More from Sean Godsell Architects:
"The sentiment of the kitchen table is western - the altar of the family. In this sense the house speculates on the potential emergence of an Australian vernacular born not simply from our European past but equally from our acceptance of our regional reality as part of Asia."
–it's a fucking kitchen table!
"What's for dinner?"
"I'm not sure yet, I'm too busy speculating on the potential emergence of an Australian vernacular born not simply from our European past but equally from our acceptance of our regional reality as part of Asia."
"So we're having sweet and sour chicken again?..."
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Architectural Bullshit, #2
"The 100 Acres Art + Nature Park and the Visitor’s Pavilion is
the result of a studied relationship between building, land and
site-art with an infinite point of view. This place is born of wildly
turbulent, nature/culture phenomena constantly changing the
land’s structure. Tinkering with it as cultivated urban wilds
proves a sound means of joining Nature and City as a recovered,
unpredictably changing but cultivated landscape. Our ongoing
ambition is to craft a logic of ideas and physical works that
may open the repressed raw power of environment, art, and
architecture through a re-thinking and re-making of where we
already are. Here, the questions posed are born from within
the found condition — an immanent response, imbued with
convincing meaning and significance for the Museum of Art,
its patrons and the citizens of Indianapolis."
(Marlon Blackwell Architects)
OK, let's try to break it down:
"..is the result of a studied relationship between building, land and site-art with an infinite point of view."
–an infinite point of view? What?
"Our ongoing ambition is to craft a logic of ideas and physical works that may open the repressed raw power of environment, art, and architecture through a re-thinking and re-making of where we already are."
–I know where you are. Somewhere between la-la land and the wrong end of bad acid trip. Fuck off. Hippie.
"Here, the questions posed are born from within the found condition — an immanent response, imbued with convincing meaning and significance.."
–I find nothing convincing about that meaning, in fact I have trouble understanding what the fuck the meaning is in the first place, imbued or otherwise.
the result of a studied relationship between building, land and
site-art with an infinite point of view. This place is born of wildly
turbulent, nature/culture phenomena constantly changing the
land’s structure. Tinkering with it as cultivated urban wilds
proves a sound means of joining Nature and City as a recovered,
unpredictably changing but cultivated landscape. Our ongoing
ambition is to craft a logic of ideas and physical works that
may open the repressed raw power of environment, art, and
architecture through a re-thinking and re-making of where we
already are. Here, the questions posed are born from within
the found condition — an immanent response, imbued with
convincing meaning and significance for the Museum of Art,
its patrons and the citizens of Indianapolis."
(Marlon Blackwell Architects)
OK, let's try to break it down:
"..is the result of a studied relationship between building, land and site-art with an infinite point of view."
–an infinite point of view? What?
"Our ongoing ambition is to craft a logic of ideas and physical works that may open the repressed raw power of environment, art, and architecture through a re-thinking and re-making of where we already are."
–I know where you are. Somewhere between la-la land and the wrong end of bad acid trip. Fuck off. Hippie.
"Here, the questions posed are born from within the found condition — an immanent response, imbued with convincing meaning and significance.."
–I find nothing convincing about that meaning, in fact I have trouble understanding what the fuck the meaning is in the first place, imbued or otherwise.
Architectural bullshit, #1
Architects are generally pathetic, attention-seeking and self-centred failed artists. They talk so much shit, such endless streams of bullshit that one has to wonder whether all that expensive education shouldn't include a course or two in grasping reality.
Here's an example from Sean Godsell Architects:
"There is invested in this building a strong sense of childhood that begins with the anticipation of travel and promotes the sense of reward that comes at the conclusion of a journey. The verandah exists in this house in an abstracted form."
(Translation: "I built a house. In the greater scheme of things, it is nothing special. It is just a house, for fucks sake. But hopefully my erratic verbal diarrhoea will confuse the world into believing otherwise. After all, I am an architect, and as such, highly educated AND creative. And worthy of special praise.")
How can a strong sense of childhood that begins with the anticipation of travel and promotes the sense of reward that comes at the conclusion of a journey be invested in a building? What does that even mean in this context? Also, I much prefer my verandah in the concrete form. A verandah is a fucking verandah, for god's sake.
