Submit an Article | Bookmarked Articles
Viewing Articles About All - Page 16
| Suicide and Self-Mutilation...It's all the Rage! | June 13, 2007, 5:36PM |
 by: Der_Todesengel |
|
Self-Mutilation and Suicide…It’s all the Rage! By: Malakai 6/13/07 These topics are yet another thing that pisses me off about the younger population of the world, and it the person can be over 18 also, I’ve seen some pretty immature adults. Especially the “kinds of people” who I run into because of my interests of being a part an alternative subculture. These two things are reasons (among others) are why I have my little motto; “Just because you have a similar style of dress/taste of music doesn’t mean I will talk to you. Just because our style of dress/taste in music differs, doesn’t mean I will not talk to you.” But with these two things, they can come with pretty much anyone you come in contact with, and I make sure to watch out if a person I speak to is showing any of these and I will break contact with them immediately. So the first thing is Suicide. Suicide has become a trend. Suicide if committed by anyone is a selfish and useless act. I do not feel any sympathy for a person who commits suicide, regardless if they’re close to me or not. People (mostly nowadays teenagers of both sexes) do not think of life when they are gone or the consequences that it will have on their family and friends, which can be a big burden on their parents and send some of not all of their family into psychological counseling. Another thing that annoys me is; People that brag about suicide to get attention. These people you know aren’t serious at all. I find it annoying to see that people are willing to kill themselves over such stupid shit. Just some of the blogs and profiles I’ve read are just unbelievable. Just because that boy/girl doesn’t like you, your boyfriend/girlfriend had a fight with you, you can’t get those awesome shoes at the store, or your parents don’t buy you everything you want; isn’t a reason to kill yourself. There is really no real reason to take your own life. I will further say that killing yourself over a relationship, I will laugh in your face. There are plenty of fish in the sea, as they say, and killing yourself over someone is the dumbest thing you can do. Especially if they’re between the ages of 15 to 18, you haven’t even experienced life yet! There are tons of people you will meet over a lifetime, and with that you will have your few people who do fuck you over, but that’s life. There will be one person you will find that will take your breath away. Your teen years are years you will soon forget and go on to your adult life. With the mentality of people these days, chances are that when you break up with someone or someone fucks you over, you will find a new person to like in about a week to a month. What I also realize is that people are killing themselves over petty shit in high school. Being a member of CrimeLibrary.com, I read about this a lot happening all over the world. If the “different, weird” person doesn’t shoot up the school, they’re slitting their wrists or hanging from a tree in their backyard. Yeah, high school is a bitch, but if you want to get a good education and go to college and do something with your life, then you have to stick it out, and deal with it. High school is only four years long, so you have to learn for those four years, and then you will be free to do whatever you please with your life, if you plan to do anything with it, that is. People fear what they do not understand, and that is true with everything different in the world that isn’t the social norm. Be proud you’re different, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Now for; Self-Mutilation Now of course I know I will have tons of people giving me reasons why they cut or self-mutilate and why it’s okay to do, or why they do it. Don’t waste your breath, it’s not going to change my mind. Cutters and self-mutilators, what can I say about them. I can say that I fucking dislike people like that. There is no real reason to cut or mutilate yourself. This is common in the younger world these days (but and again, I’ve known some pretty immature adults). With all the whiney, angst-ridden shit that they call music, that it is okay to do that to yourself. Some people, well, pretty much all people do it for attention. You can tell who is an attention-seeker-cutter if they cut themselves all over their wrists and visible body areas, just so people ask questions and they can flaunt their “pain”. There have also been countless people of both sexes that have posted pictures of their cuts/self-mutilation all over the Internet, MySpace or other community profile web site or blog. In my opinion is the stupidest way of getting some positive attention, and the only attention you’d get from me or any other sane-minded person by doing that shit would be negative. Another thing that annoys me is the kind of people who actually flaunt or show great appreciation that they cut/mutilate themselves, this is just ridiculous. Cutting or self-mutilation can also lead to permanently harming yourself. First off, scarring/burns/punctures, and scar tissue can do a number on your appearance. If you mutilate so much, you can damage the nerves in that part of parts of your body and lose feeling or have a permanent “tingling sensation” in that part of your body, or lose all feeling for that part entirely. Self-Mutilation is indeed a psychological issue and if you have this problem, you should get professional help. I’ve asked people the reasons why they cut or self-mutilate and these are some of the answers I’ve gotten; 1. “I cut myself because it helps me cope with the pain.” My Comment What pain could you possibly be facing that would cause you to self-mutilate yourself? If anything you are causing yourself more pain then whatever-it-is you’re cutting because of. Mental pain indeed can be more painful then physical pain, I assure you, but that is no reason to mutilate yourself. 