I type in www.myspace.com, hit enter, go to type in my password, and realise that there is a nice big picture of two girls kissing, one with her mouth open, and both possibly looking a little drunk.

Before I'm misinterpreted, I don't particularly care that it's two girls, except that this would suggest that they're only pashing out because their drunk (because homosexuality is a minority). It would also suggest that the picture had been chosen specifically because their both female and pashing out.

What the fuck is with that? How can someone (Justin 2.0) have their profile deleted for abusing fundamental Christianity, while myspace, itself, is now showing those kinds of pictures - keeping in mind that the majority of myspacers are in their early teens (at least I think so), particularly since many of the older myspacers migrated to facebook.

Now that I've mulled it over, I'm not so whacked out about it. It was just one of those wtf moments.

I was watching a speech on education by this year’s Australian of the Year. It got me thinking, as these things do, about the need for improved education, but then I got caught up with a conundrum; the government needs money to do things. This then, predictably, got me thinking about the stupidity of capitalism. :P

It made me think of Connex; in Australia, our train system is owned by a company that the government contracts, called Connex. In the last year or two, Connex’s incompetence has become increasingly apparent, as more people switch to public transport with the rise of petrol prices. Various delays, cancellations and overcrowded trains have annihilated Connex’s public image, and at University, some of us call it a “Connex moment” when we are late as a result of train problems (the phrase was taken by a first-year lecturer).

Further adding to the stupidity of Connex is the fact that they do, in fact they have to make profit. The government pays this company to run the trains (although the government owns the actual railway lines).

If the government ran the train system, they would save money on public transport. If the government ran the bus system as well, then public transport savings would be immense; there is no real choice between public transport companies so the normal ‘benefits’ of the market do not apply.

What the government could do is actually sell the metcards (universal public transport tickets) at a price that would make the entire public transport system self-sustaining, so that it’s as if the government is not spending money on public transport at all. This would make public transport cheaper for the public (which is important, considering the massive expense that the entire country spend on transport, and cheaper public transport would motivate people that normally generate more pollution via cars to switch), and also save the government money on paying public transport companies.

Effectively, what this strategy would do is remove the profit of these private companies and reimburse it into the public. This is one of my issues with capitalism; there is this idea that it creates prosperity, but this prosperity is sucked into the vacuum of company profits, so that millions are given to those at the top of the businesses, who will probably never use even a quarter of their money.

It’s all fair and well that these businesses make profit, but this profit is directly made off of the defecit of either their employees or customers. Eventually, a company may be able to function with only a few employees to monitor the machinery, meaning that no one is there to actually make money; with no one making money, no one can buy anything, which would make the entire system collapse. The idea of prosperity is limited by the fact that the prosperity is a result of the loss of another. This, in my opinion, is why unemployment will necessarily increase in the current market system. Marx actually basically predicted this. Many people seem to think that Marx was wrong because communism doesn’t work but, in actual fact, Marx was far more focused on the fact that capitalism doesn’t work, and he was exceedingly correct.

So why doesn’t the government take control of public transport? Well, it would make public transport accountable, for starters; so far, the naive public blame Connex and refuse to look at the system but, if the government owned a poor transport system, then the public would turn nasty on the government, so the government avoid it. In democracy, the government will probably always try to reduce their own accountability.

And so this is another problem; the idiotic public. They are far too easily side-tracked by symbolic names like Connex, and so do not have the intelligence to wield their power as a voting nation to actually twist the government’s arm to do the right thing.

Closely related to this problem is the fact that everyone wants the government to do more with the money they have, AND reduce taxes, creating an unfair public who is more easily swayed by government propaganda than by sound common sense; I don’t really blame politicians for talking shit, because they have no choice if they wish to retain sovereignty.

So then what? How do we fix that? In my opinion, education. If you have a stupid nation, force them to think. In University, we were taught how to “think critically”. I caught up on it pretty quick because I already had some understanding of it, but I didn’t learn it from high school. English classes had made some meagre attempt, but this always ended with the teachers endlessly criticising the government. “Critical thinking”, these days, is just hating the government; it doesn’t involve weighing both of the sides with as little bias as possible. So education needs a massive revamp with something like a “critical thinking” class in high school, in my opinion.

This class would also need to teach to critique the actual system as well, not just the players, and seeing how limited the players are; for example, everyone hates big-time private companies. No one professes to think that it's a good thing that Nike rip the shit out of their employees for profit. However, no one considers the fact that a company that is floating on the share market is actually legally obligated to make profit, even if it’s CEO wants to improve quality simply for the sake of the common peoples. If one person at the top of Nike wanted to pay the employees properly, they would actually have to justify it with the claim that it would increase sales through an improved public image and that this would generate further profits. They cannot do it because it is "the right thing to do".

It seems to me that democracy only works if the public is full of intelligent people that can think critically. However, I’m also sceptical that that will EVER happen.

We shall see.

Rant out.

1 - Prologue

Mick glanced at his new watch, stolen, with the backlight so he could read the time in the dark, chilly night. It was about eleven. He and Gerry were standing in an alley, making hoops of smoke out of marijuana joints. Mick sat against the wall, one leg jutting out, while Gerry stood, leaning against the wall opposite Mick. Each man, with dank, dirty clothes, was hard to make out in the heavy shadows cast by the tall buildings against the street lights down the alley. The only sound was the motor of the occasional car coming and going, the inhalations and exhalations of the two men.

The silhouette of a hooded male walking briskly, nervously, approached from the far end of the alley. Mick noticed the silhouette and pushed himself against the wall to stand up. Gerry saw Mick rise and turned his head. For the moment, the two men kept where they were, allowing the silhouette to near, then they approached.

"Spare change?" Mick called. The silhouette stopped abruptly.

Gerry murmured quietly, angrily, "Shut the fuck up. He's still too far away."

After a few moments of indecision, however, the silhouette resumed walking, at a slower, more cautious pace. "Sorry dude, ain't got shit." It spoke matter-of-factly, unconcerned, in the voice of a young adult male. The two men waited silently, the air thick with apprehension.