Here's an example from Sean Godsell Architects:
"There is invested in this building a strong sense of childhood that begins with the anticipation of travel and promotes the sense of reward that comes at the conclusion of a journey. The verandah exists in this house in an abstracted form."
(Translation: "I built a house. In the greater scheme of things, it is nothing special. It is just a house, for fucks sake. But hopefully my erratic verbal diarrhoea will confuse the world into believing otherwise. After all, I am an architect, and as such, highly educated AND creative. And worthy of special praise.")
How can a strong sense of childhood that begins with the anticipation of travel and promotes the sense of reward that comes at the conclusion of a journey be invested in a building? What does that even mean in this context? Also, I much prefer my verandah in the concrete form. A verandah is a fucking verandah, for god's sake.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Illiterate fuckwits, part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsBthnY0DRU
JakyRedEyes @tseuqone obviously hes goin 2 put her on google as your seing you dipshit.
What?
JakyRedEyes @tseuqone obviously hes goin 2 put her on google as your seing you dipshit.
What?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Get a grip
Stupid bint
not only is she highly illiterate, she is also not particularly attractive.
If you are going to write inane, highly uninteresting stuff about your every mundane activity in life, at least use spellchecker now and again.
...then again, maybe she is just drunk or high, in which case she is suddenly rather attractive.
not only is she highly illiterate, she is also not particularly attractive.
If you are going to write inane, highly uninteresting stuff about your every mundane activity in life, at least use spellchecker now and again.
...then again, maybe she is just drunk or high, in which case she is suddenly rather attractive.
Friday, March 12, 2010
BNP teachers?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8563044.stm
For fuck's sake, get things into perspective. We allow religious people to teach, and in many cases that is actually considered as being of great benefit to a society or community.
Frankly, in the greater scheme of things, it is just as detrimental to a child's development to be taught by someone who fundamentally believes that Britain should be racially pure, as by someone who fundamentally believes in immaculate conception and that dinosaurs lived alongside humans.
Both sets of beliefs halt our development as a species by reinforcing counterproductive ideas that are not founded on reason or fact.
Both sets of beliefs are inherently hostile towards those who have other convictions.
Both sets of beliefs are essentially born out of fear and ignorance, be it xenophobia, death, the human condition or the fear of a malevolent, omnipotent master.
So BNP members can't join the the police force. I can relate to that sentiment, ie a racist police officer can't actually protect and serve a community that isn't racially pure. But it is OK for a religious person to protect and serve communities that are of mixed beliefs? I mean, being a church going christian police officer will not in any way impede on one's ability to fairly deal with members of the public who are, say, Muslim or Jewish, right? Wrong. Religion and racism are equally irrational beliefs, and equally dangerous. Sadly, quite often they are the same.
But no, oh no, we mustn't go there, we cannot talk about the idiocy of religion, we cannot criticise religion, that great, benevolent fallacy that continues to make us have consider our lives and thoughts in relation to events that may or may not have happened sometime in the bronze-age. Have a go at every other stupid, uninformed, deranged belief but for god's sake leave good old religion alone.
For fuck's sake, get things into perspective. We allow religious people to teach, and in many cases that is actually considered as being of great benefit to a society or community.
Frankly, in the greater scheme of things, it is just as detrimental to a child's development to be taught by someone who fundamentally believes that Britain should be racially pure, as by someone who fundamentally believes in immaculate conception and that dinosaurs lived alongside humans.
Both sets of beliefs halt our development as a species by reinforcing counterproductive ideas that are not founded on reason or fact.
Both sets of beliefs are inherently hostile towards those who have other convictions.
Both sets of beliefs are essentially born out of fear and ignorance, be it xenophobia, death, the human condition or the fear of a malevolent, omnipotent master.
So BNP members can't join the the police force. I can relate to that sentiment, ie a racist police officer can't actually protect and serve a community that isn't racially pure. But it is OK for a religious person to protect and serve communities that are of mixed beliefs? I mean, being a church going christian police officer will not in any way impede on one's ability to fairly deal with members of the public who are, say, Muslim or Jewish, right? Wrong. Religion and racism are equally irrational beliefs, and equally dangerous. Sadly, quite often they are the same.
