Is Trump causing more controversy?
Let's have a little story.
Young William has started secondary school. As his hormones begin going off the chart at the start of his teenage years, he gets interested in sexuality. It's normal.
But, for William, he is growing up in a generation where he's not expected to conform to the gender of his birth: he's allowed to choose whether he would like to be a boy or a girl... or something else entirely. Why should society judge him? His 'rights' are so protected that he can be free to choose whatever he wants to be.
As William's interest in girls increases, he explores the female anatomy through the medium of recent technological devices... certain scenes in certain films, google images, porn sites, even 'snapchatting' and 'instagramming' certain friends who might be able to educate him with their photos.
William wonders what it would be like to have breasts and says that this interest in girls is because he feels like he is a girl on the inside. Modern society encourages him to keep exploring: try on women's clothes and begin using female facilities. William says that he prefers being called "Billie" and that it's great how society has 'grown up' to allow people like him to live as women.
When Billie finishes university, he moves to a different town, finds a job and a girlfriend. 'William' or 'Bill' are perfectly adequate names to call him. He goes on to live a very normal life as a man, a husband, a father.
William's adult life has a dark shadow. He is aware that his life is forever bound up in a closet he must never come out of. It's not the closet of sexuality.
William knows that he must forever keep the secret that during his teenage years and his time as a university student - those years when hormones are high and the sexual drive is strong - he did something he would be condemned for. He found a way to gain access to the girls' toilets. He got into the girls' changing rooms and got to hang out in the girls' showers.
Hundreds of girls unwittingly exposed their bodies to a teenage boy who didn't want to control his feelings.
Girls above and below the age of consent.
And if that ever got out, the sexual abuse case would be messy. William's life would be over.
It's time to wake up.
Not every person in the LGBT group (and whatever other letters they add on) have pure motives.
History and modern society show that criminals and 'undesirables' can and do infiltrate every organisation.
We do need to protect children from exploitation.
And that's why society should not just submit to the wills of those claiming to advocate 'sexual freedom'.
Monday 27 February 2017
Sunday 26 February 2017
Liberation!
Don't we just love being liberal?
Freedom from illiteracy and innumeracy due to education (thank you, Catholics).
Freedom from religious restrictions (stuff you, church).
Freedom from dictators (thank you, WW2).
Freedom to protest against going to war (stuff you, soldiers).
Freedom to vote for government (thank you, revolutionaries).
Freedom to ban people from supporting particular parties (stuff you, democracy).
And, more recently, we have:
Freedom of religion.
Freedom to teach children that scientific 'something from nothing by accident' is the only explanation for the world.
Freedom to call Christians 'bigots'.
Freedom to sue a bakery for not making us the exact cake we want.
Freedom to be forced to employ people of all nationalities/religions.
Freedom to be investigated if an employee becomes a Muslim extremist.
Freedom from marriage.
Freedom from committed relationships.
Freedom from sexual identity.
And now, freedom from having to justify our views. Just claim we're being discriminated against and organisations can make it their policy.
Such a wonderful society we live in!
Freedom from illiteracy and innumeracy due to education (thank you, Catholics).
Freedom from religious restrictions (stuff you, church).
Freedom from dictators (thank you, WW2).
Freedom to protest against going to war (stuff you, soldiers).
Freedom to vote for government (thank you, revolutionaries).
Freedom to ban people from supporting particular parties (stuff you, democracy).
And, more recently, we have:
Freedom of religion.
Freedom to teach children that scientific 'something from nothing by accident' is the only explanation for the world.
Freedom to call Christians 'bigots'.
Freedom to sue a bakery for not making us the exact cake we want.
Freedom to be forced to employ people of all nationalities/religions.
Freedom to be investigated if an employee becomes a Muslim extremist.
Freedom from marriage.
Freedom from committed relationships.
Freedom from sexual identity.
And now, freedom from having to justify our views. Just claim we're being discriminated against and organisations can make it their policy.
Such a wonderful society we live in!
Trapped at every turn
This article shows just one way of how difficult it is for teachers.
When a teacher gives a pupil pat on the back or tap another pupil on the shoulder, it only takes one other mischievous child to watch it and say, "That's abuse." The teacher is in trouble and the trouble maker is off scot-free. As a society, the UK just loves the picture of the perfect child who is beaten and abused by those adults who surround them. Protect the children!!
