Recursive

Tag: Society

  • Rename Terrorism

    If only [tag]terrorism[/tag] were renamed to ‘mild trepidation-ism‘ it wouldn’t be so effective.

    Fortunately, I live in the [tag]UK[/tag], [tag]England[/tag] specifically, where our stiff-upper-lip-ed-ness prevents us from being too affected by [tag]terrorist[/tag] attacks.
    It’s only when services are damaged that the country is really slowed.

    Clearly there are some who unfortunately bear the brunt, often physically, in these attacks. Life for them, and their family and friends, may well be permanently changed.
    But we have to put things in perspective: many many more people are killed by smoking than by terrorists in the UK; many more people are injured in simple DIY accidents than by terrorists. So why be so scared of it?

    Being terrified by such a slim statistic is no way to live a life.

    Calling it ‘Terrorism’ only serves to make it more powerful.

  • Scientology Is A Cult

    I just wanted to use the word ‘[tag]cult[/tag]’ it since it enrages them so.

    Religions generally preach peace, forgiveness, etc., yet it appears [tag]Scientology[/tag] is all about brain-washing, coercion, and the elimination of anyone who even considers any contrary beliefs.

    How anyone can defend such behaviour is beyond me.

    I am glad to learn that its requests to be recognised as a [tag]religion[/tag] here in the [tag]UK[/tag] have been rejected, but am concerned that it could still happen.

  • AFBO – Anti Fat-Bastard Order

    Sitting on a local train today, I watched as three larger-than-healthy people got on and found seats near me.
    The gran, mum and son struggled to sit at a table designed for four, while I sat at the table on the other side of the aisle.

    Gran was the smallest of the three, but had to be convinced that it would be okay for her to sit next to her grandson, rather than take a seat behind.

    I noticed the Mum noticing me noticing them. She probably thought that I was rude, that I couldn’t possibly presume that her [tag]size[/tag] was just possibly because she simply eats too much.
    And then she opened a cool-bag (the size of a standard cool-box BTW) stuffed full of sandwiches, fizzy drinks and (I heard mention of) pork pies.
    I’ve heard many people say that it’s not enough to just eat less, but this doesn’t mean continue eating too much.

    With the recent discovery that there’s a [tag]gene[/tag] which apparently contributes to an individual’s likelihood of becoming [tag]overweight[/tag], I am concerned that many may use this as an excuse. Fat people already claim it’s genetic, “well, Mum’s fat and so’s Dad, …”, never thinking that as a baby it was up to these people how much they ate, that as a child they were encouraged to finish their jumbo portions.

    Eating is addictive, but because we HAVE to eat, it isn’t treated as something to do in moderation (as with alcohol consumption).

    I’ve said it before, and I still think it – Fat people need to be reminded that they need to do something about their weight, not pitied for their struggle.

    I will not deny that losing weight is difficult, and that getting overweight is easy, but there are good habits as well as bad habits.

    Minutes after eating a couple of sandwiches, the Mum on the train had to go and get two seats to herself, and wheezed to herself for a bit. If this isn’t sending her signals, what will? A lecture from her GP? Doubt it. We, as a society, need to make obesity a taboo.

    Society encourages and expects respect from others, and it ought to encourage self-respect too.

  • Run away from Dogma

    Lifehack: 10 MORE ways to create a breakthrough in your life.

    Run away from any kind of dogma. Dogma is the product of a closed mind. It’s an idea with a threat attached. If you suffer from dogma, get it out of your life. Let it go. Kick it out. Try thinking the opposite. Treat it like a crazy joke. Do anything you can to get rid of it. It’s the greatest source of barriers to breakthrough.

    I was surprised (and happy) to see an American openly recommending avoiding religion, even if he did include it as part of a greater collection. I then read that the author, Adrian Savage, is in fact an Englishman.

    He’s right though – traditions often stand in the way of innovation, and what’s more traditional than religion?

  • BA drops ban on wearing crosses

    BA has announced that it has changed its rules regarding [tag]religious[/tag] items its staff can wear.

    As with many [tag]rules[/tag] and [tag]law[/tag]s, problems only appeared because they were far too specific.
    English law has the benefit of the word ‘reasonable’, allowing sensible flexible rules.
    Had their rules simply said “non-uniform [tag]cultural[/tag] and religious [tag]jewellery[/tag] and attire should be kept to a reasonable minimum”, they could later point to that and say “we feel that what you’re wearing is in breach of these employment requirements” to whomsoever they thought necessary.
    By singling out groups they were bound to create inconsistent treatment, or in other words: negative [tag]discrimination[/tag].