But no, oh no, we mustn't go there, we cannot talk about the idiocy of religion, we cannot criticise religion, that great, benevolent fallacy that continues to make us have consider our lives and thoughts in relation to events that may or may not have happened sometime in the bronze-age. Have a go at every other stupid, uninformed, deranged belief but for god's sake leave good old religion alone.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
They just can't leave god out of it
I have been subscribing to the radicalviews.org newsletter for some time, as I am all in favour of freedom of speech and the pursuit of the truth from point of the underdog. Issues such as the Palestinian struggle and the treatment of Muslims by certain Western powers have been dealt with quite well, and although frequently biased and unsubstantiated, the articles posted on radicalviews.org have been thought provoking and at times even refreshing to read. That is, until yesterday.
I here reproduce the newsletter, as well as my reply, because the article by Yamin Zakaria is so devoid of journalistic competence that it puts the entire profession to shame.
Earthquakes and Tsunamis: Is God a Murderer?
The recent earthquake in Indonesia has evoked memories of the catastrophic Tsunami of 2004 that left hundreds of thousands dead. Natural disasters of cataclysmic proportion always raise the question of how a merciful God can permit indiscriminate carnage and devastation. How can a just God allow such injustices to take place? The secularists, atheists and agnostics use such catastrophic events to reinforce their belief in a Godless universe. They reason, if God does exist He should stand trial for murder and cruelty.
Murder by definition means to take a life unlawfully. But which laws has jurisdiction over God? He is the lawgiver, the creator and the owner of the entire universe and its content; hence it is His
prerogative to give and take, life. He is above any law by definition.
Furthermore, God created mankind and placed them on earth with a limited life span as the giver and taker of life. Therefore, according to secular ‘logic’ He has been committing ‘murder’ from the death of the very first man! By the way: what is about the 'mass murder' of cattle, sheep and chicken in the slaughter-houses just to satisfy the nutritional needs of humans: how does this squares with ‘murder’ and 'justice' in the secular minds.
Another point is the ability to resurrect life. The creator has the ability to recreate mankind after they have perished, as recreating is easier than creating from scratch. The divine can easily undo the
alleged ‘murder’ of his subjects and He will on the Day of Judgment by resurrecting everyone! This is something a human being could not do to the murdered victims. Thus, the concept of murder can only be applied to those human beings that take another life unlawfully; they are guilty as they did not create the life in the first place, thus have no rights over it. And they are not able to resurrect the victims: the guilt persists forever.
Who knows the fate of those who have perished? Who has this knowledge? To assume that they are worse off is an assumption. The creator may have given them a better life and spared them further sufferings in this world. From the Islamic perspective those who have perished are martyrs, they will be rewarded greatly and the young will enter paradise as they are innocent, they do not need salvation and no one needs to die for their ‘sins’. Therefore, to pass quick judgment upon the divine without the full picture is premature, foolish and in reality impossible.
As for the hardship suffered by those who have survived the recent disaster, it cannot be construed as evil. Many tend to confuse between evil and suffering in general. According to the Islamic text, evil is rebelling against Gods commandments and the consequential suffering inflicted upon the victim. But not all forms of hardship constitutes evil by definition, a serious error often made by many. The creator is entitled to test us from time to time and how quick are we to forget all the bounties that He has given us prior to that.
Adjectives like ‘love’, ‘merciful’ used in describing God Almighty should be understood not in terms of human qualities but as divine attributes. When for example God says He hears everything that does not mean He has big powerful ears but the use of such vocabulary allows the limited human minds to get an infinitely small appreciation of the power of the divine, whilst remembering that HE is nothing like the creation, not part of it and not subjected to the laws of the creation.
There is a clear distinction between the creator and created. This is fundamental point about the notion of God. He created human beings and their mind, given it the ability to compose, analyze and deduce ideas.
By rational necessity the finite human mind cannot comprehend the nature of the infinite and eternal God. Furthermore, the reality shows that the human mind being finite struggles to comprehend the creation itself let alone the nature of the creator.
Despite this, the secularists, atheists and agnostics have attempted conceptualize the essence of God using their limited mind, and perhaps the Christian and Pagan traditions have also contributed to this; the end result is God is a more powerful being with super human qualities. Naturally God is now thought of as a being that can be understood in terms of having human qualities and therefore subjected to the same principles that are applied to human beings. And this is where the error begins with charges of murder.