When the silhouette got close enough, Gerry took a step forward, grabbed the silhouette by the front of it's top and threw it against the wall. The silhouette resolved into a pair of tracksuit pants under a hooded sports jacket that cowled a dirty face with some rough stubble. A boy probably aged in the late teen years.

The boy's eyes were wide, shocked or perhaps just frightened. The shrill quaver in his voice confirmed that it was fear: "I said I ain't got shit, man."

Gerry wasn't interested in what he had to say, however, so he began beating at his head with his free hand, the one not holding him against the wall, clenched into a fist. The boy swung his arms up in defense, but Gerry's blows still made contact. It was a simple mugging, but Gerry always got a sadistic pleasure out of the control.

Mick was about to join in with a few hard kicks, but the boy's wordless and lengthy shout, something between pain and frustration, made Mick hesitate; there was something indefinably odd about it. Then, suddenly, there was a sound like the exhalation of a held breath, but much louder, reverberating in his head. At the same time, Gerry screamed and stopped, his hand hanging in the air, open and tense now rather than clenched. He swayed dangerously, loosened his grip. The boy shoved him back, and he fell against the opposite wall, before collapsing in a heap.

Mick, holding his head with one hand, shouted, "What the fuck?"

The boy shoved him back, and he tripped over Gerry, cracking the back of his head on the wall, falling to the ground next to him. "Get back 'ere, you little fuck!" He shouted, now cradling his head in both hands. The boy had become a silhouette again, far down the alley, racing into the distance.

Mick scrambled up to his feet. He considered pursuing the boy, but he was out of sight, so he turned to Gerry and squatted down. He appeared physically fine, but his breathing was shallow and weak. Mick slapped him lightly across the face, but he didn't react. "Gerry?" Nothing. Mick shoved him more roughly. "Gerry?" Still nothing. Mick picked Gerry up awkwardly, and swung him over his shoulders. Buckling under the weight, he started to head back for the shelter.

2

Hadz fled out of the alley, and turned right, towards the blur of red and white car lights zipping back and forth. When he reached the busy road, he slipped just around the corner and peaked back to see if he was being pursued, and to catch his breath. After a few moments, no one had emerged from the alley shadows, so he gingerly touched his forehead. The abuse he had received had given him a splitting headache, and his head swelled disturbingly. He could feel the bruises along his forearms, his neck hurt, from being manhandled, and the hair on the back of his head felt damp, probably from blood. After another glance down the street, he turned and jogged down the road for a while, puffing to the pace of his feet, moving with a rhythm.

He tried to think so as to keep his mind off of the pain. In retrospect, he regretted not knocking both men out and taking whatever valuable possessions they had. That was the entire point of him not turning away and running, in the first place, but in the shock of the moment, all thought left him. It was too late now. He had almost wet his pants. Stupid really, he considered; bad enough that he had started walking down the alley in the first place, but in his typical recklesness, he actually chose to keep walking, knowing that two men - possibly homicidal - were standing there, waiting to take anything he had. Generally, he wasn't concerned with what happened to him, but he had to remind himself that he had someone to look after.

He did not like being reminded of his shortcomings, so he gazed around at his environment in another attempt to occupy his mind; the streetlights and car lights made brilliant against the starless, dull black night sky, the neatly placed trees in the park across the road, cloaking the park with more shadow. A group of men stood in the park, silhouettes, too far to warrant caution. Hadz had felt cold earlier, but the movement had warmed him up, and he wiped sweat from his forehead, flicking his fringe, dark brown hair, aside. He pulled his hood back and allowed the refreshingly cold wind to rush over his head.

As he approached his destination, a small grocery store owned by one of the more philanthropic store managers in the city, towards the busier areas, he began to come across people on foot, huddled in stylish thick grey and black coats, women in stilettos. At a glance, they seemed to ignore him, but when Hadz looked closely enough, he often picked up on the odd serruptitious glance, or the deliberate blank look forward, the slight quickening of pace, as they noted his bruised face. It did not particularly concern him.

He slowed to a sedate walk, lifting his shirt to gingerly wipe the sweat from his face, exposing his stomach in rebellion. He grinned, picturing the prudish muttering that would ensue once he was out of their hearing range, as he stepped through the clear plastic strips in the doorway to the store, The Jiggystore. Hadz had no idea why the Indian owner and manager, Pranit, had given the store such an odd name. It made Hadz think of music with thumping bass and African-American talking, a store full of cheap heavy gold-coated chains and rings. In reality, it was something like a small supermarket, with odds and ends, such as milk, various packaged junk food, tampons, condoms and, most important to Hadz at that moment, a unisex bathroom tucked away in the back of the store.

After shitting, Hadz removed his hoodie, which had been stained slightly crimson along the inside of the hood, and carefully washed his hands, face and neck, tenderly where he was bruised. Nothing could be done about the muck on his clothes, so he still looked unclean, but the cleansing had alleviated the itchiness that the dirt provoked, and would hopefully prevent infection. He tried to scoop the water into his hands and wet the back of his head down, where his hair was matted with blood. This was unsuccessful, however, and he had to make do with soaking up as much of the blood as possible with paper towl.

He then evaluated his injuries; there was a lot of heavy purple bruising on the upper-right side of his head in the mirror - his own head's upper-left side. It swelled like some odd purple fruit stretching over his temple and forehead, pressing his left eye slightly shut. He also had some light grey marks at the base of his neck, along the collarbone, when the front of his shirt had been grabbed. He couldn't see the cut on the back of his head, but gingerly feeling, it seemed to be small, despite the blood.

He glanced at the hoodie to make sure the blood hadn't soaked through to the outside and, noting that it hadn't, then threw it back on before leaving the bathroom. Strolling through the isles, he picked up two large packets of potatoe chips and a packet of butterscotch biscuits.

Handing over eight dollars at the checkout, and receiving some small change, Hadz was reminded that he was extremely short on money; he had maybe twenty or thirty dollars left, which wouldn't last more than another two nights of meals. He resolved to go to one of the bigger, more corporate supermarkets next time, so he could steal some of his food.

