How appropiate in today's world?

"An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind" Mahatma Gandhi

merry xmas

This is a little early but doubt i'll be online for a while.Merry Xmas

After Awhile!!

After Awhile by Veronica A. ShoffstallAfter a while you learn the subtle difference between holding a hand and chaining a soul, and you learnthat love doesn`t mean leaning and company doesn`t always mean security. And you begin to learn that kisses aren`t contracts, presents aren`t promises, and you begin to accept your defeats with your head up and your eyes ahead with the grace of a man, not the grief of a childAnd you learn to build all your roads on today because tomorrow`s ground is too uncertain for plans, and futures have a way of falling down in mid-flight. After a while you learn that even sunshine burns if you get too much, so you plant your own garden and decorate your own soul, instead of waiting for someone to bring you flowers. And you learn that you really can endure, you really are strong, you really do have worthAnd you learnAnd you learn with every goodbye, You learn...

Interesting theory!!

Someone sent this to me as via e-mail, it is certainly interesting:The following is supposedly an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.One student, however, wrote the following:First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.This gives two possibilities:1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.So which is it?If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any moresouls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

Farenheit 9/11

I downloaded Farenheit 9/11 a few days a go as I had seen the start of it which I really liked so wanted to see what the rest was like. I have to say that I was seriously disappointed and ended up not watching it all as I really don't see how we are meant to take it seriously. Even if every little bit of what was mentioned in the film is true I think the way that it is has been presented means that people are going to take it with a pinch of salt as there is not one bit of objectivity in the whole thing which does beg the question: how much has the truth been bent in order to get the point wanted across?

Physically drained!!

I have felt really bad all day. I somehow managed to drag myself out of bed so that I could get onto campus early so that I could sort a few little things that I needed to do before attempting to finish off the assignments. Rather annoyingly I couldn't get it them all done so will have to try again tomorrow.For the next few hours I half heartedly attempted to finish off my Analysis III assignment but ended up giving up on the Algebra I assignment as I we can drop our lowest mark and all of mine have been pretty good so far meaning I could afford not to do it. It was after the assignments that tiredness really hit me. I was seriously struggling to keep my eyes open and in general I felt really rough. If it wasn't for Emma being on the bus on the way home I am sure that I would have fallen asleep on it.I slept for about 30 minutes before I had to go to darts but once I got there I started to feel rubbish again so played my match and left so that I could settle in my room and do a little bit of uni work that I needed to catch up on. I think this term is finally beginning to take its toll on me which isn't surprising as I don't think I have had one day where I have not had to anything at all so I am looking forward to getting off for the Xmas break in a couple of weeks time.

reply to previous post!

Had a comment from technicolour_me regarding my last post (which I also included in the philosophy community). I think (s)he may has a point so thought I'd let everyone else see it."hmm.. i would think that the limitation of free speech presents more problems than it solves. Not giving fascists, rascist and the assorted mass of other bigots across society a voice allows them to play a victim role, and perhaps allow them a greater voice than they would otherwise have had. It's like- banning a book is the surest way to make people want to read it. Isn't it better to let the fascists present their views, so their positions can be shown as the weak and unstable positions that they are, rather than preventing them? Banning them strengthens their position, it gives it some substance- one can envision those denied the right to present their views at the union feeling that their views are persuasive- that there was something to fear, of substance to their position, which is why the union sought to alleviate any power they might've gotten. It's not a logical reason to find something persuasive, but its one often used by extreme groups to some effect. I don't support fascism or racism, but I do support free speech. I rely on the community to be an open place of expression, and individuals within it to be logical and intelligent enough to shoot down positions which are unfounded and harmful. I realise it's pretty idealistic, but i figure- for every extreme view there's virtually an equal and opposite viewpoint- Pro-communist/free market enterprise Zionists/Holocaust deniers- and relatively free expression is the best way to arrive at a mutually beneficial synthesis."

Freedom of Speech!!