By rational necessity the eternal and uncreated God can never be subjected to the principles that have been derived from the minds of those who HE has created. Similarly, He cannot be subjected to the laws and ethics derived from the human mind as He has created the mind, body and soul. Just as a slave cannot command his master in the same way the eternal sovereign God cannot be commanded or evaluated by His own creation.
These major events like earthquakes and tsunamis are for us to reflect about the meaning of life, the limitations of human beings, these events are proof that the span of life on earth is pre-determined.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
so I replied:
We can only move forward as a species once we stop taking about blind faith and start talking about facts. Without Islam there'd be no jihad, without Christianity there'd be no Crusades or TV evangelists. Whether God is a murderer or not is not really relevant.
"Furthermore, God created mankind and placed them on earth with a limited life span as the giver and taker of life."
Presumably Yamin is a journalist and looks for truth. Leave religion behind, it has no place in truth. All any discussion about the relative merits of god or gods (some people believe in more than one,
you know - are they wrong?) achieves is more arguments, wars and misery in the name of religion.
"Natural disasters of cataclysmic proportion always raise the question of how a merciful God can permit indiscriminate carnage and devastation."
No it doesn't always raise that question. Funny how only religious people think this. For an atheist, it is simply a natural disaster, nothing more nothing less.
"The secularists, atheists and agnostics use such catastrophic events to reinforce their belief in a Godless universe. They reason, if God does exist He should stand trial for murder and cruelty."
Simply not true. Poor journalism. Do some research next time. Atheists don't believe in a god, regardless of whether a tsunami takes place or not. A natural disaster is not evidence to atheists of the absence of a god. It is just a natural disaster. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Atheists don't reason that if "God does exist He should stand trial for murder and cruelty" - atheists reason that there is no God, period, and as such the debate on whether or not he should stand trial is irrelevant.
"Therefore, according to secular ‘logic’ He has been committing ‘murder’ from the death of the very first man! By the way: what is about the 'mass murder' of cattle, sheep and chicken in the
slaughter-houses just to satisfy the nutritional needs of humans: how does this squares with ‘murder’ and 'justice' in the secular minds."
Apart from the obvious need to employ a sub-editor, Yamin once again makes a sweeping statement with zero reference to a source or sources. How can a religious person, talk authoritatively about secular 'logic'? Is there a logic in blind faith?
"Who knows the fate of those who have perished? Who has this knowledge? To assume that they are worse off is an assumption."
To believe that god exists is an assumption. This whole article is based on one big assumption.
"Despite this, the secularists, atheists and agnostics have attempted conceptualize the essence of God using their limited mind"
Really? Source, please. This is another example of poor research. Atheists are not trying to conceptualize the essence of god one way or the other. Atheists don't believe in god or gods. Who in their right mind would seek to conceptualise the essence of something they know not to exist? Journalism is not about saying what you think, it is about critically investigating the objective truth.
And surely, being able to ask questions shows a mind that is not limited, as opposed to a mind that accepts anything as fact because some scripture or community leader says so?
That is why the majority of Muslim countries are underdeveloped in the first place – ignorance. I hasten to add that certain parts of America are developing in intellectually underdeveloped areas too, given the trend by fundamentalists Christians towards espousing creationism as the 'true' alternative to science. What makes that scarier is the fact that America is a rich and powerful country.
"By rational necessity the eternal and uncreated God can never be subjected to the principles that have been derived from the minds of those who HE has created."
How convenient. And is it really rational? Is it a necessity? And, for the sake of argument, why not? Is 'HE' scared of what 'those HE created' might say?
"These major events like earthquakes and tsunamis are for us to reflect about the meaning of life, the limitations of human beings"
On this I agree, but that has nothing to do with religion. Atheists mourn the loss of life, too. Atheists too reflect on the limitations of human beings, but unlike believers atheists seek to confront and remove those limitations through science and the application of rational thought, not to accept them and remain in ignorance.
Medicine is a perfect example of this. When Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, the limitations of human beings was significantly reduced. Millions of deeply religious people of all faiths use penicillin to prolong their lives. If Alexander Fleming had accepted the limitations of human beings as dictated by god, we'd die from what are considered common ailments even today. Compassion does not exist purely as a consequence of religion, otherwise how do you explain the compassion shown by people of all faiths, not just Islam (and indeed atheists, Gnostics etc.)?