Since becoming homeless, Hadz was forced to re-evaluate his moral standards and so, now, he found the idea of stealing being "wrong" to be naive and immature. His ethical code was mainly based on the philosophy of "an eye for an eye" and, in his more idealistic moments, concern for the well-being of others; he would never steal from the Jiggystore, because Pranit could not afford to lose the money on stolen goods, but he did not have a problem with stealing from a massive store that ripped off both their suppliers and customers to make hundreds of millions of dollars every year, the kind of company that always reported an increase in profit and yet still seemed to find necessity in raising the cost of absolutely everything. Hadz knew that when Jiggystore prices went up, it was because Pranit was either not selling enough, or his suppliers had increased the prices.

"Fucking rich corporate high-flying scum", Hadz muttered fiercely to himself as he left through the automatic sliding doors, his grocery bag of junk food in hand. He walked further down the street, for two blocks, and then turned right and crossed the road, coming up to the door of a small, deserted building that was once a pub. A very faint rhythmic thudding could be heard from the other side of the door. "Welcome home, Hadz," he muttered to himself, before pressing down on the door handle and stepping in.

3

Hadz stepped in, from a cold wet night on the Melbourne streets, into paradise. It was still cool, but there was no wind or moisture. A mellow, jazzy, electronica-sounding music gave the room an ambient pulsing vibration, accompanying the stink of alcohol. The door Hadz walked in through gave into a small elevated section, in the corner of the room, with a desk opposite the door, possibly for organising admission. No one stood there now, however, so Hadz just stepped down into the rest of the small, cozy room. Very dim lighting gave an impression of dark-red, low-backed couches around the floor, a few small tables scattered about. A few of the couches hosted ruggedly dressed people, splayed out and deep in sleep. Judging by the messy grey beards, bulky faded jackets, the beanie, the dishevelled clothes and aged-looking faces, most would assume that they'd passed out from alcohol. A large square-shaped bottle next to one of the couches indicated that at least one of them had.

Hadz worked his way around the couches towards what looked like a child of the age of six or seven years, swaddled in dirty blankets on a couch in the corner. Along the way, he passed an unconscious, stubble-ridden wrinkled man in wrinkled clothes, with his mouth hanging open in a silent parody of a snore. Hadz made a disgusted face and consciously drew his grocery bag up, away from the man, as he hurried towards the child.

Upon closer inspection, it was clear that the young-looking person was actually a teenager, probably thirteen or fourteen years old, covered with dirty faded clothes far too big for him, and a beanie obscuring one eye. Hadz sadly considered the image at odds with his own experiences as a fourteen year-old, only five years ago.

He bent down to the teen. "Plutz," he muttered. Plutz gave no reaction. He shoved the boy brusquely. "Plutz," he snapped.

Plutz gave a start and looked through the one eye not covered by the beanie. His mouth widened into a lop-sided grin. "Sup, man?" He spoke slowly, relaxed and apparently happy to see him.

"Get up, dickhead. I got some food."

"Cool." Plutz groaned with effort as he pushed himself up into a sitting position, pulling his beanie off to reveal a shock of blonde hair. He massaged his faced, fingertips over the eyebrows. "Ah, my fuckin' head."

"D'you drink any o' that shit?" Hadz asked, eyebrows raised, partly in question, partly in accusation, jerking his thumb at the bottle.

"Nah, man. Just this fuckin' music's killin' me." After pausing for a moment, he stopped massaging his head and looked at Hadz more closely. "The fuck happen to you?"

"Got jumped. Some tools lookin' for money. Doesn't matter," Hadz answered, rather casually.

Plutz raised his eyebrows in apparent disbelief. "Okay, then" he said, slightly sarcastic. He sat there, eyeing the old wrinkled man Hadz had passed by. The fact that he had ignored the food so far was rather out of character.

"What's up?" Hadz asked, looking over at the wrinkled man, again.

"Nah, nothing man, just..." Plutz hesitated a moment. "Just that guy over there died last night."

Hadz continued staring at the body, surprised. "No way..." He was silent for a few moments, momentarily blank, before it occured to him to ask, "Did Grim show?" He didn't turn to look at Plutz, mesmerised by the corpse.

"Nah man... not while I was awake. I dunno how I fell asleep."

"Bro, Grim doesn't do shit." Hadz reassured, although he wasn't really paying attention. He wet his lips, still staring at the body, thinking; considering whether he should check to see if the body's soul had been taken yet. He always felt nervous about checking, about opening his eyes. However, curiosity eventually convinced him. He put the grocery bag of food down on the carpet and, hesitating a moment longer, changed his perceptive ability.

Hadz didn't really know what to call it. It was as if he opened his mind up to things beyond the normal realm of the human senses, or perhaps changing the sensitivities of his human senses, like changing a radio frequency from AM to FM. One of the effects this had was on his perception of sound; the bass vibrations of the music dulled into a mute thudding, as if Hadz had suddenly dived into a pool of water. His vision took on a wavy, erratic and shimmering distortion, as if he was looking up through the surface of that pool, as if water was running over his eyes. The shimmering quickly created a sense of vertigo. Gradually, every person in the room, the few sleeping men and Plutz, began glowing white.

The feeling of vertigo seemed insignificant when compared to the vague, indescribable pain that this change brought. The pain seemed to consume his entire being, as if every nerve in his body was afire, yet it was dull enough to be ignored, considered a background sensation. Hadz was accustomed to the feeling. The only reason he felt nervous about opening his mind to these sensations was that a feeling of impending doom would accompany them, the nervous flutter in his gut that would arise, as if he were hanging onto the edge of a cliff and his hands had just lost a little more of their grip, the situation just that little more precarious.

After taking a moment to adjust to these sensations, Hadz paid close attention the body of the allegedly-dead man. The telltale undulating pale glow around the man's body indicated that the man was still "alive", in a loose sense of the word. The light, however, seemed to float in and around the body, stretching over through the upper torso one moment, floating over the head the next, almost swaying back and forth, through and around the body. Every time Hadz had observed a person using his sixth sense, the actual person's body seemed to glow, as if their bodies were the light source, but the light of this man seemed to move around; Hadz's and Plutz's surrogate father, Chatz, had told them that this floating light was the energy that gave a person life. He said people called them many things; their soul, their spirit, their lifeforce. Hadz assumed that this disconnected light meant that the man was dead, more or less, his soul seperate from his body, but that Old Grim had not yet come to take it; the "truly" dead had no light source; they were simply inanimate matter, and did not glow at all.

