. A signpost to this trait is often a smooth lack of concern at being found out.

Egocentric and Grandiose: Psychopath's have a narcissistic and grossly inflated view of their self-worth and importance, a truly astounding egocentricity and sense of entitlement, as see themselves as the centre of the universe, superior beings who are justified to in living according to their own rules. For example, it is not unusual for them to critisize or fire their lawyers and to take over their own defense, usually with disastrous results. Psychopath's are seldom embarrassed about their legal, financial, or personal problems. Rather, they see them as a temporary setback, the results of bad luck, unfaithful friends, or an unfair and incompetent system.

Lack of Remorse or Guilt: Psychopath's show a stunning lack of concern for the devastating effects of their actions. On the other hand, psychopath's sometimes verbalize remorse, but then contradict themselves in words or actions.Thier lack of remorse or guilt is associated with a remarkable ability to rationalize their behavior and to shrug off personal responsibility for actions that cause shock and disapointment to family, freinds, associates, and others who played by the rules.

Lack of Empathy: As has been said before, psychopath's seem unable to 'walk in someone else's shoes' . Psychopath's view people as little more than objects to be used for their own gratification. The weak and vulnerable - whom they mock rather than pity - are favorite targets. Psychopath's have been known to parasitically bleed other people of their possessions, savings, and dignity; aggressively doing and taking what they want; shamefully neglecting the physical and emotional welfare of their families; engaging in an unending series of casual, impersonal, and trivial sexual relationships; and so forth.

Deceitful and Manipulative: Lying, deceiving, and manipulation are natural talents of the psychopaths. With their powers of imagination in gear and focused on themselves, psychopaths appear amazingly unfazed by the possibility - or even the certainty - of being found out. When caught in a lie or challenged with the truth, they are seldom perplexed or embarrassed, they simply change their stories or attempt to rework the facts so that they appear to be consistent with the lie. They seem proud of their ability to lie. Many observers get the impression that the psychopath's are sometimes unaware that they're lying; its as if the words take on a life of their own.

Shallow Emotions: Psychopath's seem to suffer a kind of emotional poverty that limits the range and depth of their feelings. While at times they appear cold and unemotional, they are prone to dramatic, shallow, and short-lived displays of feeling. Careful observers get the impression that they are play acting and that little is going on below the surface. Sometimes, they claim to experience strong emotions but are unable to describe the subtleties of various states. For instance, they equate love with sexual arousal, sadness with frustration, and anger with irritability. This apparent lack of emotional depth suggests that they know the words, but not the music. Laboratory experiments using biomedical recorders have shown that psychopath's lack the physiological response normally associated with fear. Fear makes us do some things, but it also makes us do others. It is this emotional awareness of the consequences that impels us to take a particular course of action. Not so with the psychopaths, they merrily plunge on, perhaps knowing what might happen, but not really caring. For psychopath's, fear -like other emotions- is incomplete, shallow, largely cognitive in nature.

Impulsive: Psychopath's are unlikely to spend much time weighing the pros and cons of a course of action or considering possible consequences. More than displays of temper, impulsive acts often result from the aim that plays a central role in most of the psychopath's behavior: to achieve immediate satisfaction, pleasure and relief. At an early age most children have already begun to postpone pleasure, compromising with restrictions in the environment. A parent can generally use a promise to put off satisfying a two year olds desires, at least temporarily, but psychopaths never seem to learn this lesson - they do not modify their desires; they ignore the needs of others. Psychopaths tend to live day to day and to change their plans frequently. They give little serious thought to the future and worry about it even less. As one psychopath put it: "If I always think about tommorrow I wont be able to live today."

Poor Behaviour Controls: Besides being impulsive, psychopaths are highly reactive to percieved slights or insults. Most of us have powerful inhibitory controls over our behaviour, even if we would like to respond aggessively we are usually able to keep a lid on. In psychopath's these controls are weak, and the slightest provocation is sufficient to overcome them. As a result, psychopaths are short tempered, or hot headed and tend to respond to frustration, failure, discipline, and criticism with sudden violence, threats, and verbal abuse. However, when psychopaths "blow their stack" their behavior is not out of control, on the contrary they know exactly what they are doing. Their aggressive displays are "cold". It is not unusual for for psychopaths to inflict serious physical and emotional damage on others, sometimes routinely, and yet refuse to acknowledge that they have a problem controlling their tempers.

Need For Excitement: Psychopaths long to live in the fast lane or "on the edge", where the action is. In many cases the action involves breaking the rules. Some psychopaths use a wide variety of drugs as part of their general search for something new and exciting, and they often move from place to place, and job to job searching for a new buzz. Many psychopaths describe "doing crime" for excitement or thrills. The flipside of this is their inability to tolerate routine or monotony. Psychopaths are easily bore. You are unlikely to find them engeaged in occupations or activities that are dull.

Lack of Responsibilty: Obligations and commitments mean nothing to the psychopaths. Their good intentions- "I'll never cheat on you again" - are promises written on air. Their do not honor formal or implied commitments to people, organizations, or principles. Psychopaths are not deterred by the possibility that their actions may cause hardship or risk for others. Psychopaths are frequently successful in talking their way out of trouble - "I've learned my lesson" "You have my word that it wont happen again." "Trust me". They are almost as successful in convincing the criminal justice system of their good intentions and their trustworthiness. They frquently manage to obtain probation, a suspended sentence, or early release from prison, and then ignore the conditions imposed by the courts.

Early Behaviour Problems: Most psychopaths begin to exhibit serious behavioural problems at an earyl age. These might include persistent lying, cheating, theft, fire setting, truancy, class disruption, substance abuse, vandalism, violence, bullying, running away, and precocious sexuality. Because most children exhibit these behaviours at one point or another, especially children raised in violent households, it is important to emphasize that the psychopath's history of such behaviour is more extentsive and serious than that of others, even when compared with those siblings raised in similar settings. Early cruelty to animals is usually a sign of serious emotional or behavioural problems. Adult psychopaths usually describe their childhood cruelty to animals as ordinary events, matter-of-fact, or even enjoyable. Cruelty to other children -including siblings- is often part of the young psychopath's inability to experience the sort of empathy that checks normal people's impulse to inflict pain. Interestingly, the media often shows reports of witnesses and neighbors being taken completely by surprise in reaction to some crime; "I just cant believe he was capable of that" this shows not only the psychopath's power to manipulate others, but also the winesses ignorance of their early history.

Adult Antisocial Behaviour: Impulsive, decietful children who lack empathy and see the world as their oyster will be much the same as adults. The life-long continuity of the self-serving psychopath is truly amazing. Even within prison populations, psychopaths stand out largely because their antisocial and illegal activities are more varied and frequent. Not all psychopaths end up in jail. Many of the things they do escape detection or persecution, or are on the "shady side of the law" For them, antisocial behaviour may consist of phony stock promotions, questionable business and professional practices, spouse or child abuse and so forth.

While all these traits may paint a picture of people who are not human, I believe that surely behind all the self assurance and inhuman traits, theres just a little child looking for some love. Kay, if you wish to add anything at all to this, please do so.

The Brain: Fact or Fable?

For those of you who didn't see this on my page, I found this in my biological psychology textbook and found it a bit intriguing.