We're now in the 21st century and the biggest challenge we face as a species is the destruction of our planet through war, pollution and over-consumption. If we are ever to move forwards, we have to stop wallowing in god this or god that.
Yamin is entitled to his/hers view, of course, presumably that is what radicalviews.org is all about – indeed that is why I subscribe(d).
But the article is not radical nor new - the god is evil / god is not evil, god exists / god doesn't exist debate is as old, worn and inconsistent as the scriptures upon which it is founded. The article is full of misinformed, one-sided statements that achieve nothing but to perpetuate stereotypes – the kind of rubbish we need to move away from if we are ever to become one as a species.
If poor journalism is radical, this article is your organisation's finest moment.
Yamin's article lessens all other articles I have received from radicalviews.org so far. It lessens the debate about Palestine, it lessens the debate about political injustice, it lessen the debate about the rights of women.
Nothing in this article is radical. Religious propaganda IS conformity.
I am very disappointed.
Kind regards,
C C C
note: Yamin also writes for a blog called A Moderate View in a Radical World. I would argue that there is no such thing as a moderate religion.
Needless to say I have had no reply.
I here reproduce the newsletter, as well as my reply, because the article by Yamin Zakaria is so devoid of journalistic competence that it puts the entire profession to shame.
Earthquakes and Tsunamis: Is God a Murderer?
The recent earthquake in Indonesia has evoked memories of the catastrophic Tsunami of 2004 that left hundreds of thousands dead. Natural disasters of cataclysmic proportion always raise the question of how a merciful God can permit indiscriminate carnage and devastation. How can a just God allow such injustices to take place? The secularists, atheists and agnostics use such catastrophic events to reinforce their belief in a Godless universe. They reason, if God does exist He should stand trial for murder and cruelty.
Murder by definition means to take a life unlawfully. But which laws has jurisdiction over God? He is the lawgiver, the creator and the owner of the entire universe and its content; hence it is His
prerogative to give and take, life. He is above any law by definition.
Furthermore, God created mankind and placed them on earth with a limited life span as the giver and taker of life. Therefore, according to secular ‘logic’ He has been committing ‘murder’ from the death of the very first man! By the way: what is about the 'mass murder' of cattle, sheep and chicken in the slaughter-houses just to satisfy the nutritional needs of humans: how does this squares with ‘murder’ and 'justice' in the secular minds.
Another point is the ability to resurrect life. The creator has the ability to recreate mankind after they have perished, as recreating is easier than creating from scratch. The divine can easily undo the
alleged ‘murder’ of his subjects and He will on the Day of Judgment by resurrecting everyone! This is something a human being could not do to the murdered victims. Thus, the concept of murder can only be applied to those human beings that take another life unlawfully; they are guilty as they did not create the life in the first place, thus have no rights over it. And they are not able to resurrect the victims: the guilt persists forever.
Who knows the fate of those who have perished? Who has this knowledge? To assume that they are worse off is an assumption. The creator may have given them a better life and spared them further sufferings in this world. From the Islamic perspective those who have perished are martyrs, they will be rewarded greatly and the young will enter paradise as they are innocent, they do not need salvation and no one needs to die for their ‘sins’. Therefore, to pass quick judgment upon the divine without the full picture is premature, foolish and in reality impossible.
As for the hardship suffered by those who have survived the recent disaster, it cannot be construed as evil. Many tend to confuse between evil and suffering in general. According to the Islamic text, evil is rebelling against Gods commandments and the consequential suffering inflicted upon the victim. But not all forms of hardship constitutes evil by definition, a serious error often made by many. The creator is entitled to test us from time to time and how quick are we to forget all the bounties that He has given us prior to that.
Adjectives like ‘love’, ‘merciful’ used in describing God Almighty should be understood not in terms of human qualities but as divine attributes. When for example God says He hears everything that does not mean He has big powerful ears but the use of such vocabulary allows the limited human minds to get an infinitely small appreciation of the power of the divine, whilst remembering that HE is nothing like the creation, not part of it and not subjected to the laws of the creation.
There is a clear distinction between the creator and created. This is fundamental point about the notion of God. He created human beings and their mind, given it the ability to compose, analyze and deduce ideas.