Hadz readjusted his sense and returned to normal, with a combination of relief and, oddly, a feeling of slight loss; it was always a relief to be rid of the pain but, at the same time as the pain was a background sensation, it had an intense quality to it, like a magnifying sensation, that made the ordinary senses feel half-hearted and fake; the pain made the world without it seem like a pseudo-life. (should pseudo-life be hyphonated like that, or be "pseudolife", do you think?)

"Is he there?" Plutz asked, his voice slightly higher in pitch than usual.

Hadz ignored the question. "I wanna see Grim. You mind if we stay here?" He asked, glancing at Plutz. He shook his head, though his eyes were wide with fright. Hadz didn't know if Plutz agreed to stick around because he was a pushover, or because he wanted to be brave.

Hadz wanted to stay because he was immensely curious. He had only ever been told about Old Grim, in his big cloak, floating weightless, swaying oddly through the air as if swimming through water, and never expected to get the opportunity to see him. For some reason, he never fathomed being near someone around the time that they died; it was just something that did not seem to happen.

For all that death pervaded the television, it was an obscure thing, hidden from society by the curtains of hospitals, censored and beautified by the makeup of the corpse in a funeral, or the flowers in cemeteries, the tributes engraved in stone. It was feared, and that fear was perhaps because people did not understand it, did not see it. Perhaps they feared it for the same reason they hid it, because they refused to accept it. Even the likes of Hadz and Plutz, who were exposed to death in such a way that most were not, knew very little about it.

4

Hadz and Plutz sat there, silent. The other men, the living, sleeping men, did not rouse. At one point, perhaps twenty minutes after entering the building, Hadz stood up and found his way to the stereo, turning the power off after locating the button, before returning to sit down next to Plutz. He picked one of the chip packets out of the grocery bag and offered it to Plutz, gesturing it towards him.

Plutz accepted the packet, so that the only sound was the crunching of the chips and the rustling of the foil.

After finishing the packet, Plutz scrunched it up into a ball, the rustling sound becoming a roar, and threw it behind him, where it partially unscrunched and laid out across the ground.

Time passed. Plutz's fear became replaced with boredom, and Hadz's curiousity became replaced with fatigue.

"Uh, shouldn't you open your eyes to Purgatory? Or else, how you gonna know when Grim's here?" Plutz's asked, pronouncing 'Purgatory' clearly and precisely, uncharacteristic of the slack nature of his normal speech.

'Opening your eyes to Purgatory' was the phrase that Chatz had always used to describe the change in perception that the three of them, Plutz, Hadz and Chatz, were capable of, the way they could see the glowing soul. Hadz had once asked what Purgatory was, and Chatz explained that it was a place that "bad Christians" would go after death, before they moved on to heaven.

Replying to Plutz, Hadz said, "Chatz said that you can feel when Grim's nearby, even when ya not lookin' into Purgatory." Hadz felt uncomfortable with the phrase, 'opening your eyes to Purgatory', but found it difficult to articulate in normal conversation about the phenomenon without having an expression for it, so he tended to say "looking into Purgatory".

"Whaddoes it feel like?"

"Dunno. Guess we'll find out soon, yeah?"

Plutz hummed in agreement.

With some of the initial fear reinvigorated by the conversation, Plutz fell silent again, for a time. Hadz became more alert, but not frightened. Eventually, however, this eased off, and Plutz began tapping the small coffee table in front of him, occasionally trying different rhythms, each more complex than the last, seemingly attempting to challenge himself. Hadz hummed to himself, a tune accompanying the rhythm of Plutz tapping, but too quiet for Plutz to hear him.

After only a few minutes, however, Hadz suddenly stopped humming. Plutz tapped two or three times more after this, before stopping as well. Hadz had a distinct sense of magnitude, a moment where he became accutely cautious and aware, a small rush of adrenaline and focus, to accompany a shudder of foreboding. "This is it. He's here," he muttered, his voice quavering slightly. He attempted to look into Purgatory, but was too nervous to succeed initially. He could feel his heart thudding against his chest, almost uncomfortably. After a moment's delay, perhaps a moment too long, he mentally steadied himself and tried again, the thudding of his heart seeming to lessen as the world around him wavered as if he were viewing it through water running down a window, the pain awakening through his body, faint and yet so intense.

Before Hadz's eyes Old Grim seemed to materialise, hovering over the now-lifeless man, a body no longer intemingled with the light of a soul, a body now dead as the couch his body was splayed out upon. Old Grim was a floating black cowl, with no body to be seen. The hooded cloak was torn along the bottom, frayed and rippling like a torn up flag, as if wind was blowing through it, although Hadz felt no wind blow through the room. The opening of the hood was directed down at the body when Old Grim appeared, but after the briefest of moments, that opening turned to face Hadz. Hadz did not even have time to feel the stab of dread as Old Grim turned to face him, but felt it when he realised that there was no head under the hood, no old man, no skull or deformed face. Within the hood, there was only a phantom of air and shadow, a gaping nothingness that did not really frighten Hadz but shock him, catch him off guard.

After that void-filled cowl stared at Hadz for a short but indeterminate amount of time, the hood twisted away, and the rest of the body swung around in obeisance, to glide towards the wall. It did not stop, nor slow, as it approached the wall, but passed right through, into the night.

Hadz sat still, staring at that wall, waiting and waiting, for Grim to return. He knew he should have been frightened numb, but he felt blank, instead. Heavy and calm, patiently waiting. Perhaps this was a survival instinct, his irrational fear suppressed, or perhaps he did not truly see a reason to fear Grim, but he sat there still and cautious in any case, waiting almost expectantly. After what may have been three minutes or ten minutes, he calmly stood up and walked to the door. He then placed his hand on the handle and hesitated a moment, considering whether to peak out or thrust the door fully open. In the end, he thrusted the door fully open and popped his head out, looking left and right, down the street.
 