- Some human nerve cells are 3 feet long. (true)

- Nerve impulses travel at the speed of light. (false)

- We normally use only 10% of our brain. (false)

- More people die each year from the use of legal drugs than illegal ones. (true)

- Only humans ingest mind-altering substances. (false)

- Only humans have created cultures. (false)

- Some people are incapable of feeling pain. (true)

- Different parts of the tongue are specialized to recognize certain tastes. (false)

- Dogs are colour-blind. (false)

- There are no anatomical differences between men's and women's brains. (false)

- In some animal species every individual is female. In some other species, individuals can change sex during their lifetimes. (true)

- Most of our energy is expended just maintaining our body tempurature. (true)

- We can lose weight permanently by surgically removing fat from our bodies. (false)

- The peaks in cases of depression and suicide occur around Christmas holiday. (false)

- During sleep the brain is relatively inactive. (not always)

- Sleepwalkers are acting out dreams. (false)

- Some animals can have half their brain asleep and the other half awake. (true)

- The left side of the face is more emotionally expressive than the right side. (true)

- It is possible to scientifically determine whether someone is lying. (false)

- Scientists are not sure why antidepressants work. (true)

- Some people are incapapble of producing any new memories. (true)

- A child can have half of the brain removed and still develop normal intelligence. (true)

**Taken from Mark R. Rosenzweig, S. Marc Breedlove, and Neil V. Watson's text: Biological Psychology: An Introduction to Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience.**

The World of Psychopaths Part 1

The word Psychopath is a word which is thrown around constantly in the media and among people. Sometimes you'll hear the police department saying how a "psychopath" is on the loose, which seems to imply that the individual in question is in fact mentally unstable. While this is partially true, it's not the whole story. When people think of a psychopath, they think about someone who's psychotic, or someone with an extreme mental disability who cant control themselves. Whereas psychotic individuals are "insane" in that they have no real concept of what they're doing, the psychopathic individual is "morally insane" or, they know exactly what they're doing but suffer from a chilling inability to feel for the people they hurt. Psychopath's have been described by Robert Hare, a leading Canadian pschiatrist, as "ruthlessly plowing their way through life leaving a trail of broken and miserable people in their wake." and the most telling part about this is that they feel nothing for these people. Psychopath's suffer from a distinct lack of conscience. They cannot be moved by the powers of poetic tragedy and art. They cannot construct a fascimile of another person or 'walk in their shoes'. Psychopath's are cold blooded, manipulative creatures who are not hindered shame or guilt. From where does such a personality spring forth? No one knows for sure. There are many theories: Having a bad childhood, hitting their head too hard, growing up neglected, and being neglected when they are first born, which is said to be a crucial time to develop a bond between humans. But not all of this is true as many who grow up with horrible childhoods do not become psychopaths. Some people seem to go off track during their lives but the psychopath seems off track from the start. Whatever the origin of the psychopath, one thing is for certain: not all of them are serial killers. The common image we get when we think of a psychopath is a raving killer who murders for kicks, but this is not the case. Psychopath's can be charming businessmen and politicians who may never commit a crime that would arouse the law, but who do plenty of things which would make anyone else hesitate. A psychopath is an adept liar and is sometimes caught up in the act. They tell fantastic stories with themselves at the centre, a mark of their extreme narcissism. They dont just tell a lie, they revel in the performance itself. They are glib and superficial, and have only an emptiness behind whatever exterior they have created for themselves. Similarly, in spite of their seemingly emotionless personality, the psychopath can be infuriated by the slightest percieved insult. The inhibitory controls which would keep most of us from lashing out are weak on the psychopath, but even their anger has been said to be "cold" and lacking the substance of genuine emotion. This brings in an interesting phenomenon in intself: scientific research has demonstrated that the psychopath's have very little activity going on in their frontal lobes. This could have an enormous effect on their emotion and their fear. Does a person's brain become this way when they become a psychopath? Is it formed over time in some people? No one knows for sure. What is for sure, besides their lack of emotion, is what appears to be their lack of fear. Most of us, when we are afraid, have visible sensations we can use to describe this: sweating of the palms, butterfly's in our stomach, but the psychopath doesnt have this. They are seemingly impervious to threats and punishment. Similarly, they dont attach emotionaly value to the same kind of things we do. If i say to someone "Go Fuck yourself you asshole!" that person may understandibly have a conflicting range of emotions, but the psychopath would not. The emotionaly connotation attached to the word 'fuck' means nothing to them and they will use the word without regard for the effect it may have on others. Several other terms which have been used to describe psychopathic personalites range from the term sociopath, to Anti Social Personality Disorder. In this case, anti-social doesnt mean those who are afraid of social events and who are anxious when around people, this refers to those who dont recognize the rights of others, such as psychopaths. Psychopaths view people as mere objects to be used and extorted for their purposes. As far as they're concerned, no one else matters, no one but themselves. Because of this behaviour you'll hear plenty of stories about psychopath's who murdered or tortured animals when they were young. This represents their lack of respect for living things. coming Part 2: distinct traits of the psychopath.

The Psychology of Power:

What does a woman look for in a man? Is it a nice personality? confidence? A nice physique? A good job? Or stubborn refusal to quite? I think for every woman, its different, but for many, one thing above all else serves as an unnatural turn-on: power. Power is the ultimate aphrodesiac, it inspires as much as it intimidates. There is a history of many women who have expressed a deep but never fully gratified sexual desire for a man who has power and has the means to flaunt it. Joseph Stalin, when he became Russia's dictator, and Hitler when he became Germany's, had no shortage of frenzied female followers who were enthralled by them. These men were not particularly attractive, and deep down they were really quite pathetic: Stalin was a paranoid recluse and Hitler was afraid of women. Despite this however, their immense power and the way they projected themselves attracted women in their thousands. The presence of stong authority in an individual seems to inspire some instinct which draws people to them. This all goes back to evolution. The Alpha Male was the one who was in charge and he was the one who had first pick among the females of the group. When you see male Lions fight eachother for the honor of impregnating the female, the one who wins, or the one who is the most powerful, is the one who gets the girl. Look at Hugh Hefner, the owner of Playboy, an old man who is past his prime, but still has no shortage of young, attractive females who seek his attention. This can be explained by the fact that the man is a millionaire, and money is essentially a form of power and influence. These women see this and they are immediatly drawn to him, maybe not because they are physically attracted to him (but there are the odd exceptions who like it old) but because they're attracted to his power. The power that he has may even have the psychological ability to make his appearance more attractive to them. In my opinion, what a great majority of women look for is someone who can support them and their family, someone who is financially secure, someone with some clout. Celebrities are a prime example of all this. There is no shortage of gossip about celebrities, and we must admit that everything they do seems to be in the news, even if they're just taking their dog for a walk with someone we've never seen before (who could be a secret lover ooooooooooo) celebrities have a lot of money and influence (the successful ones anyways) and with this comes a form of interest and attraction. When people see a famous celebrity on the street, they act as if they're looking at some kind of god. But more than the sexual stimulation of power, what makes people want power? Well thats simple, the more power you have, the more stuff you can have and the more doors are open to you. But does everyone really need to have everything? Remember the 5o Cent album "Get Rich or Die Trying"? This is a very human ideal. We will never be satisfied with what we have (until its gone of course) we always want more and more. When locusts find a farmers field full of crops that arent protected, they dont eat what they need to and then leave the rest for the farmer and the other animals, hell no! They eat the whole damn thing right down to the roots. Humans are similar. There are some people who are just happy for what they have and dont mind living the simple life, but there are not many of these people in North America that I know, and I'm sure that deep down, they have the same burning amibition to succeed. Whenever the teacher asks "Who wants to be famous some day?" Nearly everyone will raise their hands. Some people will never be happy just buying a Ferrari, they have to buy the BEST Ferrari. Some people are so hungry for power, that they'll do anything to get it, even if what they're doing is illicit. The human need to achieve is a drive that has pushed us constantly. Failure to be the best causes strain in our minds and failure to achieve wealth can push some people over the edge. I remember someone telling me that if they werent rich by the time they were 30, they'd kill themselves. Get rich or die trying, some people take that phrase to heart.