But everyone knows that children are incredibly selfish (wanting the best toys, wanting to eat chocolate rather than vegetables, etc.) and they find methods to play parents off each other. Once, I even overheard two trouble makers talking about how they were going to get themselves in trouble on a Monday morning at school, at the same time (despite being in different classes), so that they could spend there 'punishment' in each other's company.
For teachers, it's impossible to win.
Teachers have to discipline children because some parents fail in their responsibilities.
But the same parents verbally attack teachers for being unfair to their children.
Teachers are encouraged to go beyond the curriculum to give pupils a rich education.
But some parents question why teachers aren't sticking to the curriculum (why teach it if it isn't in the exam?).
If teachers encourage a child with a pat on the back, a trouble maker will report them for abuse.
The above article could make it be such that a teacher is accused of abuse for not giving the pat on the back.
Just keep blaming the teachers. Take the child's word as gospel, since they are obviously the most trustworthy. Make teachers fill in paperwork for every incident, as the teacher obviously cannot be considered trustworthy without it. And keep changing the goalposts for teachers with every government.
Then ask again why teachers are leaving the profession.
When a teacher gives a pupil pat on the back or tap another pupil on the shoulder, it only takes one other mischievous child to watch it and say, "That's abuse." The teacher is in trouble and the trouble maker is off scot-free. As a society, the UK just loves the picture of the perfect child who is beaten and abused by those adults who surround them. Protect the children!!
But everyone knows that children are incredibly selfish (wanting the best toys, wanting to eat chocolate rather than vegetables, etc.) and they find methods to play parents off each other. Once, I even overheard two trouble makers talking about how they were going to get themselves in trouble on a Monday morning at school, at the same time (despite being in different classes), so that they could spend there 'punishment' in each other's company.
For teachers, it's impossible to win.
Teachers have to discipline children because some parents fail in their responsibilities.
But the same parents verbally attack teachers for being unfair to their children.
Teachers are encouraged to go beyond the curriculum to give pupils a rich education.
But some parents question why teachers aren't sticking to the curriculum (why teach it if it isn't in the exam?).
If teachers encourage a child with a pat on the back, a trouble maker will report them for abuse.
The above article could make it be such that a teacher is accused of abuse for not giving the pat on the back.
Just keep blaming the teachers. Take the child's word as gospel, since they are obviously the most trustworthy. Make teachers fill in paperwork for every incident, as the teacher obviously cannot be considered trustworthy without it. And keep changing the goalposts for teachers with every government.
Then ask again why teachers are leaving the profession.
Tuesday 14 February 2017
"Millennials" (or "Today's Culture")
Put your phone aside (better still, turn it off) and watch this video.
When I started university, I made a decision that I would never walk anywhere outside my own home wearing headphones. I was astonished at the number of people I knew - friends, even - who would pass me in the street and either just walk past me (possible with a slight smile and a little hand wave) or they would stop to say hello... but their "hello" was always delayed by a few seconds whilst they took out their own headphones and paused their music (or whatever they were listening to).
I felt awkward in those times. But I learned something. I learned something about how Western culture is shaping up to be. Being "connected" is really "disconnecting" from society.
Within three years of university, I had created a Facebook account... and deleted it too. I have never signed up to Twitter. I refuse to own a touchscreen phone or one with internet capability.
The result?
If people want to know me, they have to talk to me. They can't track my daily life on Facebook. They can't read a running commentary on Twitter. I am free from the need to take a photo of everything I do and send it to "friends". When I'm in meetings, I'm paying attention to the speaker. Although I do own a phone, I am not controlled by it: I will decide when to answer it, I will decide when to read the text messages that occasionally come though.
It means that I can talk to people. There have been many times when I have asked someone - a total stranger - for directions or for a bit of help. I know when I have a friend because they tell me about themselves: they don't just assume I read their latest status.
Plus, it means that checking emails can be quick!
I would say that my life is better for it.
When I started university, I made a decision that I would never walk anywhere outside my own home wearing headphones. I was astonished at the number of people I knew - friends, even - who would pass me in the street and either just walk past me (possible with a slight smile and a little hand wave) or they would stop to say hello... but their "hello" was always delayed by a few seconds whilst they took out their own headphones and paused their music (or whatever they were listening to).