So, what do you think? Don't get too excited, I dunno if I'll ever bother continuing/finishing this story. I'm kind of tempted to right now, but I'm not of a mind to focus.
We'll see.

Some may believe that I have Socialist biases because I'm very close to a proud Chinese person who has an uncanny knack for exposing the weaknesses in what is considered "democracy", but I tend to think this is not actually a bias; I find that it actually gives me a perspective that is not often considered in Western culture.

One such view that this perspective has fostered within me is my doubt towards certain things called rights. Some rights I entirely agree with, such as the "human right" of all people being born equal (whilst "free" depends on your definition), and freedom from slavery.

There is one right, a human right outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under Article 16, that I am somewhat against: "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family."

Now, I'm not against this on the basis of race, nationality or religion. Rather, my problem is that, in my opinion, some people are not competent to raise a child, or are not willing to do everything they can to better that child.

I do not believe having a family is a right, but a privilege. The difference between having a family and being a slave is that freedom from slavery does not directly have a negative effect on anyone. However, if someone has a child on pure impulse, not concerned about the well-being of that child at all, then that child is probably going to be negatively effected.

As long as having children is considered a "right", and not a privilege, there will be many people that will treat it as if it is not a privilege, neither appreciating it, nor totally accepting the responsibilities that come with it.

There are obvious cases where people should not be allowed to start a family. For example, if someone were to walk around and tell everyone that they are going to have a child, solely so they can torture it and laugh at it's pain, such a person should be restrained from having a child.

Some of the more debatable ones are in matters of genetics. I personally feel that, if there is more than a 50% chance that any child a particular individual may have will have a severely debilitating disorder, then if the individual has that child (assuming the individual is aware of the risk), it will be out of selfishness - the individual is not interested in creating a human which has the best chance of having a wholesome, full life. Rather, such an individual is interested in having a child, perhaps because of instinctual desires or upbringing, or a desire to have something to love. This is selfish. Already, such an individual is putting their own desires over what is best for the child and, in such a case, should not have one.

Some may argue that not existing may be worse than existing in a poor condition with "loving" parents. This is because they are viewing the individual as the child of that specific parent, before it even exists - they are identifying the potential for life as the potential for those two adults to have a specific child.

If we approach it in a different way, and suppose that all life comes about by reincarnation, this changes one's perspective significantly - instead of there being the options of:
"the child existing in a debilitated state", or "the child not existing",
the options become,
"the child existing in a debilitated state", or "the child existing with a healthy body by two other parents".

While I am relatively agnostic, and doubtful about the existence of a soul, let alone reincarnation, I feel (yes, feel, as in intuitive, more subconscious level of thought) that such an approach is much more realistic, because the potential for life is seen as more... equal. That is, rather than "the potential for my child" differing from "the potential for your child", both are human forms of life, except that one of them may have a greater chance of having a wholesome, enjoyable life that is beneficial to the rest of society. 

This approach is also backed up by the integrated nature of resource allocation; extra resources must be spent on the child, meaning that others will miss out on the use of those resources. Even if there are enough resources for all children, these resources are still wasted because our resources are finite, and should be used as sparingly as possible (in my opinion). Also, having a child with a good chance of having a severely debilitating disorder increases the chances of that disorder being passed on, thus possibly causing pain to future generations.

While some may argue that a child does not need to be healthy to have a decent life, this does not refute the argument that having such a child would still be selfish.

So, in my opinion, individuals with a good chance of passing on a debilitating disorder, individuals who will need significant support to raise a child (mind you, this is not a problem if the support can be given by those around the individual, and does not have a real negative effect on society), and individuals who show clear signs of neglecting a child, should not be allowed to have a child.
The problem is that I believe that more than half of the parents in Australia should not be allowed to have children.

I was discussing a variety of topics revolving around society, with Frances, and we eventually stumbled onto homosexuality (surprise!). Anyway, as some of you would know, I don't really think homosexuality is a choice. Many of my hippy, liberal peers seem to think the same.

But Frances brought up a very good point, that really got me thinking. (surely, this point has come up before, but perhaps she worded it better, or I paid more attention to it because the person who was saying it had more credibility, I don't know, but here it is)

There's an idea that society is "confusing" young minds, now, with the growing exposure to homosexuality. It may be making some, or many, adolescents wondering whether they're homo-, hetero-, or bisexual.

There's a significant increase in how much of the population is considered homosexual. Some argue that this is simply because these people feel comfortable/safe enough to now "come out of the closet", that there have always been this many homosexuals and bisexuals but they've had to hide it. This argument is supported by the sexual tendencies of ancient Greece (and their rather raunchy myths *wink* *wink*) and, presumably, a few other societies where sexuality has been considered more flexibly.

But, without some kind of reliable, substantial evidence that there have been many homosexuals in hiding (and I confidently assume that there is none), it is perfectly viable to say that, in the case of the ancient Greek sexuality, it can be just as much a result of exposure to homo- and bisexuality as to this idea that people were just more open because it was "okay" back then.

In fact, there are people who can convince themselves to "like" (be attracted to, have the hots for, want in the pants, that whole shebang) someone who they would not normally like. Hell, I think even I could do it. Consider it a form of self-brainwashing or, more accurately, just convincing yourself of something (i.e. say "I'm stupid" enough times, and eventually you'll believe it). Why is it not possible to do this with sexuality?

To all the anti-religious pro-all-sexualities, I think it is worth pointing out that many of you seem to believe that the religious have actually done this to themselves - convinced themselves that there is a God, through sheer force of will or desperation, something you'd probably liken to self-brainwashing.

The main idea behind the point Frances brought up is that, if there was no exposure to homosexuality, at all, and no one had even heard of it, it's plausible to say that they would not consider it and, as such, would not end up being homosexual. Follow this thinking, and you realise that this can mean that the only reason there is homosexuality now is because there's such attention put onto it that many children are opening their minds to it.