I was at a meeting for my Students' Union a few days a go; we were required to look through the couple of proposed policies that will be voted for in the next couple of weeks in the forth-coming referendum. One policy was regarding fascism and racism. Whilst, in general I agree that we should do anything to keep these two things to a minimum I feel that this motion may be going to far.Banning Racists and Fascists To extend existing policies to prevent individuals or groups who advocate or express racist or fascist views from having any involvement in the Union, or its events. This Union Notes: 1. Campuses are often targets for fascist and racist groups seeking to recruit new members as well as to spread their beliefs. 2. Students and students’ unions have a long and proud record of achievement in the fight against racism and fascism. This Union Believes: 1. That racism and fascism are still rife within society. 2. That in line with the Union’s Equal Opportunities Appendix, the Union should be at the forefront of the campaign to combat prejudice and bigotry. 3. That racism and fascism are fuelled by tensions along the lines of race, religion, nationality or ethnicity, and that racists and fascists often seek to exploit these tensions. 4. That by complimenting the Equal Opportunities Appendix with a No Platform Policy, we can step up the challenge to racism and reinforce our commitment to fighting fascism. 5. That we must balance freedom of expression with protection from fascist and racist groups. 6. That a No Platform Policy safeguards the Union’s members from being subjected to lies, bigotry and hatred. 7. That a No Platform Policy that cannot be enforced when it is needed is ineffective. This Union Resolves: 1. Not to allow any person who can be shown to have advocated or expressed, or to be likely to advocate or express, racist or fascist conduct, attitudes or views to have any involvement with the Union and to ban any such person from entering Union events and buildings. If the person is a Union member they should be dealt with via the Union disciplinary process. 2. That the President will ensure that this is carried out as far as is legally possible since the presence of such individuals could lead to disorder and endanger the safety of Union members. 3. That no Union Officer shall share a platform with any known racists or fascists at any Union event; or any other event in their capacity as an Officer. 4. That Union Council be strongly urged to discipline any Union Officer found to be in breach of this policy through a motion of censure or a vote of no confidence. 5. That any Union event that is likely to be in breach of this policy may be prevented from taking place or closed down whilst in progress by any two Sabbatical Officers. a. That the Union will withhold funding/demand repayment for the event in question subject to contractual obligations. b. That the organiser(s) of the event be held personally responsible if they are Union members. 6. That the Welfare and Equal Opportunites Officer will maintain a list of recognised racist and/or fascist groups that are banned by this policy. a. That this list shall only be amended by Union Council, General Meeting or Referendum. b. To liaise with the NUS and ‘Searchlight’ for up-to-date information concerning racists and/or fascist groups. 7. To empower and require the President to deal with potential or actual conflicts between Societies that could exacerbate tensions between students along the lines of race, religion, nationality or ethnicity, such as tensions erupting in relation to international conflicts. 8. To mandate the Societies and Student Development Officer to liaise with the relevant Societies to ensure that events organised by them reflect the Union’s commitment to tolerance and understanding (e.g. no offensive or inflammatory speakers or publicity). 9. To require all Societies to notify the Societies and Student Development Officer in the planning stages of any activity that would potentially cause or exacerbate tension between students at the University along the lines of race, religion, nationality or ethnicity. 10. To make breach of the No-Platform Policy a disciplinary offence. 11. To lapse policy 500 ‘No Platform for Racists or Fascists’ and 453 ‘Anti-Racism and Anti-Fascism’. 12. To publicise this policy to all, and to encourage the University to adopt a similar policy. 13. To mandate the Anti-Racism Campaigns Convenor and request any relevant Societies and groups to mount a campaign on the dangers of racism fascism, and to formulate a policy on how best to fight it. 14. To support anti-racism campaigns, and anti-fascism campaigns which are run by the NUS. In this policy it advocates that the Union could ban anyone from the Union or its activities purely because they may cause trouble. Is it really justifiable to punish someone purely cause they may do something before they have even done it?Also, is it ok to supress someone expressing there beliefs, in a manner which is not trying to convert anyone to their way of thinking, in case they may offend someone else? For example, theoretically under this policy I would have to very careful when it comes to me expressing my views on how the political situation in Northern Ireland should be sorted out even though I do not go round telling people what they should believe but just what I think should happen given that I have lived there for such a long period of time and studied ther history of the country in a good bit of detail. Is this fully justified?