Tuesday 22 March 2016

Freewill

If it is true that everything about us is predetermined by our genetic make-up: our interests, desires, sexuality, intelligence, thoughts, and so on, then there comes some problems:

1. We really don't have any free choice at all, and everything I do in life is predetermined, so why not just kill someone?

2. Why do we have a justice system? Surely this would imply that some people's 'genetic make-up' is inferior or substandard? We would be denying the 'right to life' to a chunk of the population who just couldn't help it.

3. Why do we train children to 'think before they act' and to make wise choices if they have no control over it?

4. Why is there even a debate over whether we are predetermined by our genetic make-up? Some people will be predetermined to believe it, and others will be predetermined to not believe it. Discussion is futile.

Or, perhaps, could it be that this view is brought on by people who want some form of justification for unsavoury lifestyles? They don't like the idea that some 'ultimate truth' might be different to the way they live.

Saturday 12 March 2016

Combatting racism

"Great nations weren't built without a good dose of racism."

Said during a discussion on racism. It also applies to ethnic cleansing. Think about it.

If you're from a rich Western nation, then over the course of history there has been a crazy amount of racism, slavery and ethnic cleansing with all the wars over the centuries. Another nation doesn't agree with our ideology, so we attack them and put a stop to their 'evil' plans. We justify it with our own ideology because of course 'we are right!'

But the balance of power in the world is such that for one nation to become more powerful, another nation must become weaker. For one to become richer, another poorer. We claim to 'help the poor' but only so far as we can still be rich. The balance of power and wealth will never be restored because, deep down, we don't want equality: we always want to be that 'bit above' the others.

African and South American nations will remain poor, as will the slums and council estates. Unless, that is, the rich people of this world are prepared to part with enough of their wealth to become as one of them: fighting to earn their living, just to provide the food for the day.

Wednesday 9 March 2016

Education in a consumer society

The UK's 'consumer society' has become the norm: we feel we have the 'right' to pick and choose what we eat, what we wear, what car we drive, where we live, what job we have, and so on. It is as though we have lost the real reason for doing things: we eat to live and should buy food we can afford; we wear clothes to keep warm and modest and should dress appropriately for the given situation; a car is for transport; a house is somewhere to live; a job is to earn money to pay for everything else in life.

But people feel they have a 'right' to have a large flatscreen TV with all the Sky channels, an XBox to go with it, a fancy car and extravagent holidays. So many people are in debt because of the lie that 'you deserve it'.

And it seems to me that young people enter into this consumerist society during their school days. They are used to having all the choice of life at their disposal, and then they apply it to their education. Despite more choice becoming available as they get older, right from a young age they decide that they want to be in control of what subjects to study: "I don't like maths. Therefore I won't pay attention and I can't be bothered to make the effort."; "I don't like my English teacher. I don't want to study it anymore."; "I'm never going to be a historian, so what's the point of learning it?"

It seems to me that there needs to be a shift in thinking.

1. Education should be seen as a priviledge, not a right. It is wrong to assume that just because a person is forced to go to school that they will be educated to a suitable level. Learning is entirely dependent on attitude and motivation. Even a teacher who is seen to be unfriendly is still able to pass on their knowledge.

2. If a person wishes to be educated, they need to accept the system. A person who has not yet gone through the system cannot possibly have enough knowledge to understand it and propose sensible changes which will benefit the majority. Only when they have gone through it themselves, will they be able to modify it for the better. (But of course, if it worked for them, why would they want to change it?)

3. There will always be things in life that we don't like. There will be aspects of education that we find dull and uninteresting. Choosing to get educated despite the feelings is how a person develops stamina and patient endurance. The consumerist society has created a generation of 'softies' who feel everything should be tailored to their wants and desires. It is as if they feel that hard work should only be required when it's something they want to do.

How is this beneficial for society? Who will be left to do the hard yards? Why should some people be forced to do the hard yards, just because others can't be bothered or don't like it?

Stop the whinging. Grow up. Get educated. Get clever.

Sunday 6 March 2016

Even more idiocy...

Another article: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/647539/Ukip-UK-Independence-Party-school-police-called-website

Let's get this straight...
- UKIP is a governmental party.
- Democracy is a very important part of UK society (despite it becoming increasingly totalitarian).
- Young people are encouraged to get involved in political debates and take their vote seriously.

But if you click on a political party's website, you get reported for radicalisation?!?!

Is it a wonder why so many people are becoming disillusioned with the government...?

More idiocy...

A recent article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3472655/Father-s-fury-school-calls-social-services-son-8-told-teachers-wanted-fight-terrorists-watching-news-report-Syrian-refugee-crisis.html#ixzz41ptno3sW

So, the UK now has laws whereby institutions such as schools now have a legal duty to report anything which might possibly be contrued as 'radicalisation' in order to avoid anyone becoming a terrorist.

On the surface, a good thing.

But UK society is so scared of not doing their duty, that - as is so often the case now - they go overboard...

A school puts on a charitable event to help Syrian refugees, and in the process explains the role of terrorism in creating this situation.