Jon Wong on Gender Equity

One of the few blogs where I can regularily check back every hour and find new posts. At any rate, on the topic of gender equity, which is essentially the concept that includes feminism, women/men's rights, and all pertaining topics, I think we need to be careful in deciding the difference between rights and biology.

This topic was one of the heated discussions experienced in my first Model UN conference and the main issue that I noticed (because I didn't do ANY talking during my first conference), was that people always have one set way of looking at gender issues and for some reason, people are less likely to relinquish their views on this subject than any other issue discussed.

First off, let me say that there is no such thing as gender equality. Kudos to everyone on this board for being careful to focus on the more realistic topic of gender equity. As Karen stated, equity means an individual gets what he or she deserves. Anyone who feels that there ought not to be any gender differences at all is failing to grasp the biological fact that men and women ARE different. There is no getting away from the facts like men cannot give birth, women cannot get kicked in the balls, men are generally physically stronger than women, and women are born with breasts for the purpose of feeding their young. A good example of this is in professional sports. The fastest tennis serve ever recorded by a man was 163 mph. The fastest tennis serve ever recorded by a woman was 127 mph... which is the speed the average professional male tennis player serves at. Would it be fair to say "to hell with seperating the genders in sports; we're just going to crunch all the categories into two catgeories: Singles and Doubles." I'm sure you'd have women up in arms talking about the unfairness of such a sport. Hold on... but if men and women are equal, then they should compete equally too right? And this is only the biological factor when I'm sure that men and women most likely develop psychologically different. But I'm not stating that as a fact because I don't know for sure.

Feminism, in and of itself I believe is necessary. Historically, women have been treated unfairly and they still are in many countries. This fight for gender equity is important because there just as there are things about men and women that are biologically different, there are things about men and women that are the same, and there should thus be no difference in rights granted in such situations.

On the other side, the fight for women's rights can, like any noble cause, be subjected to much head turning and interpretations. Like the women who argue that they should be allowed to walk around public topless because "it's legal for men to do it." Honestly, there are plenty of gender inequities that are worth fighting for opposed to the fight to able to walk around topless, even though there is a biological difference in the physical build between a man and woman. Gender inequity in first world countries has really been cut down a smaller selection of issues that are nowhere near as important as the gender inequities experienced in many third world countries. How many feminists who fight for "women's rights in Canada" would fight with equal fervor for "women's rights in Zimbabwe"?

And what about men's rights? Inequity exists everywhere and as David pointed out, men do not escape unscathed. I'll give a personal example. When I applied for the Queen's Con-Ed program, the first question I was faced with "do you want to teach elementary or high school?" And when I asked about the difference, the first thing I was told was a flat out, "if you do elementary, you're going to have a harder time finding a job." No subtleties, no false hopes, it was a stated fact. Because I am a male, I WILL have a harder time finding a job as an elementary teacher. And don't be ignorant and tell me "But there have been no cases of child molestation with a female teacher" cause that would be untrue.

And don't even get me started about how guys are always expected to do the asking come prom time. It drives me up the wall.

Fight Analysis: Bob vs Linda, Man vs Woman

Whenever my parents fight, everything always seems to follow the same pattern. My dad, in his aggressive impulsivity, is oftentimes the one who starts the fight. This can usually be over nothing and often involves him raising his voice. Mom in this case, doesnt usually raise her voice but starts off relatively cool but firm in her standing. If the argument continues, things will escalate, now mom will start to raise her voice as well. In the heat of the argument, dad becomes excessively infantile "Oh ok, so it's all my fault now!? I'm the one who's responsible right?!" mom responds angrily to this but she is still in the right: dad is losing and he knows it, he knows that he is acting like a child over nothing, but still he pushes on, determined to save face. If the argument should now reach its apex, mom and dad will simply part and dad will apologise later (*Note: Mom never apologises, dad is the one who often starts the argument and mom is often in the right.) If it gets even more severe than that, then mom will go to her room and close the door. Now dad knows he's in trouble and after he's calmed down, he'll go and apologise to mom after she gives him a lecture on his state of mind. This is the way that my parents always argue, and mom always wins. I dont know whether most mothers use similar tactics, but hers have proven effective. Why are there instances of women being beaten by their husbands? Once again, women are viewed as the weaker sex, and men feel they can take advantage of this. However if a man believes that all women will submit so willingly to his authority he will be cruelly disillusioned when he finds a woman who wont take his shit. Women have one distinct advantage against men physically: men have a weakness, a weakness that can make them crumble at the slightest blow, a weakness called Balls. All any woman has to do to take a man down is nail him between the legs and he'll wish that he never called her a bitch in the first place. In comparison to my previous argument that men are physically more adept than women, I believe that they're even because men may have more muscles than women, but if hit in the right place, even the strongest man will crumble.

The Woman's March through History:

The Woman has taken a long hard time to make a name for herself amidst a male dominated world. What was it that seemed to put men first? Evolution: men are traditionally the hunters and gatherers of the family. Strength, men are generally physically stronger than women (except Ms. Universe). Men seem to be more aggressive than women, but is that all it takes to put men at the forefront? Throughout history, women have had to fight hard for their rights in society, as everything seems to be against them. How many times have you heard people say: "Stop being such a girl!" or "You cry alll the time man, if we slapped tits on you, you'd be a woman." maybe not the second statement so much but definatly the first. These statements seem to show that being a girl is being weak. Even the word History could be shown as being ' His Story' not 'Her Story'. Women were generally depicted in medieval times as being maids and house workers while the men went out and did the fighting and controlled everything, but this is not entirely true. There were many powerful women during these times. My favorite example is Queen Elizabeth 1 of England. She was a strong, smart, and powerful woman who drove her country to success and survived several assassination attempts. She even protected Britain from a full scale invasion by the Spaniards who thought that they could take advantage of the fact that a woman was their main opponent, they were sorely mistaken. despite her example however, women were viewed as being snakes who brought out the worst in a man. Cleopatra was depicted as being a beautiful but cunning temptress who used her lovers to expand her own power. Once again, the association in medieval times of women with Witchcraft and the Devil was prevalent. But despite all these persecutions, women rose up and are now very successful. But still there are small discriminations. There has never been a female President of the United States. There has never been a female priest. There has never been the female equivalent of Socrates in the history books. There is still sexual harassment in the workplace. Aristotle once said that women were "incomplete men". But women are not an unusual case. The human race has a long history of discrimination and segregation. Take apartheid for instance and slavery. The Protestants fought, and still do fight, against the Catholics who fought against the Jews, who fought against the Germans and the Russians. The Native Americans still battle for their ancient homeland. And in Ireland the North Irish fight against the South Irish. Somewhere in all this is the fight which women have waged for so long. Do women really need to prove that they're better than men? Not really, just as long as they know in their hearts that they shouldnt let certain things get them down because men and women are evenly matched and they need eachother to survive in this world.