2. “I self-mutilate because I hate how I look.” My Comment This is just being totally hypocritical of the situation and is also quite amusing at the same time. You say you hate how you look, but yet you want to fuck yourself up more so you can look like a doctor had a field day on your body doing an operation? Just because you think you’re fat doesn’t mean you have to hack yourself up, it makes you ten times more unattractive in more ways then one. Trust me. 3. “I like how it feels and/or I like blood.” My Comment Well just because you like blood doesn’t mean you have to mutilate yourself just so you can see it. The liking the look or feel of blood is actually a mental condition. As for liking how it feels, you’ve got way to much time on your hands, and/or you need to get a life if all you do is sit around and cut yourself. Loser. 4. “I cut myself because I want people to see my pain.” My Comment (When I first heard the person I asked whom told me this one, I laughed so hard I fell on the floor and cried I was laughing so hard.) Attention-seeker. Period. 5. “I do it because everyone else is doing it.” My Comment (Okay, I made that last one up…but with some of the people these days, you’ll hear anything.) | |
topic: Life | |
[reply] [25 comments] |
|
| The reason to live: sister | June 12, 2007, 4:43PM |
 by: DeathNoble |
|
Nicki, a former Hooters girl and recently a cover girl model for SaltLife. There are no memories that date back to a time when my sister was not a part of my life. A close childhood friend from the days when times were still good and innocence gave false promises of a happy life. The days when we grew up and realized exactly the kind of darkness that could be injected into us as fate chewed us up and spit us out, which is what has made us as close as we are now. Today, she is an immaculate freelance model with a dream of one day becoming a cosmetologist with her own salon. Perhaps the earliest memory I have of Nicki is over a decade ago, a day at church when I split my pants. Nicki’s mother, unable to reach mine by phone, took me in her car and drove me to their house, where I was to borrow a pair of pants from her daughter and wear them back to church. I, a humiliated and overweight five year old with a new pair of backless chaps around my waist, walked in the door and was overwhelmed with glee to see the owner of the pants I was to borrow, a complete tomboy watching cartoons on the floor in the living room of the oversized house. You know you’re somebody’s friend when you’re wearing their pants, so play-dates were made by parental units for multiple play-dates after that day. Indeed, the happiest memory I have of childhood is the day when we were in my room, playing Power Rangers, with Transformers, when Nicki suddenly asked me if I had a crush on her. Despite her tomboy appearance, Nicki came into this world with a supermodel’s good looks, and so I wasn’t ashamed to admit that I did. She leaned over and kissed me on the cheek and told me that she had a crush on me, too. But this elementary, childhood relationship didn’t last long, as none seem to make it to the top of the next hour. It wasn’t too long before the old days, which contained these happy memories withered away, leaving two hurting teenagers with the scars of life’s rough spots in plain view for everyone to see. Our age had doubled in numbers, and I was twelve. With the age comes an onslaught of new emotions, feelings, experiences, and so forth. Puberty and a few other forces, some actually physical, were beating me with a relentless anger I couldn’t understand. A whole new individual rose from the ashes of the happy, short, nerdy fat kid that everyone had grown accustomed to. I hated everyone and everything, because everything was telling me who and what to be, and everyone didn’t care in the least. I am not ashamed to admit that I sunk further and further into depression. At the mere accursed age of twelve, thoughts of ending all the pain inside me were already brewing. What did anyone care? I would just be another statistic to them. So I open the drawer and move papers aside, hunting for that Swiss army knife that every dad gives their son at perhaps too young of an age. Before I even found it, the phone rang. It was Nicki, and she just wanted to call to see how I was doing because it had been a while since we talked. To someone who’s suicidal, just a single person that cares enough to make a phone call can mean the world to you. If she hadn’t called right then and there, I might not be around anymore. She saved my life. She saved me from myself. But this damn world is governed by Alchemy’s first law of equivalent exchange. Humankind cannot gain anything without giving up something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must first be lost… I was in the hospital three years later when my sister’s boyfriend at the time died. He asphyxiated after eating something he was allergic to. His windpipe closed up and the paramedics never got there in time. While she went to the funeral of the one she loved, her little brother was fighting to keep his limb intact on a hospital bed. You wouldn’t believe the bond two people can share when they have so much pain welled up inside them. We’re both better now, but we each have our days when things get tough. But we have each other and that makes everything better. I’m graduating from high school pretty soon and going on to college to pursue a degree in web design and development thanks to Master Eon’s inspiration. Nicki will be moving away in a month or two to Tallahassee to go to one of Florida’s most prestigious beauty schools. It’s going to be hard on us, but it’s only nine months and then she’ll be back. Besides, you never fall out of touch with family. Nicki’s impacted my life, because in a lot of ways, she is my life. | |