The result? One pupil thinks that terrorism needs to be dealt with (hence the government policy), but by expressing this view - that he wants to fight terrorism - he is reported for potential radicalisation!

It wasn't so long ago when the newspapers were reporting on the 'war on terror' and of course the government's emphasis on fighting terrorism over the last decade. Instead of thinking that here's a person who could be a good agent to fight terrorism, they accuse him of potentially becoming a terrorist...

Now, if expressing the view that you want to fight terrorism is a step towards radicalisation, then the whole UK and US governments are also in that very same boat.

I think we need someone in politics who is competent in logical reasoning.

(Not me.)

Saturday 5 March 2016

Learning to haggle

Here are a few observations I've made recently regarding successful haggling or negotiating:

1. You must be happy to accept all outcomes.
If you try to avoid one particular outcome, this will be picked up by the other party and you will be on the back foot. But if you are truly happy to accept either outcome, then you have already won: either way, you will walk away happy. Essentially, the ball's in their court, but you have all the cards!

2. Offer something the other party needs.
If you walk into a negotiation with the wrong offer, you will be turned down immediately. In the marketplace, going to a bicycle dealer offering to part-exchange a car engine for a bike, it probably won't work... unless the person you speak to is in desperate need of a car engine. But offering them a decent frame or other bicycle parts might open the door. If a company is short-staffed, your services might prove valuable.

3. Start with an outageous offer.
If you walk into the negotiation with a 'sensible' offer, you will be talked away from it. This offer needs to be the 'meet in the middle' offer: the outcome of the negotiation, not the start. If you want to buy a car for £2000, and say that at the start, you could easily end up paying £2500. So start with £1000, 'meeting in the middle' with £2000 (or even less, if you get lucky). If you offer something the other pary needs, they will be happy to negotiate. A car dealer might have a target to reach, so you will be helping them. If it is your services on the table, and you know they are valuable, you can set the price! But if your services aren't needed, the negotiation will get shut down before it even begins.

4. The longer the other party ponders is important.
If the other party takes plenty of time to consider your offer, you are in a strong position: you have something of value. If they are quick to settle, effectively saying, "Take it or leave it," then you must also be quick to respond. You can either stick with your initial offer and walk away, or continue the negotiation. But if you take the time to consider their offer, then their position becomes stronger: they know that you want what they have.

The key is to not be in want of anything: be content.
But this is difficult in a society that tells you that you 'should have' or 'deserve' everything on offer!!
Essentially, the non-materialist has the upper hand.

Thursday 3 March 2016

The paradox of an atheistic viewpoint

A hot topoic in many debates regarding ethics: Hitler, Stalin and other dictators.
These people are often considered the most evil of people to have ever lived, because of the huge numbers of deaths they caused.

A number of people even go so far as to conclude that 'God cannot be good, because He is the one who created such people.' And this is usually followed by a statement that God not being good is a contradiction, and therefore God surely cannot exist at all.

So, it is a problem for there to be evil people on the earth.

And yet, in the Bible there are numerous accounts of evil people being killed: Noah and the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, to name just two. The very same people mentioned above also often say that 'God cannot be good, because He caused so many deaths.' This is often followed by a statement that God is essentially the same as Hitler.

So, it is a problem for evil people to be removed from the earth.

The bigger problem - the problem that continues to go unsolved - is that this paradox slips by unnoticed. Two views which seem to be good - no one should create something that is evil, and mass muder is inherently wrong - rule out the possibility of a supreme Goodness (God).

So, if God does not exist, and there is no absolute good standard, then who are we to rule that ethnic cleansing is evil?

But the problem can be solved:
- God created people to have free will (which includes the freedom to rebel).
- Some people rebel.
- God doesn't like the evil behaviour.
- In the Bible, God destroyed the evil behaviour by also destroying the human it came from.
- Jesus came to bring God's mercy (not destroying the human), giving more chances for people to change their behaviour.

The problem we have now is that people turn God's mercy against Him, by saying that a loving God would surely not allow such evil in the world.

Of course, the other problem is that people abuse the chances that God gives: they live a life however they please, because they think God allows all behaviour (or say that He doesn't exist because there is not immediate punishment), then they get angry at the notion that God might deem them 'not worthy.'

Wednesday 2 March 2016

UK becoming totalitarian?

From reading another recent article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12176380/Christian-student-expelled-for-opposing-gay-marriage.html?utm_source=Christian+Concern&utm_campaign=064303125a-BN-2016-02-29&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_9e164371ca-064303125a-127507157

Regardless of the main content of the article, there's a paragraph regarding this individual "... that he was entitled to his opinion ... but that there was a danger he "may have caused offence to some individuals" by voicing it."

Am I getting this right? Is there seriously the suggestion that we're only allowed our own opinions as long as we don't voice it?

Surely this is just another way of the government - or just those in authority over us - keeping us silent. It's essentially a gag order: be quiet or lose your job.

Aren't we thrilled to live in such a free country?!