For better People

Outrageous propaganda

2010-04-15T08:36:00.001-07:00

Better safe than sorry

2010-03-15T11:26:00.001-07:00

Last week I told you I had been confronted with a dilemma about how I should choose my actions. and why i ought to choose the so called 'right' one.I’m still not sure whether this is the most rational “law” but this is the best answer I have come up with.

The odds that an immoral action in a certain situation will truly benefit you are usually very slim, and it’s almost impossible to be in a situation in which the immoral action will only bring you happiness. So, the best choice is to act according moral laws, and I believe that Kant’s categorical imperative is the very best one ("Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.").

You might ask yourself how will bring you happiness. Well it may not but it won't harm you either. If you hurt someone that person will most likely hurt you back, or he’ll become a worse person because of what you did to her and therefore ‘spread’ that lack of morality throughout the world, which means that you will someday be a victim of “immorality” too (which will be a consequence of your evil action).

But just as your lack of morality can be spread, so can your morals. And I’m sure about that, as I can see that my good actions had a big impact on the way my people around me have come to start thinking.

Even if there’s a possibility that a bad action will bring you happiness that chance is most likely very small, and if it doesn’t seem like it, it’s most probably because you aren’t seeing things through and aren’t therefore realizing how it’ll come back to bite you.

By our new editor

The universal law

2010-03-09T12:15:00.000-08:00

In my previous post (Crime and Punishment) I talked about how I thought forgiveness should apply to those who regret their acts. In this post I’ll talk about morality and rational actions, and relate it to Crime and Punishment.

When I was thinking about regret, I thought that “good” was nothing more that rationality and “evil” or "bad deeds" were unconscious actions. Now, how did I come to this conclusion?

Suppose you do something bad that you later regret, not because the outcome was bad for you, but because you realize what you did was wrong. Firstly, you must notice how a person is always walking towards truth, meaning, that when your personality changes, it is replaced by one that it is more correct than the previous one was. For example: you once were a kid who thought it was ok to steal pencils. Now you know that stealing pencils is wrong. You are closer from the truth, the objectively correct set of values than you were as a little kid. Now you may say that some people change for the worst. Well that is correct, but they are yet more correct then they were before changing. If a good person becomes a murderer for some reason, they won’t be further from the truth, because a person who becomes a murderer can only become so if he/she doesn’t truly know how wrong it is, if they did, they would never have become one.

The way I began to judge my actions as moral or imoral was by trying to think as someone outside the action. That way I would weight my actions and their consequences on society, instead of thinking on what the outcome would be for me. Let me explain this better with an example:

John wants Susan’s pencil. Stealing it would only bring happiness to John, however Susan would lose something she likes. Richard, who doesn’t know any of them, and therefore won’t gain/lose anything from John’s action, thinks John should not steal the pencil. In this example I am John but I try to consider my actions as if I were Richard . This means you should act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law, Kant.

Notice that this is the correct and most rational way of living, God must forgive everyone, because if they did bad deeds it was because they did not know how wrong they were. It is not their fault as they just had limited knowledge about morality. This, however, doesn’t matter much right now for he doesn't actually exist (think of the concept of God as karma).My view on the way I should live has changed a bit though. What does Susan matter to me, and whybshouldn't I having in mind I will be much happier by stealing from her? After all, I am myself, I want to live my life the best way possible, I must reach happiness.

Imagine that I had the chance to steal everyone’s money and run to some other foreign country where I will live happily forever. Why shouldn’t I do it? Well I must be honest, I only have one answer but I’m not too sure about it. All my actions must be actions that I wouldn ’t mind being the target of. This brings Kant's categorical imperative again "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end.".

This categorical imperative, the central philosophical concept in Kant’s moral philosophy. I agree that this is the true rule that separates moral from imoral actions. If everyone followed this idea society would be perfect. That is, if everyone was intelligent enough to know what should become a universal law and what shouldn’t. We can easily relate this to what I formerly stated, as moral actions, according to the categorical imperative, are the actions that are better for the society as a whole. However I'm now trying to say that my actions might change the actions of those around me.

This means that if I do something bad others might do so too, but if I do something good, those around me might take my actions as an example and be good aswell. It’s like I and those around me had some kind of agreement: as long as none of us does anything bad, we will be all good to each other. Yet almost no one is like this, and I might be the only one being good, but maybe, if I am a good person, society might become moral too. Just think about this as moral selfishness. However, this doesn’t really apply to a situation which I will only benefit from.

I wouldn’t be able to hurt anyone else even if I did only gain happiness, though I think the rational action would be hurting the other person and become happy myself.

Well, now you know my big dilemma. I’ll post the second part of this post in about one week, I hope that by then I'll already have an answer!

By our new editor

Freedom!

