"Never did me any harm"

I fucking hate it when people (usually older) say "never did me any harm". It’s such a pointless thing to say. It only tells you one of a possible three things. 1) The thing they are referring to didn’t do them as AN INDIVIDUAL, as ONE PERSON any harm. 2) It did do them harm but they are lying about it out of some weird sense of pride and nostalgia. 3) It did do them harm but for some reason they have not realised it.

It seems people are content with referring to their own personal experiences and how those experiences affect them as proof if something is good or bad for you.

It was the channel 4 programme ‘Never Did Me Any Harm’ which riled me up enough to write this bloody rant. The whole concept of the programme pissed me off straight away. The description on channel 4’s website is ‘Four modern families turn back the clock for two weeks so that their children can experience life as their parents did when they were young’, which isn’t necessarily irritating but the ‘never did me any harm’ mentality fucking is. The descripton of one episode is 'Peter Gunn is so concerned that freedom and the pursuit of individuality are driving his four sons apart, that he decides to take them back to his 1950s childhood for two weeks'. I mean who could blame him? Both freedom and individuality are disgusting like!

The thing is people do quite often refer to their childhood and say ‘never did me any harm’. Well that’s where you are fucking wrong because it has clearly turned you into a stupid twat. How far will these ‘never did me any harm’ bell ends take it?

“My mother took thalidomide, never did me any harm.”

Man prepairing to beat or bum young boy - you decide.

“I used to have unprotected sex, never did me any harm.”

“I’ve smoked all my life, never did me any harm.”

“I used to be suicidal, never did me any harm.”

“I used to eat nothing but shit, never did me any harm.”

“We used to beat up foreigners all the time when we were younger, never did me any harm.”

“I used to get bummed by my dad every Tuesday, never did me any harm.”

Interesting, but not very fucking helpful! Everyone is different and some things harm some people but not others. Whether something is harmful or not is an important question. So before forcing someone to experience something it is important to consider how it will affect them. And how do we do that? Well it would be a good start to look at how things affect the population rather than just plucking the information from one person, even if that one person is yourself.

So if you are the sort of person who uses the phrase ‘never did me any harm’ then fuck off! Or better still please realise why that sort of decision-making is ridiculous and join me in being angry at the other twats who still do it.

Goodbye, common sense! Wanker 1 and Wanker 2 complain about sensible changes to passport form

Today the Daily Mail published an article titled ‘Now Parent 1 and Parent 2 appear on PC passport form’.  This is obviously the news that the form which is required for a passport will be changed so that it has ‘Parent 1’ and ‘Parent 2’ on it. What does this mean? Well, in the past applicants have had to include information on their parents and the form has always had ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ on. In the article by Jack Doyle (wanker 1) it says ‘they will be given the option of naming ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’.’. I presume this means that either  the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be replaced with ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ or that ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ will be given as an option as an addition. Why are they doing this? Well it’s obvious really- with the number of children being adopted by same sex parents increasing it is probably quite awkward to fill in the passport form if you have 2 ‘mothers’ or 2 ‘fathers’. But maybe it should be awkward for these parents? Maybe children with gay parents shouldn’t be allowed passports? I mean what if they go on holiday and give us normal British people a bad reputation? I am obviously joking but I wouldn’t be surprised if the silly twats from Family Education Trust (FET) thought these ridiculous things.

The director of FET, Norman Wells (wanker 2), said: ‘Fathers and mothers are not interchangeable but have quite distinct roles to play in the care and nurture of their children.’ What an archaic view this man actually has. It is true, however, that there are some things which a mother can do which a father cannot, such as breast feeding. But not all mothers can breast feed. Do babies just die? No. We have milk you can buy for babies and with this milk fathers, or anyone else really, can feed a baby. So what then are the distinct roles? Well I could draw on my own personal experience but that would be pointless because that would just be explaining the roles which my parents had and not actually addressing what the distinct roles are. Surely it changes from one set of parents to another. Not all men are good at doing male things and not all women are good at doing female things because everyone is different. Why can’t people see this? The angry voice in my head is saying “it’s because they are twats”.