I felt awkward in those times. But I learned something. I learned something about how Western culture is shaping up to be. Being "connected" is really "disconnecting" from society.
Within three years of university, I had created a Facebook account... and deleted it too. I have never signed up to Twitter. I refuse to own a touchscreen phone or one with internet capability.
The result?
If people want to know me, they have to talk to me. They can't track my daily life on Facebook. They can't read a running commentary on Twitter. I am free from the need to take a photo of everything I do and send it to "friends". When I'm in meetings, I'm paying attention to the speaker. Although I do own a phone, I am not controlled by it: I will decide when to answer it, I will decide when to read the text messages that occasionally come though.
It means that I can talk to people. There have been many times when I have asked someone - a total stranger - for directions or for a bit of help. I know when I have a friend because they tell me about themselves: they don't just assume I read their latest status.
Plus, it means that checking emails can be quick!
I would say that my life is better for it.
Thursday 2 February 2017
Condemnation no matter what
Any option results in condemnation if you're disliked. I recently read this article.
President Trump is being blamed for not carrying out a plan which the Obama administration concocted: a plan designed to take a major city of the Islamic State. Such a plan would seem like a victory in the fight with ISIS, and Trump is condemned for preventing this from happening.
The irony is that the article goes on to explain that the plan was far from perfect, and it actually involved supplying weapons to Kurdish fighters which could very easily be seen as an attack on Turkey.
The article tries to paint Obama in a good light, by saying it was the "best of several bad options"; the lesser of many evils. This option avoided having American military forces on the ground - which would obviously gain support from Americans because they would know that their loved ones are not being put in harm's way. Of course, the reality is that it's better for one's image when someone else does your dirty work, or when you can get someone else to gain access to avoid yourself being caught trespassing.
But that's not really the main problem. The US has an interesting history when it comes to arming foreigners. Operation Cyclone is an interesting one, complete with accusations of supplying weapons and training to Osama bin Laden and denials stating that bin Laden supporters were not a direct beneficiary. But that's something that happened in the 1980s.
During the Obama administration, there are reports of arming foreigners which ended badly.
Now Trump decides not to supply weapons and training to a foreign radical group and he is condemned for it?!? The article implies that Trumps preferred method of solving the ISIS problem would result in more civilian casualties. Perhaps in the beginning.
But what would be the result of Trump followed through with Obama's plan? When those Kurds finish their US-given orders? They will still have weapons. They won't lose their training. They might find another enemy. But, of course, these are indirect casualties, so they don't count at the moment. But it would certainly be brought up to condemn Trump if he follows through with the plan.
It seems that any way to pull someone down is valid if enough people support it.
The lesson to learn is that you don't have peace by supplying weapons to other people. That method only breeds chaos. Then you have more security threats. I think Trump made the right move. In this instance, at least.
President Trump is being blamed for not carrying out a plan which the Obama administration concocted: a plan designed to take a major city of the Islamic State. Such a plan would seem like a victory in the fight with ISIS, and Trump is condemned for preventing this from happening.
The irony is that the article goes on to explain that the plan was far from perfect, and it actually involved supplying weapons to Kurdish fighters which could very easily be seen as an attack on Turkey.
The article tries to paint Obama in a good light, by saying it was the "best of several bad options"; the lesser of many evils. This option avoided having American military forces on the ground - which would obviously gain support from Americans because they would know that their loved ones are not being put in harm's way. Of course, the reality is that it's better for one's image when someone else does your dirty work, or when you can get someone else to gain access to avoid yourself being caught trespassing.
But that's not really the main problem. The US has an interesting history when it comes to arming foreigners. Operation Cyclone is an interesting one, complete with accusations of supplying weapons and training to Osama bin Laden and denials stating that bin Laden supporters were not a direct beneficiary. But that's something that happened in the 1980s.
During the Obama administration, there are reports of arming foreigners which ended badly.
Now Trump decides not to supply weapons and training to a foreign radical group and he is condemned for it?!? The article implies that Trumps preferred method of solving the ISIS problem would result in more civilian casualties. Perhaps in the beginning.