2010-03-05T10:50:00.001-08:00

I’ve thinking on what you ought to be allowed to do in today’s society very much lately and have come to the conclusion that there is really not an answer, it all comes down to your ability to foresee and evaluate coming events and the amount of responsibility for your actions you can take. Truth be told , there is a very simple, obvious way that even though it is a bit utopian is the one people consider as the correct one;

It very much allows you to do whatever you want within a range of actions that doesn’t affect other people in a harmful manner. Why should you be kept from doing what you want, and what is the difference between buying whichever shirt you want or smoking marijuana?

Factually there is none.

However the likeliness of people veering from a simple amoral action to a harmful chain of events is very much different from one another. In case you haven’t noticed all events have an implied line defining how reasonable they are which is passed on from generation to generation while being constantly modified by social standings, the media and those closest to you.

Whist taking drugs may be considered less appropriate than choosing your outfits, being a shopaholic may be a bigger problem than taking the occasional smoke, but then again, there is bigger chance you will become an addict than a shopaholic...

Law set boundaries we must abide to have been set up to keep foolish and insensible people from hurting themselves and society as a whole, just think about people who smoke, knowing full well that is highly damaging to their health eventually expecting some treatment for some tobacco related disease when it comes, which it will...

The existence of these people is unavoidable; therefore there must be limitations to our freedoms until we have a better legislation or a more decent society.So, please help tomorrow´s society be a little bit more suitable for better people.

Crime and punishment

2010-02-27T12:52:00.000-08:00

“Regret is a negative conscious and emotional reaction to personal past acts and behaviors. Regret is often felt when someone feels sadness, shame, embarrassment, depression, annoyance or guilt after committing an action or actions that the person later wishes that he or she had not done” - wikipedia

There are things that I’ve done in my past that I fully regret. When I think about them now, I cannot understand how unconscious I was and how much I’ve grown, for I would never do such things today.

Now, I suppose I’m not the only person in the world that feels like thisObviously this is pretty common, so usual that odds are that whoever is reading this knows the feeling.

I remember being in bed when I understood the following: he who regrets a certain action, cannot be punished for it. You might think this is pretty silly, but it is not. Just think about it. Remember when you were a kid and you used to mock your friends? And now you regret it, because you are now a more conscientious person? Well, if you do regret this, then you know you would never do it again for you now know how wrong it is – you are no longer the same person. I, for instance, regret some of my past deeds, and I would never do them again, because I now know how stupid and wrong they were. And I don’t mean wrong because the outcome was bad for me, but because I they were bad for some else, they were bad in an outsider’s objective point of view.

Now I hope you agree with what I said. When you regret something, you are no longer the same person. This means that you should not be punished for the actions you regret. It is like putting you in jail because when you 5 you stole your sister’s pencil. You were not conscientious enough to know that what you were doing was wrong.

This, however, cannot be applied to our society in any way. It’s almost impossible for a judge to know whether a murderer regrets his actions, therefore, it is difficult to change the law of a country bearing this idea in mind, so let’s discuss that another day. Although it might be hard to change the law, it can change the way you live! If you know someone who you can’t forgive for something he/she did, rethink about it, does he/she truly regret it? If so, why won’t you forgive that person since he’s no longer the same person who did it?!
I also noticed, less importantly though, that if god did exist, he would forgive those who regret their conduct. Unlike human judges, god would know how you really feel like about the offence, which means he ought to forgive you, as you were unaware of the result of your actions. Therefore forgiveness also loses some of its mean, as it stops being something hard and ‘beautiful’ and becomes something simply rational.

By our new editor

The bible, God's book

2010-02-22T10:17:00.000-08:00

Here’s a very simple point about the bible most people don’t understand or have never been told and that I thought I’d share with you; The following reasoning will only concern the good book’s validity, as it is the only one that I am knowledgeable about, even though it may apply to other ‘works of fiction’.

The Bible’s legitimacy as a divine book must have two very solid bases; firstly it’s original legality as the actual word of God and the fact that it must have maintained its reliability throughout the centuries.

The theological explanation to the Bible being the word of God is that those who wrote it were, at that moment, inspired by the Holy Spirit, therefore writing the word of God, even though they may or may not have made mistakes as there may have been ‘comprehensible’ flaws back when the Prophets were being inspired, due to their imperfect human condition.

Well, the inspiration part is a bit iffy, or if you already are an atheist, just plain nonsense, why would a divine creature give its subjects its doctrine in a doubtful way, with ‘mistakes’ and in a language that is anything but clear, allowing dozens of different interpretations?

Assuming there is only one way to praise God and that there is only one correct doctrine (otherwise there would no right one and therefore no need for prayers and rituals and so on, as most of them would necessarily be wrong) and that God knows the past present and future, why would he want to be incorrectly praised for centuries? And no, God doesn’t work in mysterious ways…….

The part that concerns its reliability after hundreds of different versions and translations is, I think, rather clear:

The bible has obviously been utterly modified throughout times, it was translated countless times and many of the Hebrew terms lost their subtle meanings, and that was just the involuntary change…..

The Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament. One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.
The Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection,
Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".
Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.
Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Clear enough?......