topic: Essays | |
[reply] [1 comment] |
|
| Update Roundup | June 9, 2007, 10:56PM |
 by: eon |
|
I've done a number of little updates which I'll list here. 1. Group Applications. Now when your group is set to require applications from new members, there will be a comment box where applicants can let you know why they want to join. Go to the 'Manage Member' page for your group and look at the top of the menu. Here, you can provide instructions that will be shown to all of your applicants so they'll know what you're looking for on their application. For instance, if your group was about books, you could ask them to list their favorite authors. 2. The group applicants who are waiting for your approval will be listed along with the first 250 characters of their application to make everything easier to browse. Each applicant will link to a special page where you can review their entire application, see their picture, link back to their profile, approve or deny the application, etc.. 3. Staff Threads in Groups. You now have the option of creating topics in your groups which will only be visible to Moderators and higher. This will make it easier for group leaders to conference in private, just check the 'Staff Only?' box when you create your new topic. A special symbol (yellow star) will appear next to staff threads on your forum lists. 4. Comment Private Profiles. Andromeda members who have set their profile to private may allow blocked visitors to leave a comment. To enable this feature go to: Control Panel -> Experience -> Profile Privacy Message Box Thanks, guys... | |
topic: Site News | |
[reply] [7 comments] |
|
| Orgin of Sagging pants | June 8, 2007, 11:12AM |
 by: Syn |
|
I was walking down the street to go get a few redbulls and some snacks for the week i see a few kids wearing baby blue tshirts that don't look like they fit them and their pants were above their knees. I then decided to do some research on why they do that. It all started with "Gangster Rap" which was originated in prison. here exactly is the definition of "The Sagging Of the Pants." "Sagging" is the fashion of wearing trousers (slacks, shorts or jeans) below the waist, hanging around the buttock area. Usually the underwear is worn higher, so that the underwear is exposed, but not much bare skin. The style is typically worn by males. Sagging began in prisons, where ill-fitting uniforms and rules forbidding belts resulted in falling-down pants. The practice spread to Los Angeles and New York City street gangs. This style expresses a "tough guy" image for the wearer, and became a prominent element of hip hop fashion as gangsta rap became popular in the 1990s, and remains very popular today, especially with middle and high school students. In many school districts across the United States, sagging is prohibited. The Virginia General Assembly tried but failed to approve a law making the sagging style illegal in February 2005. Now thats just one of the many definitons of "sagging." It did start in the prisons but it meant that the person with sagging pants was a so called "prostitute" or even "open for buisness." The technical term they use in prison is "Prison b***h" now i know that its considerd a fashion but do half of these people out there know where it came from? Where its orgin lies? I think not but maybe if they were to read or hear about it from actual people going to jail maybe then they will change their mind and wear a belt or pants that fit them. In my all honest opinion they need to pull their pants up no one wants to see their boxers or underwear showing. So next time you see someone walking down the street with their pants almost at their ankles inform them the orgin of "Sagging the Pants."Maybe the they will pull them up and fasten the belt or even go out buy some pants that actualy fit and look more civilized. | |
topic: Various | |
[reply] [9 comments] |
|
| Genocide in Rwanda and Sudan | June 4, 2007, 6:48AM |
 by: nothingmoves |
|
13 years ago genocide transpired in Rwanda. In 100 days about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. The explanation for the event begins with the Belgian colonists, who emphasized what they (under the influence of the then popular "phrenology" movement) took to be a deep, biological, difference between Tutsis and Hutus. They issued everyone identification cards which listed their "ethnicity", and ceded all of the elite governmental posts to the Tutsis. What is often thought of as an ethic division really turned into a class war. The Hutus were the disenfranchised peasant class, and the Tutsis were the ruling, often corrupt, elite. The peasants wanted to rise up and make things right. And they tried at least once before Rwanda received its independence in the 60s. Some 20, 000 Tutsis were killed in conflicts in the 50s. But when the Belgians finally left, the Hutus took over. A mostly Tutsi rebel force, the "RPF", formed. Things were tense for the next 40 or so years. But they were also functional. In the early 90s the RPF and the Hutu government agreed to a peace deal. UN peacekeepers were sent in to see that it was abided by. Nothing about it seemed very sincere. Extremist Hutu radio stations continued to broadcast aggressive, hate-filled, tirades about the "Tutsi cockroaches", and the UN authority there, Roméo Dallaire, contacted UN headquarters reporting a shipment of vast numbers of arms to Hutu militias, and requesting the right to impound them. In the same message Dallaire told UN headquarters that he had reason to believe that hutus would attempt a genocide if something wasn't done. The UN told him that he was out of line. He and his men weren't allowed to fire a shot. Days after the signing of the peace deal the president's plane was shot down, apparently by the RPF (the president