Evidence of this can be found in the way that social trends tend to dictate attraction, not genes. For example, I believe that, in France, it was considered attractive for a male to have legs like this at one stage (no joke):


Louis XIV

Also, in the more medieval ages of some European countries, and currently in China, it is considered attractive to have pale skin (I find it attractive, too), apparently because pale skin denotes wealth (all those messy peasants are out in the sun all day getting tanned). In China, small feet are also considered attractive.

Yet, in Australia, a good bit of tanning is generally considered attractive.

Also, chubbiness was once considered attractive, also because it denotes wealth but now, for many, a slim, lean body with colossal breasts are the way to go.

Also, and most disturbing for me because I simply don't understand it, a growing number of females seem to think that it's attractive for guys to be wearing tight jeans, with legs so thin that they look like they're about to fall over.

Many of these things can be attributed to society. I suppose the last one can be attributed to the growing popularity of Indie and Emo bands that wear such things.

If skin tone can be determined by what you are taught to be attractive, why would sexuality be any different?

Strictly speaking, I don't believe this makes homosexuality a choice. I don't think anyone chose to be attracted to skinny legs, or pale skin, or a lean body - it's just what they're taught through society. Nor do I think a child "chooses" to wonder what his/her sexuality is. Continuing with the idea that, if there was no homosexuality no one would even consider being homosexual, what if there was no heterosexuality? What if, let's just say, every single person on the planet was homosexual, and heterosexuality had not even been thought of? Would people then "choose" to be homosexual? Of course not. Exposure doesn't make something your choice.

However, I suppose that this thinking is, at least in part, because I tend to dispute the entire idea of free will.

So, while this does not make me think that homosexuality is the choice of the individual, I wonder if it is, perhaps, the "choice" of society, at large. More or less, I now tend to lean towards homosexuality being the result of nurture, not so much nature - although, I still think there's a good chance that both play a role.

So, after that massive slog of a blog, what do you people think?

Please, people, be friendly to eachother. If any comment is just berrating someone's perceived intelligence, or name-calling, or vulgar abuse, then I'll delete it. Unless it's targetted at me. Or targetted at someone who's targetted me. I don't mind being abused over the internet, I'm simply concerned that others might. So bring it on, "christopher".

Some overly-atheistic idiot thought I was a Christian!

I was disputing one of the arguments on a "God is Imaginary" blog. The blog was claiming that slavery was justified by the bible, but the quotes used to prove this were all in the Old Testament, which were written before Christ was even born and, as such, couldn't really be called "Christian".

Someone later quoted a New Testament verse that also advocated for slavery and proved my argument wrong but, before that, this complete idiot told me the following:

"As far as I can see, the belief that the OT and NT are distinct and seperate still stands"
(note that this was him quoting me)

if you actually read the entire bible, you will know that what you said is just false.

first off, its simply obvious because your bible contains both the old and new testament.

if you guys didnt like the old testament so much, then get rid of it... but no, you guys still keep it to this day.

second... jesus himself said "I come to bring the sword, not peace; do not think..."

"i have not come to change the laws of the old"



please just do me a favor and read your bible.

have a nice day.


I replied with the following:

Straight away, you show yourself an asshat! ;)

"first off, its simply obvious because your bible contains both the old and new testament.

if you guys didnt like the old testament so much, then get rid of it... but no, you guys still keep it to this day."

Guess what, my little assuming friend? I'M ATHEIST!!! Shock! Horror! Fuck you! :D

"please just do me a favor and read your bible.

have a nice day."

I can understand why you say that but the problem is, I can't think of a great reason to spend 10, 20, 30 hours reading the bible, when I can simply ask the marvelous people of these blogs for examples. Can you think of a good reason?




Don't ridicule me for being Christian when I'm not, you fucking tool. :)


Now, occasionally, some idiot Christian will come along to the blog and say something along the lines of "If the blogger said that pigs had wings, you'd all believe him."

Constantly, the atheists and agnostics that participate in the blog would comment "No, we'd think things through" and, for the most part, I agree with them.

But this fucking asshat assumed I was Christian just because I didn't instantly agree with the blogger.

And it's happened a few times. Not just to me, mind you. People have argued with particular atheists, or the blog's overall argument, and others have assumed that they're Christian. It's utterly stupid! Not every atheist on the blog is like that, mind you, just a few idiots, and I suppose the purpose of this blog is just to whine.

So I'll stop there. : )

The nature of a lay man's argument is that two (or more) people have conflicting ideas, and the each is trying to prove to the other that they are correct. The nature of what should be (but not necessarily is, because scientists are painfully human, as well) a scientific and rational debate is the exchanging of ideas and a critiqueing of these ideas in order to discover the truth.

Generally, the arguments I see on myspace are just that; arguments. Not debates. There is little exchange of ideas, simply each person trying to prove to the other that they are correct.

People don't seem interested in finding the truth. They seem so sure that they already have it, and expect the other person to prove them wrong, as if they are not willing to question their own understanding and they need someone else to do it for them. As a result, little real progress is often made.

The idea of the "Burden of Proof", as used in myspace, illustrates this rather well. Whenever someone mentions it, I instantly feel like they have no interest in whether the other person is correct or incorrect. The idea is that it is someone's "responsibility" to prove their theory/belief to be true through the use of evidence.

Of course, some people will attempt to place the Burden of Truth on the other person, simply because they have already looked for proof and found none. But, if this is the case, it would make much more sense to say "I looked for proof and found none. So, if it's my responsibility, then I have fulfilled it, and found myself to be correct. If you have evidence to prove me wrong, by all means, show me. Otherwise, I can only assume that I was correct when I found none."

When you say, "The burden of proof is on you", it is much like saying "I don't have to really think about it. I'm not interested in whether you're correct. I don't care about the truth, I'm certain I already have it. If you want me to learn the truth, you have to show it to me, because I'm not willing to check it out on my own."

And this is my experience with the idea of the "Burden of Proof". If someone talks about someone else needing to present proof, rather than finding it themselves, then they don't really care to find the truth, because they're already sure they have it, and such close-mindedness is unscientific and unconstructive.

I think that science is better than faith, because when a scientific theory is found wrong, it is generally corrected, whereas faith generally demands to ignore all contrary evidence. But, if you're not interested in trying to find if your theory is wrong, and you only want to perpetuate your own ideas, then you are not very scientific, are you?