Proof that God doesn’t exist !-Part II

2010-02-18T09:27:00.000-08:00

Because I have been criticized on my last post for supposedly not giving any formal argument as you’d expect in a philosophical thesis, giving only contradicting evidence of what Jesus is thought to have taught us, I decided I would answer the questions raised on the comments of the last post (the first one on how God doesn't exist).

The atheist belief is based on the implausibility of the existence of God as a divine entity;

-God’s existence is based solely on faith, as you cannot in any circumstance objectively point out an act of God. The truth is that miracles are the explanation of the dim-witted, which has be proven countless times so far (Noah’s arch, Adam and Eve,…..and so on)

-Faith consists in believing in something without proof. Well, this has been the biggest conversation stopper I’ve encountered so far, keeping me from reaching a conclusion whenever someone pulls the faith card.

Therefore:

-There is no proof that God exists!

Now that we have flawlessly reached this conclusion, I shall carry on with my line of thought.

I, of course, cannot establish or conclude that God doesn’t exist, because a negative cannot be proven! Very much like you cannot prove not to be guilty of a crime and cannot prove that mythological creatures (like dragons, unicorns and so on) didn’t exist, even though there also are testimonies affirming they did.

Now, compare God, a creature that is above all things, wasn’t born and has always and will always exist, is all-powerful, omnipresent,all-knowing and still cares about mankind among the trillions of planets and probably civilizations in the universe to dragons, some species that may have existed and been somewhat exaggerated….

Well, I’ll acknowledge that they both seem unlikely but no one has started wars, destroyed civilizations or planned their lives according to testimonies about dragons….

(feel free to link to this post)

Left vs. Right

2010-02-14T10:35:00.001-08:00

(click the image to see it bigger)

Thought I'd leave an unbiased pro and cons list of left and right principles so you can compare them, and, who know, rethink your ideals.

Please have in mind the consequences of each set of principles…..

Life

2010-02-13T14:00:00.000-08:00

You have most likely wondered about what the meaning of life is:

-Guess what, there’s none: You are simply a biological organism that is a worthless speck in the universe.

Firstly, the main idea you’ll eventually comprehend is that we as a unit are meaningless. This vision is widely known as Nihilism (Google Nietzsche for more information, as he was the one that better understood the non-existence of a meaning for life).

Chances are there are trillions of civilizations in the universe, which is it self as big as an atom is compared to you, therefore there is a virtually inexistent chance you’ll have an impact on mankind let alone on the universe.

You can counter-argument saying that people can, in fact, influence other people, just as Bill Gates or Obama did, even
though they weren’t exactly raise to be someone in life:

The answer is, they were the result of a probability!

Someone would have eventually been elected president hadn’t it been Obama, and some one would invent computers if Bill Gates hadn’t he felt like revolutionizing the world.

Now that I’ve established our meaninglessness I’ll now refute God and humanity as a foundation for life having meaning.

-For God to be your reason to live you must be aiming for a hell-free afterlife or you may just be scared of some divine punishment .Anyhow, for you to have these worries, you must acknowledge the existence of God (if so please read my posts concerning the subject)

-If you believe in mankind please have in mind there is no reason for you to, mostly because you cannot afford to waste your life for the benefit of others (considering there is no god) because when you’re on the brink of death you won’t say you’ve accomplished something, which is very different from helping others maintaining your own happiness …

Here is where the Aristotelic principle of joy comes into play; the goal of human life is for one to be as happy as possible!!

Have you not understood this by now, please take some moments to realise the percentage of what comes into play when you are making a decision that is related to your own happiness…

The answer is 100%!

Even when you are deciding to do something that will supposedly be damaging to you or at least that’ll not be helpful for you, you shall be, on some level, acting for your advantage (or in some way that you will benefit from).

Take not going to a party to help a family member as an example.

You may think you are doing them a favour when you are in fact following your own moral, your set of principles, which if you didn’t would only get you a heavy conscience, therefore making you sadder!

Everything you do is to your own good.

This said, must I be a hedonist (someone that’ll do everything for pleasure) for the rest of my life?

I’ll be answering that later on in Life II

I'm rich!!

2009-02-02T11:13:00.000-08:00

How rich are you? >>

I'm loaded.
It's official.
I'm the 49,847,130 richest person on earth!

Obama's moves

2008-11-10T11:12:00.000-08:00

I'd like to start by thanking all the decent people who voted for Obama. Had you stayed apathetic as usual you would have let the illiterate elect McCain. My view on him (McCain) is purely based on his ideas whereas, as I’m afraid, most judge him in a highly biased way because of the media and talk shows... Though it contradicts my latest posts, I’m happy the best of all the bad candidates was elected.

I say this, not to undermine him, but because I don’t fully agree with none of them, or with the fact that only 2 candidates were running for such a major position, obliging the American people to elect one of the two even if they didn’t agree with any of them.

President Obama is now the socialist leader of the American superpower. I’m outstandingly happy that someone with a modern view of the world is leading the decaying and conservative America.