The FET twat went on to say: ‘To speak of “parent 1” and “parent 2” denigrates the place of both fathers and mothers.’ What the fuck does that even mean? Well I looked it up, ‘denigrates’ that is, because I haven’t seen that word before. According to Collins English Dictionary ‘denigrate’ means:

1. (tr) to belittle or disparage the character of; defame

Eh? So Norman reckons that putting ‘parent 1’ and ‘parent 2’ on a form so that everyone can fill it in belittles the place of mothers and fathers? Norman Wells’ existence denigrates the place of our species. If you thought Norman couldn’t get any worse then read on: ‘Much as the equality and diversity social engineers might wish it were otherwise, it still takes a father and a mother to produce a child.’ Yes Norman you are quite right it does take a mother and father to produce a child but what the fuck does that have to do with this form you stupid cunt? It doesn’t take a father and mother to raise a child though - and that is what this change of form relates to. Also, isn’t it really weird that he talks about ‘the equality and diversity social engineers’ as if they are a bad people? Isn’t a social engineer just someone who wants to change society? So an equality and diversity social engineer is someone who wants more equality and diversity? How can that ever be a bad thing?

Jack Doyle also clearly disagrees with the changes and that they are being made because of ‘pressure from the gay lobby’ seems to irritate him. He actually calls gay rights groups ‘the gay lobby’ how mad is that? Well Jack Doyle must be in the twat lobby.

Now back to Norman, who also said: ‘It is high time ministers started to represent the interests of the country as a whole and not capitulate to every demand made by a vocal and unrepresentative minority.’ I would fully agree with this point if the form was going to be changed to ‘gay parent 1’ and ‘gay parent 2’ because that would be specifically making the form for a minority only. What it boils down to is that Norman Wells is angry because a form is being changed to allow more people to fill it in easily. Even if that change only helps a minority it still doesn’t make it harder for the majority so why is he even bothered? It’s so annoying that people like Norman Wells think we shouldn’t change things for a group of people just because they are considered a minority.  But even if that minority is 1% of the population it would still mean over 600 thousand people! By the same argument we could remove ‘black’ from the ethnicity section of a form because it would only affect a minority.

If this Daily Mail article made you as angry as it did me then you will be fucking fuming when you read this:

http://mullenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/10/what-is-normal-when-mother-and-father-become-parent-1-and-parent-2.html

Twat (Peter Mullen)

It’s basically some twat’s opinion on the story, a bit like my blog really, except this person is a horrible, horrible man, still a bit like my blog I suppose. Well he’s definitely a different kind of horrible twat, he’s a dangerous horrible twat. He is Revd Peter Mullen (wanker 3, funny (but accidental) considering his ‘slippery slope’ argument) and the link above is to his blog. I can’t believe how much of a horrible twat Peter is. To analyse this horrible twat’s arguments would be even more of a waste of time as the analysing I have already done because their ridiculous thoughts and rationale are so blatantly stupid. But I will give you a flavour of what the Revd Peter Mullen is like:

‘I am against prejudice of all sorts. But there has to be some sort of normality according to which minorities can be tolerated.’

If this made you want to punch something or someone do not go on to read his blog. Bet you will though.

Being liberal: Can I still be angry?

I think to be liberal you have get past an ‘anger barrier’. What I mean by this is that it is quite easy to get angry when you hear about ‘foreigners stealing our jobs’, ‘young immigrant gangs’, ‘lazy jobless on benefits’. And when people get angry they do stupid things and come up with stupid solutions to exaggerated problems. I think to be liberal you have to get past this initial knee jerk anger to allow yourself to think logically. And the people that do this, all of them, realise that these problem are: not real problems or they have been exaggerated or they are small, bad consequence of doing a lot of good. Once you actually look at the statistics and history of immigration in this country (UK) then you quickly realise that we need ‘foreigners’ to help the country develop and if it wasn’t for immigration we wouldn’t have the Britain we have today. Only a very angry person can deny such blatant evidence and fact.