By rational necessity the finite human mind cannot comprehend the nature of the infinite and eternal God. Furthermore, the reality shows that the human mind being finite struggles to comprehend the creation itself let alone the nature of the creator.
Despite this, the secularists, atheists and agnostics have attempted conceptualize the essence of God using their limited mind, and perhaps the Christian and Pagan traditions have also contributed to this; the end result is God is a more powerful being with super human qualities. Naturally God is now thought of as a being that can be understood in terms of having human qualities and therefore subjected to the same principles that are applied to human beings. And this is where the error begins with charges of murder.
By rational necessity the eternal and uncreated God can never be subjected to the principles that have been derived from the minds of those who HE has created. Similarly, He cannot be subjected to the laws and ethics derived from the human mind as He has created the mind, body and soul. Just as a slave cannot command his master in the same way the eternal sovereign God cannot be commanded or evaluated by His own creation.
These major events like earthquakes and tsunamis are for us to reflect about the meaning of life, the limitations of human beings, these events are proof that the span of life on earth is pre-determined.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
so I replied:
We can only move forward as a species once we stop taking about blind faith and start talking about facts. Without Islam there'd be no jihad, without Christianity there'd be no Crusades or TV evangelists. Whether God is a murderer or not is not really relevant.
"Furthermore, God created mankind and placed them on earth with a limited life span as the giver and taker of life."
Presumably Yamin is a journalist and looks for truth. Leave religion behind, it has no place in truth. All any discussion about the relative merits of god or gods (some people believe in more than one,
you know - are they wrong?) achieves is more arguments, wars and misery in the name of religion.
"Natural disasters of cataclysmic proportion always raise the question of how a merciful God can permit indiscriminate carnage and devastation."
No it doesn't always raise that question. Funny how only religious people think this. For an atheist, it is simply a natural disaster, nothing more nothing less.
"The secularists, atheists and agnostics use such catastrophic events to reinforce their belief in a Godless universe. They reason, if God does exist He should stand trial for murder and cruelty."
Simply not true. Poor journalism. Do some research next time. Atheists don't believe in a god, regardless of whether a tsunami takes place or not. A natural disaster is not evidence to atheists of the absence of a god. It is just a natural disaster. Why is that so difficult to grasp? Atheists don't reason that if "God does exist He should stand trial for murder and cruelty" - atheists reason that there is no God, period, and as such the debate on whether or not he should stand trial is irrelevant.
"Therefore, according to secular ‘logic’ He has been committing ‘murder’ from the death of the very first man! By the way: what is about the 'mass murder' of cattle, sheep and chicken in the
slaughter-houses just to satisfy the nutritional needs of humans: how does this squares with ‘murder’ and 'justice' in the secular minds."
Apart from the obvious need to employ a sub-editor, Yamin once again makes a sweeping statement with zero reference to a source or sources. How can a religious person, talk authoritatively about secular 'logic'? Is there a logic in blind faith?
"Who knows the fate of those who have perished? Who has this knowledge? To assume that they are worse off is an assumption."
To believe that god exists is an assumption. This whole article is based on one big assumption.
"Despite this, the secularists, atheists and agnostics have attempted conceptualize the essence of God using their limited mind"
Really? Source, please. This is another example of poor research. Atheists are not trying to conceptualize the essence of god one way or the other. Atheists don't believe in god or gods. Who in their right mind would seek to conceptualise the essence of something they know not to exist? Journalism is not about saying what you think, it is about critically investigating the objective truth.
And surely, being able to ask questions shows a mind that is not limited, as opposed to a mind that accepts anything as fact because some scripture or community leader says so?
That is why the majority of Muslim countries are underdeveloped in the first place – ignorance. I hasten to add that certain parts of America are developing in intellectually underdeveloped areas too, given the trend by fundamentalists Christians towards espousing creationism as the 'true' alternative to science. What makes that scarier is the fact that America is a rich and powerful country.
"By rational necessity the eternal and uncreated God can never be subjected to the principles that have been derived from the minds of those who HE has created."
How convenient. And is it really rational? Is it a necessity? And, for the sake of argument, why not? Is 'HE' scared of what 'those HE created' might say?