The reason I wrote this post was to clear some of the options he’ll undoubtedly take or at least try to. Not being sure whether he will or he did it for the votes, I must say fully eradicating poor people’s, who constitute 45% of the country’s population, taxes is a, though not perfect, great first step for an evolving America. Such an idea will for sure keep America from the superpower route, which unlike most people think is a good thing.

Fully developed countries, as I see it, like Denmark, Finland and other northern European ones have the lowest social differences rates and highest average incomes and therefore much less crimes and aren’t superpowers, which if you examine them, are based on injustices (if you have trouble figuring out why, look at China or all the powerful empires on the middle ages).

Why can't we stop poverty?

2008-10-25T03:42:00.000-07:00

I’ve been thinking on how most jobs are absolutely expendable. Janitors, waiters, salesman are all absolutely meaningless and worthless jobs. All of those jobs could and should be replaced, though not yet, by machines…

Although it doesn’t diminish in any way their rights as human beings, it certainly extinguishes their usefulness. I’d be absolutely fine if they weren’t relevant, however they’re the main reason for poverty;
Imagine you were the owner of a small company and you had to hire a security guard to keep your belongings safe at night. Would you pay him a decent wage, knowing he was doing a job with no qualifications that even a kid could do? If you are a decent person you’ll give him an adequate salary but not one that could get him a better place on life at the risk of jeopardizing your company’s welfare.

We’ve now stumbled on why there are so many social differences! If all jobs required the very same credentials (but on different subjects of course) there would be very few social differences (because of the offer/demand ratio for each profession).

Were there no people with no qualifications ‘leeching taxe money away’ we’d all be as rich as everybody else! Since a smaller income reflects itself on smaller tax payments, by having one of such jobs they are directly reducing the country’s wellbeing.

The other part of the problem lies on such non evolution-promoting jobs. You’d figure that by now, after 2000 years we’d have been fully ‘developed’, however we still have major social, economical and even ever increasing health problems. Why?

Because out of the 6 living billion only a select minority is actively contributing!

So, take my advice, and get some type of qualification so you can aid us in our journey for better people!

Privatization vs. Nationalization

2008-10-23T09:04:00.000-07:00

This is a simple snapshot of the political choice between capitalism and moderate communism.
It’s widely understood that the basis of both system, in a faultless society, is the very same one:
Citizens pay for a service which is delivered accordingly to the payment previously given, like it happens with insurances, or given at the moment of the purchase.
The difference lies on the fact that nationalization has a wider support basis on what poverty is concerned and softens big income differences!

You must, however have in mind that such an advantage doesn’t necessarily make moderate communism and the nationalization of private assets better. Why? Simply because, on the other hand, there are those who take advantage of the system.

In a capitalist nation a slob will undoubtedly be ‘held responsible’ for his laziness, not having the money to pay for all the services he needs whilst in a completely nationalized nation he’d benefit from perks that supposedly were for the poor.

Noticeable examples of this are the guaranteed minimum income and those given in case of unemployment. In my country those are about 600 euros combined (about 750$), which were to be given to those in an emergency situation instead of to those that won’t work because of such a fixed income! Such a ‘salary’ is being paid not by ‘the state’ but by our taxes!

Though the choice between privatization and nationalization is a matter of judgement and principles, you must acknowledge the advantages the privatization of most public assests has.
The downside is its faulty, lengthy and ‘cheatable’ legislation.

Having in mind both side’s major disadvantages the obvious conclusion drawn would be that a new political system had to be created (to which I’ve given my contribution here), but in lack of such an ‘invention’, it is up to us to choose whether we value liberty or equality the most (those being the ideals each of these political systems stand for)!

Proof that God doesn’t exist!

2008-10-16T09:15:00.000-07:00

I was raised as a Christian and went for about 12 years to a catholic school. However I started wondering about what it all meant, if god truly existed and so on…

Having given it some serious amount of thought I eventually come to the conclusion that god (the Christian one described on the Bible not any other god) doesn’t exist!

Firstly, having in mind the bible states god knows the entire extension of time, why would he create humans in the first place? Knowing they’d make each other suffer why would he make us endure such a sentence. Was he bored, did he need a hobby?

Every answer you come up with is bound to be selfish, immoral or even wicked! This ss the first contradiction I found in the good book.

Secondly, knowing about the mental and moral restrictions of many men why would he have given us free will, which most people swear it is his greatest gift?

Why didn't he make us obey to certain rules which would erradicate suffering and pain?

Well, maybe he isn’t as omnipotent and all-seeing as people think he is. But if such a supposition is true, why wouldn’t he have changed us throughout the years?

Imagine you had bought a ‘human colony’, which was a small-sized replica of the world nowadays. It was filled with six billion people with feelings. What would you do? Assuming you knew what was better for them, wouldn’t you set a perfect scenario so they’d have the best life possible?

Is it or is it not a major paradox according to the description of god given by Jesus himself?

Makes you wonder….

What goes around comes around!

2008-10-14T09:24:00.000-07:00

I’ve been thinking about what the punishments should be on what crimes are concerned.