Karen on Feminism

One of the first assumptions made of me by a coworker was summarized in this one question that he asked me on the first day we met: "Karen, are you a feminist????"

So I will have to hope that Brett will not mistaken me for some sort of anti-feminist, because I am far from being one. I appologize if my last post had seemed to be bashing feminists; that was entirely not my intention.

I realize fully, as many women should, that if it were not for feminists, I would not be able to work, go to school, walk around in pants (as opposed to skirts, which I don't particularly find comfortable), read, write, or even participate in society. I also feel that a woman ought to be able to take care of herself, even down to the simple act of walking down the street without her boyfriend carrying her napsack for her.

There are several types of feminists, the titles of which I am ignorant. I do know, however, that just as people are liberal or conservative or religious on different levels, there are people who are feminists on different levels. There are those who hope that one day women will have the same rights as men. Equity. An individual gets what he or she deserves. Then there are those who feel that women and men should have their gender roles shared; c'est-à-dire, there ought not to be gender differences at all. There are also the ones who feel they are fighting for equity, but do not realize that equity does not mean a woman can walk around without a shirt on the way men can. And then there are the male-bashing ones who seem to think that women are superior and thus should have MORE rights than men.

The only one that isn't just a thorn in our thighs is the first one: the feminist fighting for equity. This feminist takes pride in women who use their heads and not just their bodies to get where they want to be. This feminist refuses to be seen as less valuable than a man just because she is female. This feminist fought for a woman's right to vote, a woman's right to education, a woman's right to own property, because she felt that women and men can be equally good at what they do.

I don't have much comment for the second one, which is the feminist who wishes to have all gender roles combined to make one huge social responsibility. The only thing I have to say is something a little more on the immature and playful side: WHAT FUN WOULD THAT BE IF GIRLS CAN'T BE GIRLS, AND GUYS CAN'T BE GUYS? (Girls just wanna have fun. That's right.)

The third feminist is the one who fought to pass that law allowing women to walk around the city streets topless. Oh my.. talk about not considering social consequences. Really, something like that is just inappropriate and a waste of time. Instead of helping a female become Prime Minister of Canada, these feminists have gone and tried to bring back the Garden of Eden. Seriously. Give me a break.

One example of a name that sums it all up: Christina Aguilera. Her concerts feature men in handcuffs with her dancers holding whips, portraying the idea that women dominate over men. And that God-damned song of hers, "Can't Hold Us Down", is crying for a woman's right to be a whore, just because guys have that right. What? So.. just because guys get praised for sleeping around and you don't, you're going to get angry? How about.. just don't sleep around? How about promoting the idea that guys don't have to sleep around to be seen as manly?

Finally, the last and most extreme feminist is the one who believes that women ought to dominate over men, because women are entirely more superior. I have no comment for that except that I don't agree, which is obvious enough.

Now, just a reply about the burkas. Firstly, let me make it -clear- that I am well aware that there are hate crimes and senseless violence towards women in coutries outside of our rainbow and sunshine North America. In fact, even within our borders, there is domestic violece (and not only towards women.. but that's another story to tell). I am not ignorant of such things. I am not oblivious to the fact that India has something that political scientists call "missing women" because there is oddly a lower percentage of women than men in that country, which should not be the case. Only a few select countries have this strange phenomenon occurring, all of which are notorious for violence against women, or even simply valuing women less than men. For example, in India, girls have a higher death rate than boys possibly because, when they fall ill, they are not as quick to be taken to the doctor, nor do they have priority when the family has a shortage of food. There is even the suspicion that baby girls are often abandonned because the family considers them useless to the family. It is all very disturbing and all very disgusting, to put it mildly, and it should just plain out not happen.

Now. Have any of you ever approached a woman and asked her why she wore a burka? Have you ever heard a woman, during a demonstration at an undergraduate building, speak proudly of her culture and speak proudly of wearing a burka as a mark of who she is? I have. And the ones I've spoken to aren't lying through their teeth out of fear, believe me. I admit that I was mistaken to say that "the majority" of women are proud to wear a burka, because I cannot be sure of that. I can, however, speak for a lot of the frustration that these women have about the misinterpretation of -why- they wear a burka. Like I said, it's not meant to be an oppression. It's a symbol of their culture, and a symbol of who they are. When fighting for their rights, we must not forget this. We mustn't use the burka as a weapon against oppression. I read an article about a girl speaking out about this exact same topic a few months ago. I only wish I still had the link to it so I could show you guys. It was quite remarkable.

And finally, David, thank you for presenting some male-specific roles in society. Up until only a few months ago, the idea of such a pressure did not occur to me either, and when it did, I wish there were people fighting for the equity of men too. I've got another one to add to David's point on masculinity and that would be the expectation of men to be the bread-winner of the family; that is to say, the one producing the largest income in the family. That, to me, is completely unfair. And what would you think if you guys caught your dad knitting? Would he even pick up some wool and needles to knit? Why not? Would YOU pick up needles and start knitting by the fireplace?

I could go on and on, but I won't. I'll leave it to you guys to come up with more ideas.

Gender-specifics and Males

Brett my Boy!! Its good to have you on the show. I'm glad to see you havent wasted your time with this and have decided to dive straight in. There is one point however that I will argue with ya, the part about the no expectations or impositions on men. Kay, I'm so glad you brought that up because I've never seriously thought about it until now. Men by nature, are antisocial creatures. You'll find that theres the occasional male who'll be chatty and sociable, but these people are part of a small breed. When it comes to men in general, most are sometimes hard pressed to come up with words, for instance, in the presence of a female they dont know. I think when a lot of men meet a new girl, if they like the girl deep down, they will try and think of words to say which will impress her and end up awquardly saying nothing at all. Some women may see this as rude or classless "Whats with Mr. Talker here, he just cant keep his mouth shut." I think one of the big things that many men believe is expected of them is the whole idea of masculinity. To act tough and macho and also to be physically fit. These things can be a pressure to most men if you ask me. The image of Arnold Swarzeneggar looms over many who feel that they are expected to have those kind of muscles. Maybe not to such an extent, but at least enough so that someone can poke them without their finger sinking into the flab. This is similar to women's idea that their breasts should at least reach a certain size before they decide if they really need to augment them. I think that in men's cases, some believe that they're expected to have large penises... and thats all i'll be saying of that. As Brett was saying though, if there is a case of rape, the courts seem to side with the women, but lets think about this for a moment. I'm sure that many men fear to be wrongly accused of rape not quite as much as some women fear rape, but its certainly up there. There's also the whole homosexual stigma which many men fear. Whenever men are confronted with a situation where someone might think they're being gay, even if its something small, they'll immediatly withdraw from the situation. There are also incidents of men beating up gays, which is not unusual, they're attacking something that they're afraid of. In any case, to accuse a guy of being gay, and to spread that accusation, can be utterly devastating to their self-confidence. I think that males are the targets of other males, who attack them and beat the hell out of them for sport. This can be over nothing, but because its two males, it suddenly becomes a moment of saving face and the result is oftentimes violence.

Women: Anything More Than Bitches and Hoe's?

First, I would like to comment on Karen's remark that a large majority of women hidden under a burka would say that they wear it "with pride". You are foolish if you think that they answer this for any reason that does not stem from fear of a particularly brutal beating from their abusive husband that evening.