being a Hutu). Immediately, the killings began. In rhetoric shockingly similar to the Nazis', extremist Hutus broadcast speeches to the effect that the "final solution" to Rwandan problems required the annihilation of the Tutsis. The Tutsis had to be purged from the map, so that Rwanda could be made clean. Hutus throughout the country were told to kill their Tutsi neighbors. Moderate Hutus were to be killed along with them. As the fighting broke out, 10 Belgian UN peacekeepers were sent to guard the token Tutsi prime minister. All 10, along with the prime minister and his family, were killed. Dallaire reported the severity of the situation to UN authorities, and pleaded for 3000 more troops with combat capabilities. In response, the Belgians pulled all of their troops out immediately, and the overall number of troops was reduced from 2000, to 270. Almost all of the remaining troops were poorly trained and African. Dallaire himself violated orders by staying in Rwanda. Very soon it became apparent that what was happening in Rwanda was genocide -- the intentional extermination of an entire group of people. But, having lost a handful of troops in the infamous mogadishu mission, the leader of the world's lone superpower, Bill Clinton, refused to interfere in any African affairs that failed to involve our "national interest". Other western powers followed suit. Even so, the UN is required, by its charter, to stop genocide, by force if necessary. So, if western governments were to admit the obvious, that genocide was taking place in Rwanda, they might find their troops wearing blue helmets and being shot at by Hutu militias. Hence, exchanges like this between western diplomats and reporters became commonplace ("Shelly" is Christine Shelly, former US state department spokesman): Shelly: Based on the evidence we have seen from observations on the ground, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred in Rwanda. Elsner: What's the difference between "acts of genocide" and "genocide"? Shelly: Well, I think ... as you know, there's a legal definition of this ... clearly not all of the killings that have taken place in Rwanda are killings to which you might apply that label ... But as to the distinctions between the words, we're trying to call what we have seen so far as best as we can; and based, again, on the evidence, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred. Elsner: How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide? Shelly: Alan, that's just not a question that I'm in a position to answer. The western powers, thus, sat by as Tutsi civilians were slaughtered at the rate of more than 275, 000 per month. The slaughter only ended when the RPF took the capital, 3 months after the extermination began. The Hutu militias fled to the Democratic Republic of Congo, along with many Hutu civilians who feared Tutsi reprisal. The current president of Rwanda is the former leader of the RPF, and many of the Congo's recent problems stem from the 1994 influx of Hutu militias and refugees. All of this is old hat. But it needs to be repeated. If you don't believe me, just make your way to the international section of your favorite newspaper, and see what's happening in Sudan (and a bit in Chad). What's been happening in Sudan is, for all practical purposes, just what was happening in Rwanda 13 years ago. An entire group of people are being exterminated. Some of the killing is being done by government troops; some of it is being done by government-sponsored militant groups; and some of it is being done by civilian populations. But the purpose in all of it is clear -- to wipe an entire people off of the map. Once again, the UN has failed to call it genocide. Once again, the peacekeeping troops are powerless. Once again, everyone who is in a position to do something about it is looking the other way. We should have learned from our mistakes after we watch the Nazis slaughter the Jews; and then after we watched the Turks slaughter the Armenians; and then after we watched the Hutus slaughter the Tutsis. But, for God's sake, let's learn from our fucking mistakes this time. Every life is equally valuable. Losing 1 American is sad. But losing 1 million Africans is 1 million times sadder. Do something: http://www.savedarfur.org/content?splash=yes http://www.darfurgenocide.org/ http://hrw.org/doc?t=africa&c=darfur | |
topic: Current Events | |
[reply] [13 comments] |
|
| Definition of Cause, based on belief. | May 30, 2007, 4:59PM |
 by: Insane |
|
This is a essay, I had to do research on for science, on belief, though not allowed in schools, I was forced apon it anyways, I've taken bits and pieces and written it in my own words, so enjoy. he most famous and influential definition of a cause is Hume's definition; indeed, most contemporary definitions include conditions that are similar in some respect to at least one of the three conditions included in Hume's definition: "Contiguity in time and place is therefore a requisite circumstance to the operation of all causes...Priority in time is...another requisite circumstance in every case....[A] third circumstance [is] that of constant conjunction betwixt the cause and the effect. Every object like the cause produces always some object like the effect. Beyond these three circumstances of contiguity, priority, and constant conjunction I can discover nothing in this cause."