The problem of young ethnic minorities in gangs and being involved in crime is a problem (although it is massively over exaggerated in my opinion). But angry right wing people try to blame the ethnic minorities rather than thinking logically and realising that many of these individuals are poor, uneducated and have been brought up in an environment where it is easy to turn to crime. Had the white middle class Daily Mail reader (or ‘twats’ as I like to call them) been brought up in the same environment they would most probably have ended up in the same gangs.

I too sometimes get angry at the thought of a lazy person sitting around doing nothing all day but still getting free money, which the taxes I pay (not any more though because I have just recently become a student again but I wrote this when I was working so fuck you) are paying for. But beyond that anger and completely surpassing it in volume is the happiness I feel that we live in a time in which people who are really struggling due to mental or physical problems can be helped by those individuals who do not have any problems at all. How fucking amazingly wonderful is it that we have job seekers allowance and various benefits? It is surely the sign of a logical, rational yet compassionate modern society. I would rather everyone who needs benefits get them and some individuals who don’t need them get them than no one at all geting them. But I think a lot of right wing individuals would rather no one got them.

In my opinion, which all of this really is, anger can be a good thing too. Because without anger we would not try to change things we don’t like. But anger based on truth is the key. Many liberals are angry, myself definitely included, are angry but they are angry that people are angry about issues they don’t know the facts about or they can’t even back up their angry opinions with evidence.  It is really quite annoying because I think I would be a much calmer person if other people didn’t get angry, the bastards rile me up! But at the same time I like that they make me angry otherwise I wouldn’t argue with them or try to tell other people why I think it is bad to be right wing and why it is bad that people are trying to change things based on nothing but their own personal belief.

However, there needs to be a good level of angry, a balance of anger. Some liberals are so angry that they too start acting based on personal belief. These people will belief information if it supports their already established opinion without even checking if the info is based on evidence. We have all met these people; they are generally the ‘anti-science liberals’ or ‘bell ends’ as I like to call them. They have gone beyond listening to evidence to listening to themselves and like minded people. They believe that everything should be ‘natural’ without knowing what natural means (who even does know to be honest?). They are just as irritating as very right wing people but they at least are not a dangerous. Generally the worst an extreme liberal will do is tut at you or demand that trees have the same rights as humans. There are also the really strange ‘right wing liberals’ or ‘bell ends’ as I like to call them. These are the extreme liberals that would hurt you, the ones who would dig up your relatives. This is because they are extremely liberal in one or a few political issues but are quite right wing in how they deal with it. These are the liberals who are fuelled by anger (and a bit of tofu) and ignore reason.

So how do you get the perfect balance of anger? Nobody knows surely but I think we should always try our best to calm down, have a cup of tea and a scone and just think, read and learn about things and then come up with the most informed opinion we can given the relatively short and meaningless amount of time we have. Also, we should get all the really right wing people together and either kill them or use them as slaves. No. That’s the angry irrational me which, I am trying to fight every day. So maybe a better suggestion is that we should ridicule them for the angry idiots they are. To be honest it’s not that hard.

(2) Why I Don't Like To Quote

I could support my arguments with the use of countless quotes from famous individuals. But I think this style of ‘intellectual’ writing is often over indulged leaving readers feeling overwhelmed or intellectually inferior. This style of writing is actively encouraged from an early age. The school trained writing and thinking can include mainly references to what one old man with a beard said a long time ago, which contradicts a way of thinking another old man said some time ago. I do not have a problem with them being old or male or having beards or that they said what they said a long time ago, but that their opinions are held with such high regard and to merely quote them with some minimal critical thinking is considered sufficient for a good argument.

To give you an example I was once reading a paper (can’t remember which one) and a journalist (can’t remember who) was criticising the use of ‘science’ to define how happy we are. The journalist quoted the study done by ‘scientists’ which claimed that we are now happier than we ever have been. He then argued that this conclusion contradicted a study earlier in the year by ‘scientists’ that said we are not as happy as we were ten years ago. The journalist went on to argue that science does not have the answer to everything and that we should not forget what great philosophers have said on the subject of happiness. He then went on to quote Aristotle’s definition of happiness describing it as beautiful…

‘Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence’ (or some other similar meaningless shit like that).