    They could even simplify their rule even further to “staff must wear the uniform as it is specified, any deviation should be within reason” – eliminating the references to [tag]religion[/tag] and culture all together, thus avoiding the inflammatory issues.

    I feel that the underlying issue here is that people are finally sticking up for the majority.

    I may be being cynical, but it is convenient that this announcement was made during the current [tag]Celebrity Big Brother[/tag] ‘racism’ scandal, thus not being the un-PC story de jour.

    BBC NEWS | UK | BA drops ban on wearing crosses

  • CCTV – Not Invading Privacy

    Last week saw another wave of ‘public concern’ over the increasing numbers of CCTV cameras.

    The BBC recently used the topic as one of their ‘Have Your Say‘ debates.
    The majority of the replies ‘recommended by readers’ were scathing remarks against the “you must have a guilty conscience” “brigade”.

    Unfortunately for them, many of these criticisms were flawed, along the lines of “why do you have curtains?” and so on – missing the vital point that CCTV is used to monitor people in public places – i.e. not invading privacy as too many people think.

    Fact: authorities don’t care what most of us do with our lives; they aren’t watching you – unless you give them reason to.

    There were other, more meaningful, comments – CCTV costs lots, cameras push crime elsewhere, cameras can’t arrest (or help) people, etc.

    I personally am glad there are cameras, I don’t like the idea that sentence can be passed on verbal ‘evidence’ alone and after semantics-stretching creative-truthing.

  • ‘Real’ Beauty

    Dove Campaign For Real Beauty: ‘Evolution’


    I don’t think this needs any further comment.

  • Christmas Is Coming (Apparently)

    Well, I’ve received my first [tag]Christmas[/tag] catalogue.

    I’m unwilling to accept even the arrival of the autumn, let alone winter. (Maybe it’s [tag]global warming[/tag]…)

    To be fair, the RNLI catalogue wasn’t purely Christmassy, but it does have ‘snowy morning’ 1000-piece puzzles and mulled wine whisk sets.

    Is it too early to even mention the ‘[tag]holiday season[/tag]’?
    Or is there harm in it? Does it devalue ‘the meaning of Christmas’, making it more and more about [tag]materialism[/tag]?

    Are ‘Seasonal Products’ made available ahead of time for those who can’t afford it any other way? Or are those people simply lacking in [tag]will power[/tag], or the ability to simply save money?

    UPDATE: I have since received the actual Christmas catalogue from the RNLI, nearly 3 month early!

  • Cars Behaving Badly (Site Proposal)

    I have been bouncing an idea around my head (and off a couple of other people’s) and would like to open it up to your thoughts, reactions and suggestions.

    Although I drive very little (I work at home), I see a lot of bad driving. A lot of the time it’s simply inconsiderate, sometimes it’s downright rude, other times it’s downright dangerous.
    I have also seen many vehicles in dangerous physical conditions, and sometimes with illegal modifications.

    Instead of whinging to the gf, I figured it would be much more useful to make a note of these things.
    Making these notes could be useful in discovering who is to blame, and what could be done to prevent the problems in the future.

    Some of you may be thinking ‘Goody Two-Shoes‘ etc, but there are too many people who complain about something and then do nothing to make it better. (Think Honda advert – Hate Something, Change Something, Make Something Betterrrr!)

    The features I’ve considered for the site include:

    • Note of the:
      • Crime / Misdeed / etc
      • Vehicle Make & Model
      • Vehicle Registration
      • Driver description
        • Age / Sex
      • Location
        • Using Google Maps API
      • Rating of the ‘crime’
        • which would also show which crimes annoy us the most

    All Web2.0’ified. All written in swanky OO PHP etc etc.
    It would be anonymous, but limited to one report per Reg per IP per day. (Or something)

    So, what are your reactions? Would you be concerned (for me) about litigation over slander etc? Would you submit reports? Would the police (or other authorities) be interested?

  • Net Neutrality Threatened

    Update: As reported by the BBC:

    “US politicians have rejected attempts to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in legislation.”

    Google themselves are asking for people to petition against a bill going through US courts:

    In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.

    Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay.

    Hopefully, the proposal won’t go anywhere, but if it does it threatens to have wide reaching impacts including over this side of the pond.

    If it does, then what sort of prices are going to be charged, and how will content be rated. Will individual sites have to lobby to be included in the high priority lanes, will they have to pay?
    ISPs are already the winners on the ‘net, shouldn’t we be looking for ways to increase availability to remote users rather than limited those who are already limited?