[1] Hume's definition includes three conditions for being a cause: temporal priority, spatio-temporal contiguity, and a nomological relation ("every object like the cause produces always some object like the effect".) (a) TEMPORAL PRIORITY If time began to exist with the universe, the "temporal priority" condition of Hume's definition implies that the universe cannot be caused to begin to exist since there is no earlier time at which the cause could occur. Even if there is time before the universe, the "temporal priority" condition rules out an originating divine cause if all divine acts are timeless. However, the "temporal priority" condition only shows the universe cannot have an originating divine cause if time began to exist with the universe or if all divine acts are timeless. It is logically possible that time preceded the beginning of the universe, even if there are no known laws of physics according to which the physical variable t can take values earlier than the time at which space and mass-energy began to exist. Further, it is logically possible that God exists in time and that a pre-universe time is occupied by God's mental life, which includes his volitions. Thus, it is logically possible for a divine volition to meet the "temporal priority" condition of Hume's definition. The intractable problems begin with the other two conditions. (b) SPATIO-TEMPORAL CONTIGUITY Hume's and many other definitions of causality require that the causal event is spatially in contact with, or is spatially near to, the effect. God is said to be omnipresent, but this means she is conscious of and stands in a volitional relation to each physical particular. It does not mean that divine volitions, which are non-physical, touch or are in the spatial vicinity of the physical particulars that are the objects of these volitions. God's act of willing that the big bang occurs is not spatio-temporally contiguous with the big bang since this act of willing does not have spatial coordinates. c and e are spatio-temporally contiguous only if the spatial coordinates x, y, z that locate c on a manifold either are identical with the spatial coordinates x', y' ,z' of e, or locate c in the neighborhood of e. (c) NOMOLOGICAL RELATEDNESS The third feature of Hume's definition, the nomological condition ("every object like the cause produces always some object like the effect"), is also common to many definitions of causality. Hume's definition belongs to the line of reductive definitions that define causes in terms of laws of nature and a set of non-causal relations (such as temporal priority and spatio-temporal contiguity) between two particulars c and e.[2] According to these definitions, c is a cause of e only if there is a law of nature L that enables a statement that e occurs to be deduced from the premises that c occurs and that the law L obtains. For example, Carl Hempel writes[3]: "a 'cause' must be allowed to be a more or less complex set of circumstances or events, which might be described by a set of statements C1, C2, . . . Ck. ....Thus the causal explanation implicitly claims that there are general laws- -let us say, L1, L2, . . . Lk--in virtue of which the occurrence of the causal antecedents mentioned in C1, C2, . . . Ck is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of the explanadum event." A probabilistic law L may be permitted as well, in which case "to be deduced from" would be replaced by "to be inductively supported by". However, the nomological condition for being a cause is logically inconsistent with a divine cause of the big bang, since God by definition is a supernatural being and his or her actions are not governed by laws of nature. Furthermore, the fact that God's willing is omnipotent makes "the big bang occurs" deducible from "God wills that the big bang occur" alone, without the need of any supplementary nomological premise, thus vitiating the condition that a nomological premise is a logically necessary condition for the derivation of the conclusion that the effect exists from premises one of which is that the causal event occurs. At this point, we have already ruled out virtually every extant definition of causality, since most every definition includes either the spatio-temporal contiguity condition or the nomological condition. We are left with non-contiguity and singularist definitions of causality. A non-contiguity definition does not mention spatio-temporal contiguity and does not require the cause to be both temporally and spatially contiguous with the effect; variants of non-contiguity definitions may allow for timeless divine acts and/or temporal divine acts that are not spatially nearby or in contact with the effect. A singularist definition allows an event to cause an effect in a single case, without the cause and effect needing to instantiate some law. However, the extant formulations that are singularist and/or noncontiguity definitions are few and far between and prove problematic for a defender of the logical possibility of an originating divine cause. Also, to add, there's: Ducasse's Singularist definition of cause. The most famous singularist definition of a cause is J. C. Ducasse's. Ducasse's conception "defines the cause of a particular event in terms of but a single occurrence of it, and thus in no way involves the supposition that it, or one like it, ever has occurred before or ever will again. The supposition of recurrence is thus wholly irrelevant to the meaning of cause; that supposition is relevant only to the meaning of law."[4] Since the nomological condition is explicitly rejected, it seems this definition applies to God's willing that the big bang occurs. However, further inspection of Ducasse's definition shows it does not apply, since his definition requires spatio-temporal contiguity. Ducasse claims the cause c is a sufficient condition of the effect e and that c is sufficient for e if (i) c is a change that occurred during a time and throughout a space terminating at an instant i at a surface s of an object; (ii) the change e occurred during a time and through a space beginning at the instant i at the surface s; (iii) no change other than c occurred during the time and through the space of c, and (iv) no change other than e occurred during the time and through the space of e.[5] Thus, Ducasse's account meets the singularist criterion, but not the non-contiguity criterion. (Although Ducasse calls his account a "definition" of a cause, it is only a partial definition, since he begins his definition with "if", not "if and only if".) | |