I would say the true rationalist, the true scientist, would constantly be attempting to prove themself wrong, rather than trying to prove themself right.

But this is just what I think. What do you think?

Contrary to what some atheists may say, what I understand of science is that it is based on a system of doubt, not certainty. If you say "this is definite", this is not particularly scientific, because if evidence can be shown to the contrary, this can be debated. "all available evidence points to this being definite" is much more scientific.

Gravity is a theory; for all we know, there are subatom-sized beings that pull bodies of mass towards larger bodies of mass. However, the evidence we have, and strong evidence from what I understand, would suggest otherwise. So, we have the theory of gravity. A strong theory, and a theory in the scientific sense, not the sense of just having an idea, but something backed up with evidence, but still a theory.

Any respectable and decent scientist is, in my opinion, not going to deny the existance of God; they are simply going to explain that it is outside of the realms of science. They may very well express doubt to the existance of God, and may argue that the existance of particular concepts of God are totally contrary to evidence (e.g. Jehovah isn't real because according to the source that claims Jehovah is real, we are born from Adam and Eve, which is scientifically understood to be not true, etc. etc.), but a statement such as "God does not exist" or, if you want to break this down, "no Absolute consciousness beyond the physical world exists", is not overly scientific because it cannot be proven.

This is why, inevitably, TRUE agnostics (not the ones who haven't thought about it) are the true scientists. This is why I get slightly annoyed when people say agnostics are "sitting on the fence" - what a load of crap.

I have a staunch disbelief in God, but I have no issue with others believing in him. I admit that many of them are illogical about it, BUT it is not logical to say "God does not exist", because you have no real evidence behind that opinion.

Hmm, it seems I've diverted from my original idea for this blog. I was intending to talk about the idea of disproving yourself. I guess I'll put that in the next blog.

I don't usually get angry on blogs, but someone HAD to mention that homosexuality is apparently a sin:

"If people would not commit the sins of fornication, adultery and homosexuality they would have no need of condoms, and AIDS would become obsolete. So, refrain from sex unless you are married and you will be safe and sanctified. Doesn't that make good sense?"

My reply:

"No. FUCK that. I refuse to be understanding and moderate myself here.

"Don't fucking call homosexuality a sin. I said it once and I'll say it again.

"If whatever God may exist doesn't like homosexuality, I'll make deals with the devil. I don't care if Lucifer puts me through torture, afterwards, at least he doesn't fucking discriminate.

"On a more moderate note, if no one fornicated, the human race would cease to exist."

Whether homosexuality is a result of nature or nurture is heavily debated and probably will be for a very long time to come. But, regardless of the causes of homosexuality, I am totally against the idea that sexuality is a "choice" - if attraction were a choice, animals would not have sex because they'd see no real reason to - logically, it's instinct.

And I know homosexuals. As far as I'm concerned, they're not harming anyone. ANYONE. So, if some motherfucker up in the sky wants to sentence them to eternal hellfire, I say that he needs to get off his fucking high horse. I swear to you, God, if you actually consider homosexuality an offence to yourself, and I find this out after I die, I will work for Satan. I don't care if Satan wants to damn the entire human race to pain and suffering, at least he doesn't fucking discriminate. Fuck you, homosexual-hating-god.

I'm going to be writing a few blogs exploring the motivations for many of the atheists and/or agnostics raging against religion across the myspace blogland and myspace forums. I am simply curious as to why religion is being so assaulted. I have my own issues with religion but I will not just assume that my reasons would be the same as others and so, I write this blog, as a survey of sorts (not that I do not want discussion).

Taking the easy way out, I ran to Wikipedia to grab a quick description of "antireligion", which seems to be the ideology of many:
"Antireligion is opposition to some or all religion. People who are antireligious see religions as inherently dangerous, destructive, divisive, foolish, or irrational."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion

I assume that many of the atheist bloggers I've encountered think like this. I may be wrong, I'm here to learn.

Such examples of these are "God Is Imaginary", "Human Evolution", "." (or "Christian Morality?"), and the "Rejection of Pascal's Wager".

So, I pose the question, why do you write (in) blogs/forums that point out the various gaps in religion? Is it because you are bored? Because you wish to learn, or educate? Because you hate religion? Because you like to sound smart? Because you wish to disprove religion? And, if so, why do you wish to disprove religion?

Warning: anyone who I am not targetting still has free rein to comment and discuss, but if you begin to make baseless accusations and/or deal out abuse, your comment will be discretely deleted without warning. This is my blog and I reserve the right to keep this blog focused on the matter at hand, rather than petty squabbling.  I am not impeaching on your right to speak, just your right to speak shit. Also, this is not a complaints board. If you are going to post a comment that gives nothing more than an impression of your displeasure, it will be deleted.

Ragamuffin

Awesome poetry, there, I reckon.

Couldn't have said it better, myself.

When it comes to the debate on God, it seems both sides of the fence can be petty and irrational. I'm really over it. I started reading God Is Imaginary's blog (look through my list of subscriptions), and it seemed that the majority of subscribers were relatively rational. Over the following weeks, cracks started to emerge.

First, I'll discuss the blog, "Why are Atheists Scared? Is God Real?". This was written by a Christian reader of GII's blogs. I initially went to the blog because he claimed that GII had deleted his comments because GII could not disprove them. Keeping an open mind, I went there, and found that these so-called un-disprovable comments had been disproved time and time again. He also went through about 20 of the atheist readers of GII's blogs and basically called them all names. lol

Point is, this guy seemed to be a bit irrational to me.

But my main concern with this blog is pointing out that there are people on BOTH sides that are a little... stupid.

Nah, you know what, fuck it. I was tryna be nice, but come on, you people are acting like a pack of fucking dumbass five-year olds. Seriously, you both just bag the shit out of eachother. The latest argument I've heard is that the atheists take quotes of the bible out of context. You know what? If the context will prove you right, then instead of bitching about that, just put a fucking context there! Someone did, and I found it rather convincing. It was fucking good. I generally am against Christianity, but this guy, he just put it down, put a context in, and I was like "You know what, he's right there. That's okay." END.