Legislation will follow one of the two options: punishing crimes so hard that it’ll ‘persuade’ to-be criminals not to take that path or will punish them accordingly to the severity of their crime instead.

Unfortunately none of those are viable solutions to solving crime once and for all.

Bearing in mind the Declaration of Human Rights forbids any kind of torture or inhumane conditions, what can be done to those criminals that easily walk free everyday? Murderers, kidnappers, rapists and even mobsters, get away with such hideous crimes every single day. Why? Those countries that have legislations that suit the first example ought to make sure they don’t send innocent people (requesting lots of bullet-proof evidence on the crime to convict someone) to jail and those who are actually convicted, knowing they’ll spend the rest of their life in jail, reproduce the life style they used to have. Therefore, what would otherwise have been a place for healing will be a smaller ghetto!

I’ve come to the conclusion that the Declaration of Human Rights definitely needs revising much alike every country’s legislation. As I see it all people are entitled to the rights assured by the DOHR unless they break someone else’s very same rights therefore waving theirs!!

The only solution would be taking the right they took from someone else themselves. Whoever assaulted someone would have his physical integrity compromised (AKA get beaten up).If someone was proven guilty of embezzlement or fraud all his personal propriety would be taken from him and so on….

There would only be one exception: murderers and their death.

On the XV century black people and Indians were thought to be animals. It wasn’t prejudice related; they simply didn’t know what the right thing to do was, due to all the physical differences. Today, 500 years later, we know we’re the same though in the meantime millions were killed and enslaved.

This is why, as we’re not sure, it’s better to be safe than finding out we truly weren't correct in another 500 years.

Through the following of these ideas, those who disrespected others, would fell the consequences of their actions.

Am i evil?

2008-10-12T11:46:00.000-07:00

There is a philosophical theory that regards men’s reasons for doing anything, called psychological selfishness. It states that every choice is made towards someone’s personal profit either direct or indirectly. It is mostly based on opinions on all of human actions.

Some are easily spotted as being for someone’s own profit. However some aren’t as easily spotted and those who believe in this theory are though to be cynical.
Here are some examples (the last are a bit harder to figured out):

-John is in a school in which test are much harder than in all other. He had a physics test on Monday in which he cheated and the grade he’ll have will decide whether he’ll be on the 50 chosen applicants for his college degree. He simply cheated a bit, no one came out of it harmed, he saved a little work and not even the teacher was upset (what she doesn’t know can’t hurt her).Right? Wrong! Rick who is also running for that same spot didn’t make it. Why? Because though he was in a school just as hard he figured he’d be better prepared and because he was more decent he decided not to cheat since he knew he could leave that particular school at any time!

-Jennifer who absolutely loathes by Maria (the most popular girl in school) is the only daughter of a famous businessman. She is therefore considerably richer than Maria who’s the youngest daughter of a mason. Their allowances are 120$ and 20$ respectively. For her birthday Jen gave Maria a 200$ check in front of all the guests.
Why would she do that?
Simply because she’d benefit!
Maria would like her much better after that astonishing present getting Jen a new status quo at school.

-Susan is a girl scout and ,not because her parents make her do it or for any other reason other than because she wants to, she spends 4 weakly hours in a retirement home near her house, helping the elderly. How can such an altruistic attitude be thought of selfish? Well, according to Emmanuelle Kant an action is only truly good if it motivated by a sense of self-sacrifice and let’s face it, no one is actually willing to do it. The true reasons of her trips to the retirement home are either the fact that she likes the smiles on their faces (which is not altruistic), she wants her efforts to be recognised or (the truly hidden reason, and the most common) she doesn't want to have a heavy conscience!

Moral

2008-10-10T09:18:00.000-07:00

The other day I was watching an episode of commander in chief in which an American spy sub was trapped underwater in Northern Corean waters. The president made a deal with the Chinese in which they’d rescue them (150 people) in exchange for America looking the other way on the Chinese weapon sales to Myanmar and some other countries. Be sure to have in mind the bad relationships between the USA and North Corea.

There are just so many wrong things in this scenario.

Espionage and the problem between countries are, as far as I’m concerned,somewhat necessary and unavoidable problems on our decadent world….

However it is absolutely unacceptable:

-What the Chinese thought: selling weapons to Myanmar will give the Chinese people millions, which will improve their living conditions. The weaponry industry will create thousands of new jobs. The American will also lower their taxes on Chinese imported products giving them more.

-What the American thought: we won’t get harmed by the weapons sale, will save 150 navy seals, won’t have as much trouble controlling the Chinese and will straighten bonds with the them.

Now here is what the both of them didn’t think about:

the good people of Myanmar will be paying for weapons to kill some other people with their taxes. The lessening American taxes will be coming right out of their pockets. If the corean find out, there is a chance that’ll trigger a war against the USA and China, costing more and more lives (much more than the 150 that were aware of the risks) and this is the beginning of a chain reaction of favours ,likely to be in moral grey areas which are half way to disaster!