But what would be the result of Trump followed through with Obama's plan? When those Kurds finish their US-given orders? They will still have weapons. They won't lose their training. They might find another enemy. But, of course, these are indirect casualties, so they don't count at the moment. But it would certainly be brought up to condemn Trump if he follows through with the plan.
It seems that any way to pull someone down is valid if enough people support it.
The lesson to learn is that you don't have peace by supplying weapons to other people. That method only breeds chaos. Then you have more security threats. I think Trump made the right move. In this instance, at least.
The reason behind the outrage
There is so much media and social media coverage about Donald Trump's "Muslim ban". People have taken the document, interpreted it in one particular way, then advertised it as a "Muslim ban". Many people are commenting on it, even protesting against it, without actually knowing what it says.
As with many commentaries on current affairs, exaggerations are made in order to gain popularity and force a particular agenda (e.g. the addition of the suffix "-phobia" such as "homophobia" or "islamophobia", causing people to want to disassociate themselves from that label, despite the label being horribly inadequate). The current agenda is to bring down Donald Trump. Errors are made in the way people are going about this, but other errors are made by not looking at all the reasons behind the outrage.
1. Ultimately, people feel they have a fundamental "right" to travel wherever in the world they wish to travel. But this inherently selfish attitude rears its head in the form of the outwardly-appearing benevolence of, "We should allow other people to come to my country and live in it."
The process of visa applications can be annoying, time-consuming and overly complex, but it is the responsibility of the traveller to ensure they are entering another country in a legal manner. On the one hand, people hear this perspective and agree with it. But when it comes to people who call themselves "refugees", somehow the goalposts move and it is considered "racist" to suggest that such people should not be allowed in unless they go through the proper process. (Something which came out of the whole "Brexit" campaign.)
2. People feel that "equality" is the best way, because surely everyone just wants to get on with each other? Whilst this attitude may be true of the majority, it is naive to assume that everyone shares this altruistic belief.
If the media reports are to be believed, the majority of terrorist attacks in the last 20 years are implemented or orchestrated by Muslim extremists. Whilst, on the one hand, people tend to agree that Muslim extremists might be to blame, their attitudes become hypocritical at the mention of the idea of having greater security measures for a particular group of people. Complaints emerge that airport security is outrageously intrusive, or that white, non-Muslim natives should not have to go through that process. But this is what "equality" entails. And then, of course, the complaints that it is a waste of resources to thoroughly check every person, and the authorities have to find a way to prove that "random searches" truly are random, despite knowing that a particular people group might be more at risk of terrorist involvement than others.
3. People want to be with their friends and family. Again, this shows itself by appearing to care about all people, but in reality, they just don't want to be physically separated from certain people they care about.
It's interesting: despite the increase in the use of technology to be able to communicate with others across the globe, humans have an in-built need to physically be in the presence of others. It's a hole that social media just can't fill, despite the advertising. But this desire to be with the people they care about goes beyond security measures. When the authorities identify something they want to check out a little further, just to be sure, it's easy for a journalist to jump in and make a story. Even better if there turns out to be no threat at all: it puts the authorities in a bad light and seems to make a case for looser security. Imagine a headline which read: "Woman detained for 8 hours whilst immigration offer correctly follows out his duty to ensure our protection."
But, no: instead we get photos such as the one at the top of this article, with a comment at the end of the article which reads: "Woman of Iranian descent... cries as she waits for a family member after the immigration ban..." It's aim is to pull at the emotional heartstrings to make us feel how "bad" the people trying to protect our country are.
4. Sore losers always cause a ruckus. The attempts to cover up the selfishness mentioned above land again in another area of selfishness: people who didn't want Trump as president don't like that they lost the political game.
The whole point of democracy is that people are able to share their differing views and - hopefully - the majority wins out. Unfortunately, although the majority of individuals who voted did not vote for Trump, the way the system is set up allowed for it. It's not the first time it happened, and it's also not even the first time since a long time ago, as the US election in 2000 shows. If the rules are unpopular, seek to change the rules instead of whinging about the outcome. But the losers hope that their voice will not just be heard, but be acted upon, so much so that they find every excuse to pull down the victor. It could be likened to a footballer who gets angry that his team loses or that he got a red card and starts a fight. Or like the fanatical hooligan whose team he supports loses beginning a fight at the local pub. It doesn't change anything, it only displays selfishness.