Karen, you have taken to quite a bit of what appears to 'feminist bashing' and perhaps that is because in our Western culture you see feminists as doing nothing to further a cause. But as David said, throughout history women have faced a tough time, and the reason they no longer do is because of feminists. And regardless of what you might think, things are not all lolleypops and rainbows for women in other parts of the world, mainly the Islamic countries. What these women need are feminists to stand up for their rights. In fact, what everyone in these countries needs are people to stand up for their rights, and to stop the systematic abuse of rights that is so common under Theocratic governments, such as Iran.

As for the question posed, little nothing actually comes to mind when considering what is unfairly expected of, or imposed upon men, in our society at least. I suppose I can state an obvious one, but one a woman takes a man to court over rape or sexual assault, and it is merely a he-says/she-says case, the court will side with the woman.

Religious Police and Women: Response

*note: i intended this to be posted as a comment for "The Inquisition, Religious Police, and Women". my thoughts expanded too much to be left as just a comment though. so here it is, without editing, so my grammar's probably really screwed up. and also, i had no remark for the Inquisition at the moment. so. appologies in advance.

some say that the degredation of women actually started in the West and leaked out to the rest of the world. we're going to have to do some research on that.

oh, and just a comment about women's garbs that cover their faces. it's unfortunate that people who don't understand their way of dress automatically assume that it is a sign of oppression. this assumption is particularly dominant within Western feminists who are searching for signs of inequality so to strengthen their cause.

well, just to say.. if you go up to any woman who has her face hidden under cloth, you will find that a large majority of them wear it with pride. to them, it's not a sign of oppression. it's a sign of being a part of the culture of which they are proud.

i hope also that no one will forget the gender specific roles that are expected of MEN that MUST cause a social pressure. people are so focused on freeing women of gender inequality/inequity that everyone has forgotten to fight for the right of men as well.

so, just as a sort of brainstorming exercise, i have a request for all of you.

list some gender-specific behaviors that are expected of males. are they any more fair than the roles that are expected of women?

post your answers in the comment box after this post. or if you're like me and have a lot to say, a new post devoted to your response is welcome as well.

The Inquisition, Religious Police, and Women:

The Inquisition was started as a means to ensure that anyone who wasnt practicing the Christian faith was weeded out and charged as a heretic. When most people think of the Inquisition, they think about the Spanish Inquisition, which was the most notorious of Spain's myriad organizations. The Spanish Inquisiton gained much of its power from the support which was recieved from Spain's reigning monarchs: Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand. With this valuable support, the Inquisition swelled until the very mention of the word 'Inquisition' would arouse fear, even in the countryside. The first Grand Inquisitor was Tomas de Torquemada. Torquemada is sometimes viewed as the protoype of a fanatical, and cruel inquisitor. He presented himself as a man of God but in truth he was a guant, sunken eyed sadist who wrapped himself in the austere robes of a monastic monk and was responsible for exiling more than 100,000 of Spain's Jews, forcing them to leave their property behind. The Inquisition tended to use torture to get those who were considered heretics to confess to crimes, even if they didnt commit them. As the inquisitors well knew, anyone would confess to anything simply to end the pain inflicted on them. While the Inquisition tried to unify the country under one faith, they also tried to make the lives of those who practiced opposing faiths extremely miserable. Muslims, Jews, and especially Jews who had converted to Christianity as they were thought to practice their faith in secret, were all prime targets of the Inquisition. It is because of the Inquisition that science was in a period of stagnation. Copernicus's books about a heliocentric world were banned by the Inquisition and when Galileo adopted similar views, he was forced to recant them under threat of torture. Descartes had to change several of his ideas for fear of incurring the wrath of the Inquisition. The Inquisition prevented science from expanding because scientific ideas challenged the notions that were held to be true by many religious scholars. Inevitably, science and religion still quarrel with each other to this day. While the Inquisition today is not the organisation it once was, it still possesses considerable influence. One of the best examples of religious police that I can think of is Iran. In Iran there are strict rules and regulations on those who dont comform to society and its dominant religion. Those who choose to be rebels are reprimanded and persecuted by the religious police. If you ask me, religion should be something that everyone has a right to practice and they should be allowed to practice it in any way. Women shouldnt have to conceal themselves, why do they do it in the first place? To keep the lascivious impulses of the men in check? The only thing it can possibly be good for in a desert country like Iran would be to protect yourself from getting skin cancer. One thing is for certain however, religion seems to have a history of being particularly vindictive towards women. From the times of the Salem Witch Trials when many women were burned at the stake because they were supposedly witches, to the low standing of women in certain Arab countries. One case in such a country, told of a man who shot his wife because she hadnt been faithful to him. He stayed in prison for one week, and then was released in exchange for a cow.

Faith vs Religion

I know that most, if not all, of you reading this at the moment are athiests, so the difference probably won't mean a lot of you guys. Considering, however, that whenever people find out that I pray, they automatically assume that i'm religious, I would like to take this opportunity and differentiate the two.

Grant has already thoroughly explained the distinctions between religion and spirituality:

I feel the difference between religion and spirituality is the worship of a greater power (religion) compared to the fascination and/or euphoria induced by something we can't explain because we can't explain it.

So here, it is merely the worshipping that differentiates the two.

The difference between faith and religion is, I believe, just as simple. This difference would be whether or not you follow the institution of the religion. Both faith and religion require a BELIEF, but only religion requires one to follow rituals and to follow the rules of the institution.

Religion is, to me, a wonderful concept. Unfortunately, somewhere along the history of mankind, religion has become so corrupt that no one can be sure as to which rule, which regulation, is true. Can priests marry? Can Jews eat meat? Can buddhists grow hair?

Following these little regulations and believing what you believe is what makes you religious. Believing what you believe and genuinely meaning it is what makes you faithful, regardless of whether or not you follow those little regulations.

This has been written within a span of 3 hours while at work. I started at 11:36am and it is now 3:57pm. Considering I'm off shift at 4pm, I should stop typing now, although I can't remember if I had anything else to say on this matter. If I do, I'll have to say it later.

Serial Killers and I: BTK

Its time for serial killers and I!!!! By all means continue this lovely discussion on religion, this is just one of those weekly diversions briefly off topic. It was cold when we arrived in Witchita, that once happy place which had gone gloomy after Dennis Rader started his 'activites'. Grant and I walked through the double barred doors which led into the holding cells. Grant was excited and so was I, we had never seen a man quite like Rader. 'Dennis the Menace' we called him. The families of the victims were very upset with our visit, they didnt believe that Rader should have any visitors, but we were determined to talk to him. As we entered the cell we were somewhat disapointed by what was before us: a man who wasnt remarkable at all, but was merely old and wasted by the long hours of interrogation and the stress of capture. When we were all settled down we posed the first question: "What was it Mr. Rader, what was it that set you off?" He just stared at us at first, but then slowly, the words began to come forth. "I dont know why I did it, I couldnt control my sexual impulses. That's what really drove me to the brink and made me do those things, I just wish the victims families would find it in the hearts to some day forgive me." We looked at him with awe and dismay, the man clearly had no idea what he was really saying. One more time we asked him: "What was it?" He seemed confused and almost flustered by the question. "I dont know what you mean." He blurted out "What better answer is there than that?" I looked at Grant and exchanged a nod, we both leaped on Rader and held him down. I pinned him while Grant pulled out a syringe and jabbed it into Rader's leg, Rader quickly eased up and started to foam at the mouth. A huge smile appeared on his face and he was stroking my hair as I held him down. I quickly moved away as Rader lapsed into a deep sleep. Rader hadnt been very satisfactory in answering our questions so we figured we ought to give him some incentive for next time. When he woke up, it was in the company of several men, all of whom took an immediate interest in him. The last thing we heard from him when we were leaving the compound was a loud "Nooooooo!!!". Dennis Rader, or "Dennis the Bitch" as we now call him, got what was coming to him. He's now part of the general population, and is surrounded by other prisoners who are only to happy to have him in their company. Stay tuned for the next edition of Serial Killers and I, and Grant's Adolf and I next Monday.