Are dictatorships bad?

2008-09-29T13:53:00.000-07:00

My controversial answer would be no! Well, it’s far from being that simple. This is likely to be the subject I’ve given the most thought on, and this is my opinion.

The only basic, undisputable about fact dictatorships is that the ruler has absolute power over all his subordinates and that is the very key to a truly better world.

There will always be brainless people whose contribution to the greater good is close to none and their lack of intelligence has since the dawn of democracy mined great countries.

That means democracy is a ticking bomb since it empowers masses, which are unlikely to be smart as a whole and are, not only incapable of weighing and understanding the characteristics of each of the candidates running for office, but are also much more likely to be influenced by taboos, social standards and the media.

Having in mind it is not possible to keep such individuals from voting (because there is no objective test that can measure someone’s ability and competence to vote), the only possible solution is to ‘ignore’ their opinions, as well as the one of all others and put our trust on the elected dictator’s wisdom and guidance. This is the biggest risk taken when relying on a single leader whose power is unlimited: he can turn over night, become an insane dictator in the true sense of the word or lose his abilities….there are never ending possibilities.

The political system that I think might have a chance of success is a ‘liberal dictatorship’ (try to ignore the obvious paradox) which would be a lifetime-election based system.

Candidates would be put through a series of 100% public tests on intelligence, knowledge, ideology, natural skills and mental agility for about two years. Their private records would be thoroughly examined to make sure their intentions were the right ones, making sure they hadn’t run for president for personal profit.

After results were made public, in case the results weren’t absolutely clear and well over an established percentage the candidate would not be chosen and we’d return to a democratic nation temporarily though.

If there was a tie or a minimal difference between two candidates, we’d than turn to an election in which only conscious voters would be allowed to vote.

He’d then be president for a trial period of four years.

The country’s welfare would be measured after the trial period and were the results satisfying by pre-established standards, he’d stay for the rest of his life or until he resigned. Once he took possession he’d be absolutely untouchable, except by an international organisation (like the UN) which could relieve him of his duties if an established amount of all the other countries chose to.

Now, why is it so important to have a single president/prime-minister/dictator? Mostly because most social and political long-term plans take decades to take form.

Moreover, as truly good presidents are very few and cannot be spotted as such in a few years (4/5),they usually only get one term since the good ones don’t get the time to convince the ‘brainless people’ of what they’re doing and can not run for more than two terms.

Life & Death

2008-09-28T08:00:00.000-07:00

‘Death is the termination of the biological functions that define living organisms. It refers both to a specific event and to a condition, the true nature of which it has for millennia been a central concern of the world's religious traditions and philosophers to penetrate; in particular, the possibility or otherwise of what is known as life after death.’

The subject that troubles most people the most is death.Even thought they’re aware of its inevitability, they won't make any significant effort to put it off: someone dies from a tobacco-related disease every 8 seconds ,in the USA 35% are overweight and hundreds of thousands die in unjustified wars all over the globe every year.

One would think they were religious and therefore weren’t afraid of dying because they believed in the afterlife, but they are not!
Statistics show 16% are non-religious and most of the other eighty four per cent aren’t sure whether they believe in the afterlife! Why are we so insensible about our own lives? Simply because death isn’t a scenario most people dare thinking about and dismiss as an unlikely event to come.

Such a conclusion raises the question:
Would you want to know when your time comes? :

-If you would, you must be a rather courageous and self-sacrificing person. Knowing is a very hazardous option because there is a chance you’ll become obsessed about self-realization and fulfilment (see more here). Knowledge is better known as power therefore, knowing when your time is coming is likely to be an asset!
If, for some reason, you know when you might die here are some truly hard but altruistic advice which will spare your friends and family a lot of suffering and grieving: start some harsh discussions letting them know all of their worst characteristics, which will momentarily lessen their pain when you die and if you are willing to, donate all your money to charity. Moreover, have a chat with all the people you couldn’t criticize or open yourself to because you feared the consequences.

-Would you not want to know, don’t be alarmed, that way you can live a happy life, not knowing what your deadline is! Most people, when there is a chance they suffer from an untreatable degenerative disease, rather not know! Although they have the disadvantage of not knowing when to ‘set things straight’, they can live one hundred per cent carefree!

The ravaging hunger

2008-09-25T09:59:00.000-07:00

Firstly i'd like to introduce thehungersite.A non-profitable charitable organization to which donating is simply clicking on a link!You can find it on www.thehungersite.com

Why?Because the ravaging hunger still kills millions in our modern world:

-One person dies every five seconds....Every five seconds.....

-According to UNICEF, 26,500-30,000 children die EACH day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”

-Based on enrolment data, about 72 million children of primary school age in the developing
world were not in school in 2005

-Nearly a billion people (1\6 of the world's population) entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names.

-Less than one per cent of what the world spent every year on weapons was needed to put every child into school by the year 2000 and yet it didn’t happen.