An interesting point: in point 2 above I mentioned the complaints regarding increased security measures at airports. The link I included was to an article about a US airport, written in November 2010. This was during Obama's presidency. Ironically, this is conveniently ignored when it comes to "Trump-bashing".
As with many commentaries on current affairs, exaggerations are made in order to gain popularity and force a particular agenda (e.g. the addition of the suffix "-phobia" such as "homophobia" or "islamophobia", causing people to want to disassociate themselves from that label, despite the label being horribly inadequate). The current agenda is to bring down Donald Trump. Errors are made in the way people are going about this, but other errors are made by not looking at all the reasons behind the outrage.
1. Ultimately, people feel they have a fundamental "right" to travel wherever in the world they wish to travel. But this inherently selfish attitude rears its head in the form of the outwardly-appearing benevolence of, "We should allow other people to come to my country and live in it."
The process of visa applications can be annoying, time-consuming and overly complex, but it is the responsibility of the traveller to ensure they are entering another country in a legal manner. On the one hand, people hear this perspective and agree with it. But when it comes to people who call themselves "refugees", somehow the goalposts move and it is considered "racist" to suggest that such people should not be allowed in unless they go through the proper process. (Something which came out of the whole "Brexit" campaign.)
2. People feel that "equality" is the best way, because surely everyone just wants to get on with each other? Whilst this attitude may be true of the majority, it is naive to assume that everyone shares this altruistic belief.
If the media reports are to be believed, the majority of terrorist attacks in the last 20 years are implemented or orchestrated by Muslim extremists. Whilst, on the one hand, people tend to agree that Muslim extremists might be to blame, their attitudes become hypocritical at the mention of the idea of having greater security measures for a particular group of people. Complaints emerge that airport security is outrageously intrusive, or that white, non-Muslim natives should not have to go through that process. But this is what "equality" entails. And then, of course, the complaints that it is a waste of resources to thoroughly check every person, and the authorities have to find a way to prove that "random searches" truly are random, despite knowing that a particular people group might be more at risk of terrorist involvement than others.
3. People want to be with their friends and family. Again, this shows itself by appearing to care about all people, but in reality, they just don't want to be physically separated from certain people they care about.
It's interesting: despite the increase in the use of technology to be able to communicate with others across the globe, humans have an in-built need to physically be in the presence of others. It's a hole that social media just can't fill, despite the advertising. But this desire to be with the people they care about goes beyond security measures. When the authorities identify something they want to check out a little further, just to be sure, it's easy for a journalist to jump in and make a story. Even better if there turns out to be no threat at all: it puts the authorities in a bad light and seems to make a case for looser security. Imagine a headline which read: "Woman detained for 8 hours whilst immigration offer correctly follows out his duty to ensure our protection."
But, no: instead we get photos such as the one at the top of this article, with a comment at the end of the article which reads: "Woman of Iranian descent... cries as she waits for a family member after the immigration ban..." It's aim is to pull at the emotional heartstrings to make us feel how "bad" the people trying to protect our country are.
4. Sore losers always cause a ruckus. The attempts to cover up the selfishness mentioned above land again in another area of selfishness: people who didn't want Trump as president don't like that they lost the political game.
The whole point of democracy is that people are able to share their differing views and - hopefully - the majority wins out. Unfortunately, although the majority of individuals who voted did not vote for Trump, the way the system is set up allowed for it. It's not the first time it happened, and it's also not even the first time since a long time ago, as the US election in 2000 shows. If the rules are unpopular, seek to change the rules instead of whinging about the outcome. But the losers hope that their voice will not just be heard, but be acted upon, so much so that they find every excuse to pull down the victor. It could be likened to a footballer who gets angry that his team loses or that he got a red card and starts a fight. Or like the fanatical hooligan whose team he supports loses beginning a fight at the local pub. It doesn't change anything, it only displays selfishness.
An interesting point: in point 2 above I mentioned the complaints regarding increased security measures at airports. The link I included was to an article about a US airport, written in November 2010. This was during Obama's presidency. Ironically, this is conveniently ignored when it comes to "Trump-bashing".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)