topic: Essays | |
[reply] [13 comments] |
|
| Religious Hypocrisy | May 24, 2007, 5:00PM |
 by: Burrito_Cult |
|
Religious leaders the world over claim that organized religion teaches people morality, that religious texts are a guide-book for good living. Yet, some of the most powerful religious groups in the world have done some of the most horrible things. The Catholic Church is one of the largest religious groups in the world, yet they have done many immoral things. They have a ritualized style of worship and if anyone chooses to worship differently or has beliefs that they do not agree with, they label them a heretic and excommunicate them. This has happened to many great and iconoclastic thinkers, such as Galileo. During the Renaissance, the printing press was invented and for the first time the Bible was available to the masses so that they could read it and interpret it for themselves. Suddenly, people were thinking for themselves and relating to God in their own way. Instead of embracing this change, the Catholic Church started the Inquisitions. They tortured people into making confessions that sometimes weren't even true (some people made up a lie just to end the torture) and then they murdered them, and all in the name of God. None of this is moral, and there are still many other religions and many other violations of human rights. Catholicism is only one example of the immorality of the so-called moral. People use their religious beliefs as an excuse for their prejudices and for their immoral actions. When people colonized a country against the original inhabitants' will, they always used religion as an excuse, saying that they were bringing religion to the people. They called them savages, took their land, and killed them if they dared to rebel; all in the name of bringing them religion. When people bought slaves, they used religion as an excuse, saying that Africans were savages and cannibals and sinners and that they were doing the Africans a favour by enslaving them because they were teaching them to be Christians. Hate groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church use their religious beliefs as a reason to target gays, Muslims, Catholics, and Jews for discrimination. The religious leaders themselves have committed horrific and dishonest acts. The Catholic Church, before the reformation, sold indulgences. Basically, when you felt that you had committed a sin, you would go the church, confess to the priest, and he would pardon you, for a price. Buying and selling forgiveness could not possibly be moral. It is exploiting people's insecurities. The televangelists trick people into sending them money, which they extort from the churches for their own use. The televangelists condemn gays, divorcees, and people of other faiths, yet they steal money from their own churches and have extramarital affairs. The catholic priests have been molesting young children and covering it up. The Church authorities have failed to punish the molesters, instead choosing to cover up the scandal. The religious leaders of the world are immoral hypocrites. If they are meant to lead us on the right path, there is no hope. Politicians have used their religious beliefs an excuse to make laws that strip people of their personal rights. They use Bible verses to support their sodomy laws that forbid gays to have intimate relations, even in the privacy of their own homes and even when both parties are of age. They use Bible verses to ban gay marriage, saying that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage. They used Bible verses, years ago, when forbidding women to vote or to own property or to have custody of their children after a divorce. They use Bible verses in the present day to challenge the legality of abortions and of birth control. Religion has been used to explain away book banning, book burning, and censorship of music and television. When you practise censorship, you are trying to control what people think, which is a violation of human rights. In the end, what matters is not what God you pray to, or what place of worship you attend, but your actions. Organized religion, when it comes down to it, is only empty words and ceremonies. What is real is your actions and your beliefs. You do not have to believe in any particular religion to be a good person. Don't steal. Don't murder. Don't rape. Be nice to people. Be kind and considerate and caring. Help people when you are able. These are things that all people are capable, regardless of their faith. I am happy for people who truly believe in a Higher Power and feel that their beliefs help them in their daily life. But I am equally happy for people who do not believe in any particular religion and are still happy. Religion is a matter of choice. It should not be forced onto you and it does not determine the validity of your character. No matter what you believe, whether you are Hindu, Catholic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Quaker, Pagan, or Atheist, try to be a good person. It's that simple. I myself am a Christian and I believe very strongly in God, but at the same time, i realize that you do not have to share my beliefs to be a good and moral human being. | |
topic: Essays | |
[reply] [13 comments] |
|
| The Effect of Commercialization of Mainstream Hip-Hop: by Devan | May 24, 2007, 4:44PM |
by: Burrito_Cult |
|