Dave and Cults: Part 2

Kay I must say that's all very good stuff there. I never realized it could be so simple for them to recruit people by just going door to door. Well if that doesnt demonstrate the sinister abilities of cults, then surely this will. Going back to the AUM Supreme Truth cult, led by a half blind messiah named Shoko Asahara (which is his adopted name) the cult flourished in Japan because of Japan's religious freedom laws. This prevented the police from taking serious action against the cult for fear of causing an uproar over their rights to practice their religion. But this raises another question, when is it right to violate someone elses freedom? Surely if that person is a danger to society, the law should be brought to bear on them. Unfortunatly, sometimes people dont seem to do this unless something directly violates their own interests. Take the invasion of Iraq for instance, the purported purpose of the invasion was to topple the evil Saddam Hussein, but was that really the purpose? During the Gulf War the Americans had the perfect opportunity to topple Saddam...but didnt. Could the regions billions of dollars in oil have anything to do with it? Hmmm... I think so. But, AUM, through their manipulations, had made quite a number of memberships within their cult. Soon, they were expanding not just to the rest of Japan, but to Europe, China, and America...hell, even Russia got a piece of the AUM action. At their height, the cult leaders were boasting finances well into the billions of dollars (likely exaggerated) nevertheless, with all their money, the cult decided not so much to donate to the community as to build biological weapons. The central philosophy of the cult was that Armageddon was coming, and only those armed with their faith would survive. To prepare for this, they launced a devastating sarin gas attack on the Tokyo Subway. Thousands were injured and twelve were killed. Many suffered horrific disfigurments: one woman had her contact lenses "welded" to her eyes, and had to have both eyes surgically removed. Only now did the police realize the extreme danger that the cult represented. While this realization is good, in my opinion, it came too late. If police had cracked down on this doomsday cult, then none of this may have happened. The problem with the police and cults is that whenever cults begin to show certain warning signs, the police never seem to act. Before Jim Jones, leader of the Peoples Temple, ordered mass suicide of of a huge number of his followers and put a bullet through his brain, the authorities had been warned that Jones had been tightening his grip on the members of his circle. They were told of Jones' obsession with sex and his abuse of some of the cult members, and here, once again police acted too late. In the end, we're only human, and we sometimes ignore in others what could inevitably prove to be a danger in the future. A child who is violent while young may seem like they'll "grow out of it" as the parents say, but in truth, the child will only get more violent and more bold if nothing is done. This could also be said about cults. If you have a small cult which is practicing questionable things and wont let its members leave, the matter should be looked into. But, if you've got a large and wealthy cult which is practicing questionable things and wont let its members leave, they should be dealt with immediatly, because the larger and more powerful the cult, the more damage they can do and the more they are likely to do if they see that the police will not stop them until its too late.

David and Cults: Karen's (short) addition

How is it that one single charismatic person can control the actions of an entire group of people and, with a word, convince them into doing the most horrific things that they would not do otherwise?

Most of the time, it isn't because the followers are in search of excitement or a mad adrenaline rush. It isn't because they want a piece of the attention given to their leader. Usually, their all-consuming involvement with the cult begins with something small - say, for example, volunteering an hour of their time for the cult's clerical duties, such as sending newsletters to people on their mailing list. Along the city streets, these respectable ladies and gents are recruited with a kind question of "will you spare 10 minutes of your time to help out our cause?".

And so it begins. Once the kind volunteers have done a simple little act for the cult, they are more willing to do tasks that require slightly more dedication. One 10-minute interval turns into two 30-minute segments of time devoted to helping the "good cause". And then the cult asks for perhaps $20 donations. Then more committed financial aid. And then for more of people's time. And so forth. The participation, the consumption, of people grows so gradually that before they know it, before they are conscious of it, they are fully reeled in to the cult's heavier activities. And by that time, a loyalty for the cult has already been rooted.

It sounds really simple. And mind you, out of 100 people who go for that first 10 minutes of volunteer time, only about 2 stay until it gets ugly. But it's still enough to run a cult, and it's this gradual exploitation that makes cults so disgustingly successful.

You can thank studies in social psychology for the discovery of this phenomenon, that which is called the "foot-in-the-door" phenomenon. Once the cult has gotten your foot in the door, it's only a matter of time before they've got your entire body through. Simple, but deviously effective.

David and Cults Part 1

Well well Jonathan, I must say that's all very excellent stuff you have there. I find that on a few small points you and I seem to agree. But the one thing that most stuck out for me was the idea that the excesses of individuals who follow a religion should not be blamed on the religion itself. That's absolutley right, and I think that its really a shame when you think about it that the whole idea of a nice, decent religion which speaks about helping others has been twisted by a group of greedy people who just want to profit from this belief. NOW THEN, I've realized from a few minor criticisms here and there that not only have I been focusing almost solely on Christianity far too much, but we also appear to have a whole string of religions that we've left out of the discussion like Hinduism and Buddhism, Islam and all that good stuff. The only problem with this is that we really need a Hindu or a Muslim here so they can share their true beliefs instead of us taking evidence from various sources that may be apocryphal. But in any case, in human history there are so many gods that its virtually impossible to do justice to each one. Some cultures had a moon god, some had a god for war, a god for nature, even a god for love. But I know nothing about these gods and so I can't write about them. Seeing as to how we're on the topic of religion I thought I might bring up certain aspects of religion which might be viewed with a frown: I'm thinking about those strange groups that we call Cults. Cults are not exactly religions but they seem to be a perverse mockery of religion. Most Cults exist solely for means of exploitation. I find it intersting though when we think about Cults and their ability to flourish. Cults usually involve a single, charismatic individual who manages to surround himself with a group of loyal followers who are sometimes so fanatically absorbed with their leader that they will die for them. The real question is, why do people join cults? Is it something to do with dissatisfaction for the standing religions? Is it a need for spiritual experience? Or is it the promises that some cults make which guaruntee some kind of miracle in our personal lives? To be honest, I think its a little bit of all those things. When we say the word "cult" what immediatly seems to come to mind is a group of shady individuals who practice questionable things for some twisted belief and who live on the fringes of society. In truth, there are some cults which fit this description, but the biggest and most influential tend to be quite the opposite. They show themselves as respectable organisations with no desire but to spread their beliefs and bring enlightenment and succour to those in need. But in most cases, behind the facade of family and freindship there is usually an instability which threatens every member of the organisation. The leader, in their self-absorbed arrogance, can become almost megalomaniacal and tryannical. Many who sometimes express a desire to leave the cult are alienated and abused. Cults literally thrive on the human fear of what comes after death. They take advantage of our fears and try to twist our beliefs into theirs. Most cults try to alienate their memebers from family and freinds (unless the whole family joins the cult) as they can be a stumbling block in the cult's goal to make their members see the cult as their only real family and support, thus ensuring their absolute loyalty in the long term. Brainwashing is not uncommon among cults, which use certain techniques to alter a persons way of thinking and to change their moral values. Just as Charles Manson did with his "family", cults sometimes resort to extreme measures to carry out their goals, such as having their members commit murder or suicide. Cults, in my opinion, are the embodiment of the human need for knowledge about the after-life. We are so obsessed and curious about it, that we will seek out those who claim to possess the ability to show us what exists beyond our borders of perception. Most seem to be taken in by the power of this, but others see past the mystique and become the kind of people you see who protest the existence of cults and want them disbanded. Cults possess a fascinating ability to obtain finances. Shoko Asahara, the leader of the Japanese cult known as "AUM Supreme Truth" sold dubious miracle cures for thousands of dollars and even had his own beard clippings, which were purported to possess divine power when ingested with tea, sold for over $375 a half inch. I think that because some people live lives which appear to be drab and without variation, such as Japan's whole societal idea where some people are so pressured to do well that they kill themselves when they dont get a 90% average in school, or when people feel tired of the strict discipline and personal chaos surrounding their lives, they turn to cults to provide them with something fresh. The human need for excitement drives us to do extreme things when we become desperate that our lives are going nowhere, this is when we are in a perfect condition to be seduced by the power of cults.