"These major events like earthquakes and tsunamis are for us to reflect about the meaning of life, the limitations of human beings"
On this I agree, but that has nothing to do with religion. Atheists mourn the loss of life, too. Atheists too reflect on the limitations of human beings, but unlike believers atheists seek to confront and remove those limitations through science and the application of rational thought, not to accept them and remain in ignorance.
Medicine is a perfect example of this. When Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, the limitations of human beings was significantly reduced. Millions of deeply religious people of all faiths use penicillin to prolong their lives. If Alexander Fleming had accepted the limitations of human beings as dictated by god, we'd die from what are considered common ailments even today. Compassion does not exist purely as a consequence of religion, otherwise how do you explain the compassion shown by people of all faiths, not just Islam (and indeed atheists, Gnostics etc.)?
We're now in the 21st century and the biggest challenge we face as a species is the destruction of our planet through war, pollution and over-consumption. If we are ever to move forwards, we have to stop wallowing in god this or god that.
Yamin is entitled to his/hers view, of course, presumably that is what radicalviews.org is all about – indeed that is why I subscribe(d).
But the article is not radical nor new - the god is evil / god is not evil, god exists / god doesn't exist debate is as old, worn and inconsistent as the scriptures upon which it is founded. The article is full of misinformed, one-sided statements that achieve nothing but to perpetuate stereotypes – the kind of rubbish we need to move away from if we are ever to become one as a species.
If poor journalism is radical, this article is your organisation's finest moment.
Yamin's article lessens all other articles I have received from radicalviews.org so far. It lessens the debate about Palestine, it lessens the debate about political injustice, it lessen the debate about the rights of women.
Nothing in this article is radical. Religious propaganda IS conformity.
I am very disappointed.
Kind regards,
C C C
note: Yamin also writes for a blog called A Moderate View in a Radical World. I would argue that there is no such thing as a moderate religion.
Needless to say I have had no reply.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Bangs is (da) shit
Bangs is da shit! Or, in layman terms, Bangs is shit.
No amount of backdrops with tacky sportscars and bundles of cash can convince anyone that this guy is gangsta. If he was driving the sportscar, or actually seen holding some cash, then maybe I'd be convinced. And that is just the video. The actual song is horrendously bad.
"Hold the popcorn and the drinks - let me pay so we can get inside"
Whoever posted the vid is screening comments, too. Clearly lessons learned from scores of youtube users expressing their disbelief at this shit endeavour, if it can be called that. Retarded and misguided cack is probably a more apt description.
Loser.
Speaking of retarded, - holy shit this video says it all. Wait, that should read retarded and camp. Again, lyrically, my boy Bangs is on to a winner: "I' trying to make you my special girl, 'cause there's nothing like you".
To reiterate: loser.
No amount of backdrops with tacky sportscars and bundles of cash can convince anyone that this guy is gangsta. If he was driving the sportscar, or actually seen holding some cash, then maybe I'd be convinced. And that is just the video. The actual song is horrendously bad.
"Hold the popcorn and the drinks - let me pay so we can get inside"
Whoever posted the vid is screening comments, too. Clearly lessons learned from scores of youtube users expressing their disbelief at this shit endeavour, if it can be called that. Retarded and misguided cack is probably a more apt description.
Loser.
Speaking of retarded, - holy shit this video says it all. Wait, that should read retarded and camp. Again, lyrically, my boy Bangs is on to a winner: "I' trying to make you my special girl, 'cause there's nothing like you".
To reiterate: loser.
Monday, September 28, 2009
What is wrong with Sweden?
Well, where does one start? It is a country that, despite popular international opinion, is almost exclusively inhabited by facists, communists, state flunkeys and hypocrites. The pseudo-communist culture has been so prevalent in recent Swedish history that there is little or no concept of personal responsibility left. People in the UK express fears of an impending nanny state, - well Sweden is a textbook example of such a scenario. Except in Sweden it isn't a scenario, it is a national identity. Forget the beautiful women (if you can - communist or not they're still hot), forget the amazing nature, forget the Nobel prize. On the surface Swedes may give off the image of being industrious, fair and open minded. As a rule, none of these qualities exist in reality in the kingdom of Sweden today. Everyone here is a racist, everyone here is narrow minded, but worst of all, everyone here are happy to have the state govern every aspect of their life. This archetypal, holier-than-thou image is so rotten, it makes Eva Braun's last days seem like a petty form of denial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