Hip-hop began in the streets of New York City in the early 1970s. It was a way for Black and Hispanic youths to connect with one another, communicate, and compare their rhyming skills. The early hip-hop culture is comparable to the Harlem Renaissance in that it allowed Black people to communicate their feelings and experiences artistically. But, as hip-hop music became increasingly commercialized in the early 1990s, the nature of the music changed. There were no more good-natured rap battles or thought-provoking rhymes. Instead, the lyrics became filled with hate-speech against women and gays, violent depictions of gang life, and blatant product placement. Hip hop music dehumanizes women, Black and other minority women in particular. It turns them into sex objects and takes away their dignity. One of the first examples of a hip-hop artist objectifying women would be "Me So Horny" by the Two Live Crew. They were charged with obscenity for their lyrics, but instead of discouraging hip hop artists from using misogynistic and sexually offensive lyrics, the obscenity charges only made 2 Live Crew more popular and added to their record sales, teaching hip-hop artists everywhere that controversy equals popularity. So now, rappers everywhere are objectifying women, calling us "bitches" and "ho's" and threatening our safety with sadomasochistic sexual acts. But some musical artists go even further, bringing racism against women into the picture. For example, "Crazy Rap" by Afroman, where he uses stereotypes and racial slurs as well as sexual objectification. This is an example of his lyrics. "Met this beautiful sexy ho; she just ran cross the border of Mexico. Fine young thing, said her name's Maria. I wrapped her up just like a hot tortilla. I wanna get married, but I can't afford it. I know I'ma cry when she gets deported." Some rappers go even farther though, threatening women with actual physical harm, like one of the more popular musical artists of our time, Eminem. He routinely makes threatening songs about women, such as this. "Slut, you think I won't choke no whore til the vocal cords don't work in her throat no more?!" Yet, we continue to give him airtime and Grammies and record deals. We are rewarding these sexists for their close-mindedness, and because we reward them for their misogyny, they continue to push the envelope. Hip hop, besides being degrading towards women is also very homophobic. There are many songs with homophobic lyrics, such as "Boom Bye Bye" by Buju Banton, which incites violence against gay men. When questioned about the homophobic conetent of his song, Buju Baanton cited his religious beliefs as an excuse. There are also more recent songs that contain hate-speech against homosexuals, such as "My Name Is" by Eminem. In "My Name Is" Eminem jokingly refers to raping lesbians and also jokes about mutilating a gay man. The hip-hop industry, as well, is very homophobic. In 2003, Caushun, an openly gay hip hop artist, got a record deal with Russell Simmons. But his record deal was revoked after he appeared in a documentary about gay and lesbian hip hop artists. This proves that there is no room for members of the LGTB community in mainstream hip-hop. The good news is that groups such as GLAAD and PFLAG have been speaking out against homophobic songs and musical artists. Also, hip-hop artists such as Kanye West and Ice-T have been speaking out against homophobia in the hip-hop community. Hip hop's glorification of gang violence is another example of controversy equalling success. Gangsta rap, a category of hip-hop that depicts gang violence, poverty, and crime in the Black community, first became popular in the late 80's with Ice-T and NWA. But instead of glamorizing violence and crime, they spoke out against political corruption, police brutality, and crime in songs such as "F___ the Police." They were criticized by religious leaders, politicians, and law enforcers for their violent, aggressive, and political lyrics; in other words controversy, which made them famous. Soon, other artists followed suit. By the mid 90s, gangsta rap had transformed itself from a small sub-category of hip-hop into a mainstream form of music. Now, instead of criticizing gang violence, gangsta rap glorifies it. Hip-hop is filled with hero worship of criminals and faux-criminals. Hip-hop artists are under so much pressure to portray a tough image that they are inventing a criminal past for themselves that no longer even exists. Murder rates in the inner-city are down, drug sales are declining, and employment rates are up, yet rappers still portray themselves as coming from a murderous and drug-ridden lifestyle. They brag about their criminal pasts, their bullet wounds, and their poverty-stricken childhoods as though they were badges of honour. As hip-hop becomes increasingly commercialized, it becomes increasingly materialistic. Some hip-hop artists have even been paid to mention certain brands. In the year 2005, McDonald's paid hip-hop artists to mention their food in their songs. They only reneged on the deal after the press found out about their plans. Busta Rhymes recorded the song "Pass the Courvoisier," in which he makes reference to Courvoisier, Henessy, and Cristal, after Russel Simmons made a deal with the company agreeing to promote their liquor. As well as blatant product placement, hip-hop artists glorify a bling-bling lifestyle. They brag about their diamonds, their mansions, and their cars. It shows how corrupt hip-hop has become. It ceases to talk about emotions and personal experiences and instead chooses to focus on wordly goods. I don't mean to condemn hip-hop entirely. There are still many good hip-hop artists and many good hip-hop songs. Underground artists, such as Dead Prez and Aesop Rock have made thouyght provoking lyrics about the corrupt government and the way the media misleads us. Mainstream Artists, such as Ludacris have written touching and provocative songs such as "Runaway Love" his anthem for victims of child abuse. And artists such as Kanye West have even challenged the hip-hop industry, with songs such as "Breath In, Breath Out." But mainstream hip-hop is completely different from the