Jon Wong on Religion

All religion, regardless of whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc, centers around the idea of a God. This being purports to be the all-knowing, all-seeing entity that created everything, watches over everything it has created, and decides on what happens when living creatures expire. In other words, the existence of God explains two fundamental questions: how did we get here, and what happens after we leave. Therefore, to truly examine religion, we have to examine the fundamentals of there being a God. If the existence of God is granted, all else follows.

Grant made an excellent point about a few of the fundamental flaws of Christianity, ie. the thing regarding his father and how even if he is a good person in his lifetime, not believing in Jesus would send him straight to hell, and the thing about being judged solely on intentions. All religions have different ideas on what one "should or should not" do. It's important not to assume that God necessarily fits one description just because one religion says so, and this is a pitfall that many people fall into when they talk about religion. Grant and David, I notice that your discussions on religion tend to be centered around Christianity. Grant, I know has recognized this. For example, David you mentioned something about "aren't we created in his image?" That in and of itself is specific to Christianity as not all religions state that man is created in God's own image. Again, just because a church has been accused of corruption and perversion does not taint the religion itself. It's not Christianity that is corrupt and perverted, it's the people who purport to represent Christianity that are corrupt and perverted when in all likelihood, they aren't actually representatives of the fundamental principles of the religion at all. It's like if someone says he represents a perfect vegitarian and then you catch him eating meat. That doesn't say anything about the principle of vegitarianism. It just means that this person is a hypocrite.

I asked Hisham Ali once about what he thought about the people who did evil deeds "in the name of Islam" and his response was, "those people aren't really Islamic. They just use the religion to try to justify wrong intentions." And that's exactly what I mean when I say you absolutely cannot judge a religion based on those who represent it.

This is why I am going to avoid talking about specific religions and focus primarily on the fundamental principle that unites all religions; and that is the belief of a higher power that explains how we got here and what happens when we die. Throw in a few miracles and unexplained phenomenons during the course of life and is it really that hard to understand why people choose to believe in a religion?

There is no tangible proof of God. There never was and probably never will be. The existence of God depends purely on faith. The concept of God was in all probability created and accepted by those who sought to explain the unexplainable. Humans, by their very nature, fear nothing more than the unexplained. This is why many children (many adults too in all probability) are afraid of the dark: because when darkness falls, our sight, which is one of our 5 senses with which we use to judge everything, becomes ineffective. I am going to define "unknown" as "something that cannot be picked up by the 5 senses" because the only things we are capable of understanding to any degree are those that effect our 5 senses.

But I digress. Humanity's fear of the unexplained. Of course, the two biggest unexplained things as far as we are concerned is how we got here, and what happens when we die. Everything that happens between the time of our actual creation and our eventual death we can pretty much explain well enough so that people don't have to reach outside the branches of our 5 senses to find an explanation. "Science" takes care of nearly everything between birth and death.

Of the two questions, what happens when we die seems to be the focal point of most religions. Ironically, there is a stronger argument for the existence of God when it comes to explaning how we got here. In fact, the only concrete evidence I have heard that argued in favor of God's existence is how it all started. Science has stated that nothing is spontaneous. Every single event/phenomenon occurs as a result of something else that happened before it. The "Big Bang" theory states that the universe was created during an initial spontaneous explosion, before which there was absolutely nothing. This is why the strongest argument in favor of God's existence lies here. Something must have sparked the initial "movement" from which all other things were set into motion. This is also known as a watch maker theory. If there exists a watch, there must also exist a watch maker. If there is a universe, there must also exist a universe maker.

People tend not to care about where they come from as much as where they are going. This is where the second question of what happens when we die is supposedly answered. Most people have something to live for, or at least feel like they do. People who feel that they have absolutely nothing to live for tend not to fear death or care about what happens when they die. However, most people have something to live for. I'm sure the idea of there not being an afterlife (ie you simply cease to exist) would scare many people very badly. In a way, it's a form of survival. Because what happens after death is unknown, people are naturally afraid of it. The existence of a God (and thus an afterlife) firstly helps calm us down (cause there's no escaping death), and also provides an incentive for people to be "good" ie, you're not finished when you die so don't screw yourself over now cause it'll come back to haunt you. Like it said, it relies purely on faith.

Religion was not created to be a tool to keep people in line. It may have evolved to become this way, but the fundamental principle behind the creation of religions is to explain the unexplained.

So is it logical to belive in God? Well, if you only accept things based on proof of their existence with relation to your five sense, the answer is no. BUT, keep in mind that however illogical it may seem, believing in God (whether or not he exists), helps to keep the human race somewhat more balanced. It's like how I always said that you often realize that many things are possible so long as you don't know that they're impossible. It's the same thing with God. To people who believe, he exists as long as they don't know he doesn't. They don't care that they can't prove that he exists so long as you can't prove that he doesn't.

Dave's View on Religion: part 2

Grant, I like I like. If anyone here is insightful my freind, its you. I like what you wrote about faith and morals, I hope you'll continue with that later when you get a chance. NOW THEN, part 2: I received an interesting post from Kay which is equally insightful, to give it the respect it deserves, i'll post the main point right here:

considering how insignificant we are, how can we expect that only a physical world exists?we can't. who knows what people's reasons are for believing in a supernatural. it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. it's something that we won't ever be able to prove or disprove, methinks.