However, this was just Aristotle’s personal definition of happiness not his opinion of whether or not people today are happy….This journalist thought the use of like minded quotes was enough to support opinion. I cannot get this bug bare of mine across as beautifully as a great man once did when he said 'Never believe what a person is saying just because it is followed by a quote from a great man' and 'Everybody generalises'. That great man is of course me. If you haven’t detected the sarcasm then you must regard me as a hypocritical arrogant idiot. But then again you didn’t even spot the obvious sarcasm so fuck you. The second quote is obviously not at all related to this paragraph but I find it funny so thought I would include it. Such a quote could make me seem either clever or stupid and then I remembered I said it without realising at the time that it was funny (until the friend I said it to laughed) so I therefore must be the latter.

I must confess I don’t normally talk like this. This is my posh writing voice and normally it would sound a bit like this …

‘Aye fucking canny like… Nee botha…Aye whey…Varnigh shit mesell’

Two more reasons why I have not used too many quotes and references to established philosophy and theology is: it requires more work and effort, and my knowledge of such things is limited. However, I am not completely clueless as I have a C in A level Religious Studies, which was made up of 50% Ethics and 50% Islam. This C in half an A level of Ethics allowed me to quote, as I inevitably would (being a student), Kantian ethics in some witty context with my friends to make ourselves feel clever. What I am getting at here is that I am mainly clueless.

In conclusion, I will not use many quotes (especially those which are just other peoples opinions) to support my points because I think it doesn’t help, it’s pointless, I don’t know anything and I am a lazy twat.

Don't loot. Eat fruit!

I completely disagree with all the looting, which has been going on across England this month. Destroying our own communities is ridiculous. But I am not surprised.

It is quite conceivable that some of the uneducated, poor, jobless people involved in this could convince themselves that looting from a shop is reasonable given the circumstances. I am fortunate to be in none of these categories and I can almost convince myself it's ok to steal from a company (the fact that only the low down staff or the future consumers are affected stops me). If business’ can get away with stealing, taking advantage of people and not paying all of their taxes why should we respect them? Loads of our own politicians have stolen (remember the expenses scandal?) and they are already well off. I know that most of these looters won’t be thinking these thoughts but the ideology of taking what you can regardless of the consequences to other individuals is well ingrained in our culture and is nicely exemplified by the highest members of our society.

The rioters may not have a political agenda but that does not mean the riots aren’t a consequence of politics.

I believe the division between the classes is the main cause of this type and level of ‘criminality’ (I’m sick of hearing people saying that word). The fact that the class divide is widening does not look good for the future. I do not mean that all working class people will riot or even that all the rioters are working class. But having such a large number of people with the potential to be criminals is a direct consequence of our society. If you disagree with this then ask yourself ‘what else created them?’ Whatever your answer is they still did not create themselves. If your response would be similar to ‘OK then I accept that they didn’t create who they have become but they can still choose to change who they are’ then you are an idiot. Please think about how that doesn’t make any sense at all. It is flawed logic. If you still disagree then please follow my blog in the future as I try to explain myself and I will apologise to you for being a nasty twat.

(1)The Beginning

My favourite colour used to be blue (being a boy) and then orange and then and probably still is red. I once believed that there were aliens under my bed, which would try to stab my soft toys and I with lethal injections. Their attempts forced me to sleep in the centre of my bed, preventing their skinny little alien arms from reaching me to administer there deadly dose. Similarly, I once believed in God (because I was a child) and then I stopped believing in a God (partly because my mother had just been baptised as a Jehovah’s Witness and I was trying to rebel and partly because I thought believing in god or being religious was ‘gay’). Then after some thought I once again started believing in a God (partly because I had stopped my silent rebellion and partly because I know longer negatively judged in such an adolescent way the opinions of others). The main reason I started to believe in God again was because I thought I had a good life. You see I was doing well at school both academically (it’s funny because I spelled academically wrong  when I was writing the first draft of this) and physically and I felt I had good friends and was respected by my peers. Surely this was Gods reward for being a ‘good’ person?