But, if you're not going to give contrary EVIDENCE, and just say "you're wrong cos you didn't put it all in", then shut up.

And yeah, here's an example of atheist stupidity.

I'll lay it out for you.

In the blog, "Proof 5 - Read The Bible", GII paraphrases a section of the bible condoning slavery:

"When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out a free person', then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.

"Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. But if someone wilfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution.

"Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death.

"Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall be put to death. Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.

"When individuals quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or fist so that the injured party, though not dead, is confined to bed, but recovers and walks around outside with the help of a staff, then the assailant shall be free of liability, except to pay for the loss of time, and to arrange for full recovery.

"When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property. [Exodus, chapter 21]"

Now, when I read this, yes, I thought "Okay, so that's pretty fucked up. The bible supports slavery." Anyone would think that, yeah? Fair enough. That's rational.

But then, I read this comment written by this person, "Joy is MAGNIFYING JESUS CHRIST". Yeah, I know, lame name, but give Joy a chance, okay? Joy basically points out (in an extremely long comment that is clearly plagiarism, but this is unimportant) that in the times of the old testament, slavery was not what slavery is today; what would happen is, people would sell themselves as slaves in order to survive - they cannot get food or shelter but, as a slave, they do get food and shelter so, it's either slavery, or death. I know which one I would choose.

Now, the way I see it, this changes everything. Because, if the bible did not condone slavery, than all of these voluntary slaves would DIE. Which would be BAD. Yes? So, instead, the bible just says "slaves are free after 6 years of service (so they have the option of eventually becoming free, which is good), and you must treat slaves with respect, and not harm them." - in other words, the bible is attempting to ensure that these people get food and shelter AND are treated well.

Of course, most just ignored this comment. But one or two just had to have a go. One atheist said:
"joy, this is a bunch of crap-- all skewed and self-serving disingenuous interpretations of the bible (itself a load of crap). and i furthermore seriously doubt that these are your words (you are supposed to cite references when you quote the work of others). final analysis: FAIL. try something else."

This is the same as Christians claiming it is out of context. No evidence was offered, simply, "you are wrong, cos I said so."

Now, I did, of course, point this out. I asked for evidence to disprove Joy. I got the following reply:

"does it? does this sentence sound reasonable to you:
"In fact, the slavery described in the Old Testament was quite different from the kind of slavery we think of today..."
this is unbelievably offensive and insulting, not to mention self-serving, since a skewed interpretation of what "slavery" used to feel like for slaves is a convenient way to rationalize your defense of the indefensible."

How is this evidence? You just repeated yourself - "you are wrong, cos I said so."

So, I repeated myself, too. Then another fellow replied with this:
"See the problem is it still condones slavery. You can try and pretty it up and fill it to make it an ok thing. All forms of slavery are wrong. How you can reconcile this is unimaginable."

Now, I won't call this guy stupid. This is a relatively logical comment. The only problem is, that he (presumably) doesn't believe in any God, yet he says that slavery is just plain wrong. If God does not define what is right and wrong, because he does not exist, than the only way to define right and wrong as subjective FACT is to look at nature. So go have a look. You'll see that nature doesn't give a shit about right and wrong. So, how can you say slavery CANNOT be okay? Do you think it would be more right to let these would-be slaves die cold and starving on the street?

This argument stuck for a while, thrown back and forth. In the end, it was a stalemate, where I refused to accept that morality can be considered a fact, or evidence.

I admit that atheist arguments are generally more rational than Christian arguments but, sometimes, they're just close-minded.

But, anyway, people, shut the fuck up. You're just name-calling and ignoring facts. Christian, atheist, whatever. Some of you are probably okay. The rest, go away. Goddamn myspace.

Hopefully my myspace isn't deleted because of this blog. lol

The song, "Good Night" (see previous blog), is reconnecting me to my hippy roots, and I'm just feeling a lot of love at the moment. So I just wanna send it out to you kids out there. I hope you're all feeling alright, yeah? Drop a line if you're down. Or even if you're not down. Just wanna chat, we can mellow out together.

Much love, kids!

*free hugs*

My people, no goodbyyyyyeeees to you,
So I'm just gonna say goodniiiiight.

"Good Night" by Kanye West, featuring Mos Def & Al Be Back

[Bridge: Mos Def]
I'm not sure anymore-more
Who is knocking at my door-door
All the faces that I know
You make them so sunny and true

[Chorus: Mos Def]
I don't wanna say goodbye to you
So I'll just say good night to you
My people, no goodbyes to you
I'm just gonna say good night

[Verse: Kanye West]
Right now I can see it so vivid
Like it was just yesterday like I could relive it
Me and my grandparents on a field trid-ip
And I'm the little kid tryna touch the exhibits
But it'll fade before I get to get a hold of that
Man I wish I could stop time like a photograph
Every joke that they told I'd know to laugh
Man, man, I wouldn't let a moment pass
What do it mean when you dream that you fallin'
What do it mean when you dream that you ballin'
What do it mean when you never dream at all then
Or you don't really know 'cause you can't recall them
It's sorta fly you get a chance to say hi to
People you never got a chance to say bye to
Maybe you could pull em up outta your dreams
Into real life, if you try to
So close, but so far
And so far, no cigar
We can't dwell on the past, all we got is today
So I'mma live like there's no tomorrow
No goodbye

[Chorus: Mos Def]
I don't wanna say goodbye to you
So I'll just say good night to you
My people, no goodbyes to you
I'm just gonna say good night

[Verse: Al Be]
Uhh, to you
If I part my heart will live through you
Dream beautiful and unusual
Wake up like every day new to you
Stay true to you, a hood musical
My art will live through you
Dream beautiful and unusual
Wake up like every day new to you
Stay true to you, a hood musical

[Chorus: Mos Def]
I don't wanna say goodbye to you
So I'll just say good night to you
My people, no goodbyes to you
I'm just gonna say good night

[Bridge x3: Mos Def]
I'm not sure anymore-more
Who is knocking at my door-door
All the faces that I know
You make them so sunny and true