I'll be honest, theres really no way I can argue with that because its all true. But I'd like to point out that this is an argument that the Catholic Church loves to use. What better way is there for them to shoot down any counter arguments than by saying that god's existence can never really be disproven, because there's quite simply no evidence to prove otherwise. If so many people believe in something, then surely it must be real. We as humans wont ever be able to understand what's beyond our senses, and we fear what we cant understand. Thomas Aquinas used the cosmological argument, which stated that there must have been something which started the universe going, sure humans may have evolved from single celled organisims, but who created those cells: none other than God. This kind of thing is very difficult to counter so I'm not going to try to counter it, but I am going to try and work with what's been presented in the physical world, all supernatural ideals aside. One of those good ol' counter arguments to God has always been the problem of evil. If God is benevolent God, then surely he cannot want evil to exist, if God is omnipotent, then we cant say that the Lord wasnt powerful enough to stop evil, and if he is omniscient, then surely he must know about evil. These things present an amusing contradiction: God is somehow allowing evil to exist, or God is not the good loving being we thought he was. This goes back to what Grant said, when he said that just because something is powerful, doesnt mean it is good. It looks like I've gone from trying to prove the existence of god to trying to show god as being bad, but bear with me for a moment. How many heinous crimes have been committed in the name of god? How many times has the church been accused of corruption and perversion? What kind of god lets children die horrible deaths in a Serbian campaign of ethnic cleansing? Of course, these are all human acts, and god supposedly gave humans free will, but even the elements seem to cause death and destruction. Surely this god is a vicious god, and arent we created in his image? If god can take life, why cant we? Alright, lets use another example. One of the ten commandments is supposedly 'thou shalt not kill' well, who does that apply to? Say that i kill an insect, am I gonna go to hell? of course not! only if you kill a human being. But this makes no sense to me, I think that the mere fact that we have supposedly evolved better than most other creatures on this planet by no means makes us special. Once again, i say that religion is a tool to keep people in line and to force them to curb their less noble impulses. Without religion, I think people would start to realize that besides the law, there is no punishment for what you do. Religion stops this from happening, and it's because of religion that people have certain morals. In the end, there is no definite or absolute. If you believe in god, you believe in god, if you dont, you dont, its that simple, and I believe that just because I have my beliefs and I put them out there, that doesnt give me the right to try and tell someone else to renounce their ideals.

Dave's View on Religion:part 1

Religion...theres a word my sore ears have never been rid of. Religion is everywhere, in virtually every country there are individuals who believe in some form of god. The real question is: Why? I know that some people were raised by their parents to believe in a certain god, but others simply decide at some time during their lives that god is for them, and they sometimes give up their careers and lives for this god. In a family of atheists who never actually professed to being atheists, I grew up with a choice. My dad always hinted at a god and my mom did the same, but this was because they wanted my sister and I to grow up with a choice of being religious or not. In the end, their true nature emerged. This is my view on the gods of the world: they dont exist. When mankind evolved (if you believe in evolution) some archeologists and historians believe that they first started burying their dead around the peak of the Ice Age. This supposedly shows that they beleived in some kind of after-life. The evolution of an actual god has taken time, but eventually people came up with their own ideas about what god should be like. Supposedly, the dominant image of god today is that of an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god who works in mysterious ways. Weeeellll nowwww, this is intersting. if you ask me, i agree with Karl Marx who said that "religion is the opiate of the masses." in other words, religion is designed to passify us with hopes of a false after-life and fear of a false damnnation if we refuse to adhere. Religion is a tool to keep us in check. Christianity has had the most appeal because back in the 1500's when the world seemed like a literal shit hole to most and a paradise to the few who were rich, the poor needed some kind of incentive not to kill themselves. This was religion, and religion offered them the appealing message that this life was only the first, the next life would be much better for them. Of course the fine print on this whole agreement was that they must believe in god and donate money to the church to get the priest to pray for you, and of course if you sin one time too many you may find yourself in a nice warm place full of pitchforks. That was how the church built itself. How many people have truly believed in Santa Clause, i know i did, then my dad came up and told me it was him all along (that bastard ruined my childhood) its the same with god. We humans have some kind of deep-seated need to believe that there is something more out there, that there is something magical, and that we are special. Well, i can tell you that we're all really insignificant, and the idea that we're special is only our innate narcissism at its height. Religion can be a strength, as it can guide some to find the strength to survive, but in my eyes its a weakness, a weakness because we cant accept that god is just a product of our imagination, just like ghosts or Santa Clause. I remember going to some "youth gathering" at a church down the street where they were having parties and doing fun activites. I didnt think that the whole thing was actually having anything to do with religion even though it was in a church. That was until the host of the party, in one of his many talks about life in general, told us that if we ever had a problem, just hold out your hand, and god will be there to take that hand and guide you. In spite of everything i believed, this message actually sounded appealing. Then my inner atheism started kicking in and i realized that the whole party was just a carefully disguised recruiting program. I wasnt far off. just a week after i was finished with the whole group I'd heard from someone still going there that they had swung into religion again. This time there was only going to be religion and no talks about whose best freind got drunk last night. If you ask me, if god created man in his image, then why is human history a history of violence? from the time when the first primitive man killed his fellow because they were eating his share of the food, to the time when a group of gang members kill an innocent as a sign of manhood. This is what the real human race is about. If you ever look at animals, you will see how they guard their territory and fight with one another, humans are very similar somtimes. This is part 1, part 2 will come later

Schedule

Come one, come all!! welcome to this piss-hole! our first job is to lay out the basic schedule that we will be following for the next few weeks:
1. Adolf and I - written by Grant, which will detail our journey's with little Adi and will be posted every Monday provided Grant stays off the booze long enough to use the keyboard.
2. Debate - anyone who wants to join in is free to do so, otherwise, Grant and I can tear eachother apart like a pair of jealous dogs.
3. Serial Killers and I - which will detail our journey with several notorious monsters, we'll have chats with em and try to find out why they do the things they do.
4. Debate- HELL YEAH
5. Lessons on psychopaths - I've brought this up before and now i'll bring it up again. The real question is: do people truly understand what a psychopath is? and i can tell you it has nothing to do with being psychotic, the purpose of this lesson is to expand your mind so that you can know what the enemy to society is thinking.

Weekly Installment: Adolf und Ich (ep. 1)

Diesen Woche fahren wir nach Paris!

click on the above image for a closer look at the Goodfellas

The first thing Hitler wanted to do when we arrived in Paris was visit the Eiffel Tower. He was like a little boy, bubbling with excitement. To David and I he eagerly related how much he was looking forward to visiting the top of the tower and taking in all of Paris at once. However once we got in line to take the elevator up, Hitler started to get cold feet. David and I looked at eachother: Oh Hitler!

Instead we simply admired the tower from the ground. A little embarassed, Hitler now tried to feign as if he never wanted to go up the tower in the first place. "Only as Frenchman," he scoffed looking at the structure, "would build something so utterly without purpose! So garish!"

Later that evening Hitler wanted to go out drinking. We found a lively bar in the Mont Mantre district that was to his liking and ordered a few rounds. David and I kicked back a few mugs of frothy goodness, but Hitler kept downing them one after the other after the other! Adolf 'The Tank' we call him! By the end of the night he was off his face! I saw him at one point chatting up a cute blonde in the corner (not sure if he scored her digits or not).

We headed back to the hotel around 4 A.M. Hitler was wasted at this point, so David and I each put an arm around him to keep him standng up. On the walk back he puked three times! "I'll never drink again," he groaned. David and I looked at each other once again. Suuuure you won't Hitler, suuure you won't.

In the end we had a great time in Paris. (lolz! the guy in that hat! lolz!) It's always fun with Hitler! I can't wait until next time! Hitler is already planning it out. He says that this one should be a special treat because it is his hometown! Austrian countryside look out! So be sure to join us next Monday when David fills us in. Until then, auf wiedersehen!