hip hop of the late 70s and early 80s. It contains almost no social commentary or self-expression. Instead it is vapid, offensive, and a sign of a dying art form. It provides validation for all of the stereotypes about black people; that we are violent, that our women are promiscuous, that we are bad with money. The people that write these songs are betraying their own race, are providing ammunition for the people that hate us. There are many good hip-hop artists, but the bad ones are the ones making the most money and getting the most airplay right now. It's time for hip-hop to go back to it's roots. Hip hop was powerful in the late 80s and early 90s. It was more than an art form, it was a way of life. It was the Beat Generation of the black community. It was the Harlem Renaissance all over again. But when the record companies realized it was profitable, and when the advertisers realized they could use it to sell their things, and when money-hungry kids realized they could use rap to get rich, hip-hop became watered down and it lost it's power. It was stripped of it's message and it's signifigance and now it's nothing more than beats and rhymes. I think this is not entirely coincidental. I think they purposely took the power away from hip-hop because it could have been used to incite black people to make changes, socially, politically, and economically. And that was just too much of a threat to the establishment, so they tore hip-hop down from the inside. It's time for hip-hop to go back to it's roots or it will die. | |
topic: Essays | |
[reply] [30 comments] |
|
| Is being gay really a sin? | May 22, 2007, 4:34PM |
 by: Christina.Chaos |
|
Alright. So I've thought on this a lot, and I thought I'd actually share my opinion on the subject of homosexuality being a sin. So, before you all sit there and go all "I don't care" on me, hear me out. Whether you believe in God or not, a lot of people obviously do, both gay and straight. I personally was raised as a Christian, and I am in fact a lesbian. Now, I've thought about this a lot because of all that I've been taught, such as the whole "homosexuals go to hell for being that way" thing. Well, after thinking on it for a long time, I've come to a conclusion that I as well as other seem to think is a rather valid one. And that is that it is said that God created everything and everyone the way he thought was perfect. Well, if that is in fact the case, then how could it be possible or even fair that homosexuals end up in hell for being the way they are when they're born that way? It has been scientifically proven that a person doesn't simply choose to be gay, but are in fact born with it. However, it doesn't always show right away. In some ways it does, but the person might not really notice the difference until they're a bit older. For me, I was about 10 or 11 before I realized that I had an attraction to people of the same sex as I. Late, when I was about 12 or 13, I realized that I really had no attraction whatsoever to anyone of the male gender. But, this can be different for everyone. Anyway, people assume that we choose to be the way we are, but what they don't realize is that in being the way that we are, we constantly have to deal with ridicule and different kinds of abuse ranging from mental to even phisical. Now honestly, who would choose to be gay when they have to deal with all of those things on a daily basis? My point is, If it was a choice, I can bet that most homosexuals would be straight today, because they wouldn't want to deal with all the crap that they have to go through. And, if it were as big of a sin as it's said to be, god wouldn't have made us this way. That's all I have to say. Thanks for reading this, whoever actually did. | |
topic: Life | |
[reply] [66 comments] |
|
| Best Excuse For Getting Out Of Cheating On Your Wife | May 22, 2007, 10:12AM |
 by: nofearnoregrets |
|
The wife comes home early & finds her husband in their master bedroom making love to a beautiful young woman. "You unfaithful, disrespectful pig! How dare you do this to me, the faithful wife, the mother of your children! I'm leaving you, I want a divorce!" The husband, replies "Wait, Wait a minute! Before you leave, at least listen to what happened." "Fine, but it'll be the last words you say to me you unfaithful pig!" The husband begins to tell his story : "While driving home this young lady asks for a ride. I saw her so defenseless that I went ahead and allowed her in my car. I noticed that she was very thin, not well dressed and very dirty. She mentioned that she had not eaten for 3 days. With great compassion and hurt, I brought her home and warmed up the enchiladas that I made for you last night that you wouldn't eat because you're afraid you'll gain weight; the poor thing, practically devours them. Since she was very dirty I asked her to take a shower. While she was showering, I noticed her clothes were dirty and full of holes so I threw her clothes away. Since she needed clothes, I gave her the pair of jeans that you have had for a few years, that you can no longer wear because they are too tight on you. I also gave her the blouse that I gave you on our anniversary and you don't wear because I don't have good taste. I gave her the pullover that my sister gave you for Christmas that you will not wear just to bother my sister and I also gave her the boots that you bought at the expensive boutique that you never wore again after you saw your co-worker wearing the same pair." The husband continues his story . . . . "The young woman was very grateful to me and I walked her to the door. When we got to the door she turned around and with tears coming out of her eyes, she asks me: "Sir, do you have anything else that your wife does not use?" -- | |
topic: Life | |
[reply] [2 comments] |
|
| pages: back 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 next |