-10.6 million died in 2003 before they reached the age of 5 (same as children population in France, Germany, Greece and Italy)

Global Priority -$U.S. dollars

Cosmetics in the United States ----------------8. 000. 000. 000

Ice cream in Europe --------------------------11. 000. 000. 000

Perfumes in Europe and the United States ----12. 000. 000. 000

Business entertainment in Japan -------------35. 000. 000. 000

Cigarettes in Europe -------------------------50. 000. 000. 000

Alcoholic drinks in Europe ------------------105. 000. 000. 000

Narcotics drugs in the world ----------------400. 000. 000. 000

Military spending in the world --------------780. 000. 000. 000

Total --------------------------------------1401.000.000.000

Global Priority $U.S. Dollars

Basic education for all--------------------- 6.ooo.ooo.ooo

Water and sanitation for all --------------------- 9.ooo.ooo.ooo

Reproductive health for all women-- 12.ooo.ooo.ooo

Basic health and nutrition for all ----- 13.ooo.ooo.ooo

Total ---------------------------------40.000.000.000

-Koffi Anan, UN Secretary General, in a speech on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, 17 October 2000, said “Almost half the world’s population lives on less than two dollars a day, yet even this statistic fails to capture the humiliation, powerlessness and brutal hardship that is the daily lot of the world’s poor.”

Poverty and hunger have been discussed throughout the last decades but no truly major changes have taken place. However, thousands of coalitions and projects try to reverse the situation. With their current resources, they will accomplish nothing. They need your help, not only as an individual but as an active member in your society! Politics isn’t simply running for president, prime-minister or congressman or voting for them, it’s a civil right you have on any democracy, which allows you to make sure the government will stand by the majority! Protesting on the streets, signing petitions and even suing the government are your way of making a true difference!

Billions are spent every year buying weaponry and developing more lethal weapons and a staggering amount of money is invested in armies getting ready for a war to come. Meanwhile millions starve to death and die from diseases eradicated from most countries long ago. Why must you do something about it?

Because your son could have been him:

This could have been your daughter:

These are non-profitable charitable organizations to which ou can make donations (remember 'Almost half the world’s population lives on less than two dollars a day', every dollar you can give will make a difference):

-Organizations which directly aid people in extreme conditions:

http://www.thehungersite.com

http://www.vso.org.uk/giving/war_on_povetry.asp

http://www.listencharity.org/the-listen-charity.html

http://www.savethechildren.org/

http://www.mercycorps.org/?source=1000&gclid=CKX4oujQxJQCFQ6S1Qod11AZEw

-Organizations which help underdeveloped countries develop economically (recommended)

http://www.millenniumpromise.org/site/PageServer?pagename=home

http://www.grameenfoundation.org/welcome/fighting_poverty/?gclid=CKu9wa3TxJQCFREWQgodkXGqTA

(led to a nobel prize, highly recommended)

http://www.earthrights.net/

(also deals with poverty related ecological solutions,highly recommended)

Finally ,please make sure to tell all your family, friends and acquaitances about this blog, so this inicitive may lead us to a better world and please,remember thehungersite

Religions

2008-09-25T09:37:00.000-07:00

Since the beginning of mankind, men have believed in gods and super-natural forces.
Cavemen understandingly relied on religion to explain 'strange' natural events they did not understad and believed to be the consequences of their actions therefore sacrificing animals and human beings in an attempt to get the gods to ease up on themselves.However, since the middle ages men have irracionaly fought for their religions murdering innocent children and women, destroying vital crops , and more recently blowing themselves up in any crowded place.Such men call themselves heroes or martyrs ,fighting a so called 'holy war'.

Wars have been waged against entire countries crowded with 'infidels currupting' our world,....
but why?

After a considerable amount of time examining all aspects and reasons to: why more and more people seek guidance from priests , go to church (p.e.), are willing to believe in gods and super-natural forces (never scientifically proven to exist) and be killed while fighting for their cause ....and i have come up with 4 possible reasons:

-Sellfishness: The reason i believe to be the most common is wanting a reward for 'good behaviour' ,either spreading god's will, cleansing the world from infidels or simply living one's life following some principals.The rewards for living such shallow lives can be 72 virgins , an eternity in paradise or reencarnating as a more powerful,more wealthy,or happier person in another life (Islam,Christianism,Hinduhism).

-Irracionality :How can someone believe in a god with no proof of his existance?Unfortunately , many religions are proud of such an accomplishment;blindly believing in a god without bullet-proof evidence that he exist, relying simply on interpretations of events that could be just as easily seen as a coincidences, claiming that if 'his miracles were flashy, there would be no need for faith' ,this is madness ,not faith , nothing but pure irracionality.

-Need: Most people seek guidance mostly because they need their life to make sense.Having in mind the great majority has a dull life ,they desperately need something to 'keep them going'.This point of view is actually the most common amongst philosophers.According with what Immanuel Kant ,a brilliant philosopher from the 18th century, stated in Critique of Practical Reason ,leading a virtuous life cannot be harmonised with a happy one ,therefore there must be a god and an afterlife so whoever lives virtuously in this life may be rewarded in their afterlife.
However, this doesn't mean there is a god ,just that it would be fair if there was one.Some people can't stand the idea that they will not be rewarded for a saintlike life so they choose to believe in something greater than themselves.