Then a few years later, after reading the whole bible and debating with friends and family and still being fully convinced in a God, one evening I sat in my small room at Van Mildert College of Durham University and pondered over why I am who I am, why each person is different. After hours of thinking I came to a conclusion which not only left me satisfied with a good answer but also led me to believe that there is no God or if there is he /she/it is a right cunt. The conclusion I came to although making full logical sense to me now and at the time, hounded me for a week as it challenged and contradicted everything I had ever thought about on issues such as; responsibility, sin, good, evil, forgiveness, punishment, justice and other similar shit.

The answer I came to can only be understood with an open mind as it goes against thinking which is well ingrained in our minds. I find the older an individual is the angrier they are likely to get at hearing this way of thinking as an alternative to the one they are used to (and have been in my opinion brain washed to have (which does not necessarily mean they are wrong)). This may be due to them being wiser or just plain stubborn.

‘Blessed are the meek’. And none more so than my brother who accepted this alternative readily. This may be due to his high level of respect for me but mine for him leaves me thinking he would not just follow the ideas of a person out of respect and I therefore am sure he came to his conclusion through careful thinking, reasoning and by being intellectually humble.

What I didn’t realise at this time was that this hypothesis on development of human behaviour had already been thought up and developed by some philosophers. But they had failed to convince others and failed to bring this hypothesis to the attention of a wider audience. It had remained academic, that is to say the people who like being clever and having power from this intelligence like to keep their power. And what I hope to achieve is to convince others that this hypothesis is plausible and there is evidence to back it up. I want to bring this to the attention of a wider audience. It is laughable for me to criticise these philosophers for failing seen as though this blog is probably only going to be read by me.

 

The reason they failed in my opinion is because they were a bit stupid. They wrote using the wrong language and explained things in a complicated manner. The language they used distracted from the beauty of this way of thinking. The beauty that it is simple, rational and makes sense. For me to obtain my goal I have to convince you of two things. The first I feel will be relatively easy, the second will not be so easy. But if I do manage to succeed in convincing you of these two things then there is no going back. I think that last sentence sounded pretty good and added some nice suspense, as well as finishing the post of nicely. It's a shame I have now ruined it by writing all this extra pointless crap and not even bothering to take it out. Instead of removing this I am just gonna copy and paste my beloved ending sentence...

But if I do manage to succeed in convincing you of these two things then there is no going back.

Testing blog/angry rant/rich people

In 2010 the UK’s total wealth was £9,000 billion. The top 10% of Britain's (in terms of wealth) own £4,000 billion, which is crazy isn’t it? If we taxed the rich with a one off tax of 20% we could pay off the UK’s debts straight away. But instead we are cutting jobs, making normal hard working people jobless, making them even poorer, we are cutting services and benefits. Why the fuck are we doing this? It is actually fucking ridiculous. 

Rich people are well…rich. Which means taking money off them isn’t going to affect them too much. But they are so selfish, so bloody greedy, that is why they are rich. It’s incredibly hard to be nice and get really rich. Rich people are cunts who have made money. If a nice person made a lot of money they would spread it around, give it to family and friends or a good cause. People who are born with a lot of money are generally cunts. Not inherently cunty, the money and the power it provides gives them cunt features. Some people use their money to do 'good'. These people are either not cunts or they are cunts pretending to be nice. Politicians are rich so most politicians are cunts. FACT! We are governed by cunts. FACT! I am very angry. FACT! 

Slipknot once said ‘people = shit’. I think they were slightly wrong. What they obviously meant was ‘cunts=cunts’ and ‘money + cunts = rich people’ and ‘rich people - 20% of their wealth = 20% poorer but still rich cunts’ and finally ‘rich person + death = :)’. I am just joking I am not actually promoting the killing of rich people. By the way if you are going to kill someone please don’t.  But if you really have definitely made your mind up, and you are sure you want to kill someone, and you are not going to be talked out of it then I am just saying it might be better for you and everyone else if you kill a rich person. Maybe I am being too harsh but then again I am not as harsh as a greedy, money grabbing, thinks that poor people are lazy and don’t deserve money, selfish cunt.