-Lack of thought on the subject:Since most children are raised to believe in a certain god and to follow certain rules ,which happen to be their parents' most of the times,they do not question these rules because either they don't require much effort to obey or they are the same as their own.

Blood diamonds

2008-09-25T09:26:00.000-07:00

Being Africa the poorest continent, how are there so many wars and slaughters?Simple.Warlords feed of african 'blood diamonds' or 'conflict diamonds'.They force thousands to dig diamonds ,in inhumane conditions, from mines scattered all over Africa,away from the world's observant eyes...

Some of the most important facts from: http://www.diamondsforafricafund.org/realdiamondfacts/conflict.htm

-Blood diamonds captured the world's attention during the extremely brutal conflict in Sierra Leone in the late1990s, where rebels carried out systematic amputations of limbs during an eight-year brutal campaign. During this time, it is estimated that up to 14% of the world diamond production was being used to fund bloody civil wars. Illicit rough diamonds have also been used by rebels to fund conflicts in Angola, Liberia, Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo (also known as Congo Brazzaville). During this time, Unita, a rebel militia group in Angola, generated close to $1.5 billion from sales of diamonds mined in areas it controlled, using the proceeds to wage a brutal civil war that killed 500,000 people before ending in 2002

-300,000 carats of diamonds annually are currently being mined with slave labor in the rebel-held regions in Ivory Coast and sold to fund violent conflicts. Hundreds of Ivory Coast laborers are being forced to work in diamond pits by the rebel group named the Forces Nouvelles. These diamonds are being smuggled out through neighboring countries such as Mali as well as other countries that are not Kimberley Process participants, ultimately finding their way to the jewelry worn in developed countries. Millions of dollars in revenues from these illicit diamonds fund weapons purchases and violence by The Forces Nouvelles.

-Many attempts have been made so far to end this war fueling cancer being the most succesful The Kimberly Project:

The Kimberley Process (KP) is a joint governments, industry and civil society initiative to stem the flow of conflict diamonds – rough diamonds used by rebel movements to finance wars against legitimate governments. The trade in these illicit stones has fuelled decades of devastating conflicts in countries such as Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sierra Leone.

The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) imposes extensive requirements on its members to enable them to certify shipments of rough diamonds as ‘conflict-free’. As of September 2007, the KP has 48 members, representing 74 countries, with the European Community and its Member States counting as an individual participant.
from http://www.kimberleyprocess.com/

If you are interested in this subject feel free to check these links out and to comment this post so i can improve it:

-The world diamond council:news about blood diamonds updated daily (recommended) http://www.worlddiamondcouncil.com/

-The sierra leone global education partnership project:A project trying to reverse the consequences of the slaughter-http://www.wuomi.ca/

-Diamonds are for never-A project to end blood diamond mines-http://www.onesky.ca/diamonds/diamonds_campaign/index.html

10 parenting tips to raise a great child

2008-09-25T09:19:00.000-07:00

Some help and advice on parenting for better children and for better people:

10.Never back down after grounding either a teenager or a young child.Your children will eventually realise that 'you cannot be messed with'.
9.Do not punish unconscient or involuntary mistakes.However, make sure to ground them for a decent period of time if they break any rule hoping they wouldn't get caught.
8.Try not to argue with your children right after finding out what they've done.This will only make you say things you don't really mean and punish them more then they deserve ,which you'll regret.
7.Spend time with your children.Just be around when they are playing video games or watching tv.This will make them more comfortable around you.
6.Try to understand the social pressure they have to withstand everyday.Be reasonable.
5.Always respect their privacy.
4.Have an unusually strong reaction or punishment (such as yelling or taking their favourite activities away)if they really mess things up.This will help them realise how serious what they've done really is.
3.Try to get your child to make the right thing on his own rather than saying you'll punish them if they don't.This will be very helpful in their lives.
2.Know your children.When something happens have in mind how they usually behave and how you've raised them.
1.Get your children to trust you no matter what!This will help you get a better insight on his\her activities ,allowing you to act on it either helping or punishing them.

Why YOU are a politician!

2008-09-25T09:03:00.000-07:00

'Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power"(wrong) and refers to the regulation of a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy. '

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

Why are politics still thaught of a thing for politicians?Do people still think that they can't actively help their beloved country?Most people live in a democracy!What does that mean?What other than power to the people?
You can make a difference either by signing petitions, joining protests on the street or choosing who to vote on wisely.Take my advice and please don't vote on someone because he the same color as you are or because you'll somehow benefit if he gets elected.Please vote on someone who is reasonable, knowlegeable and wise.

Don't vote on someone because he's a war hero, or because he looks like a trust-worthy person.Vote on someone who is against violence and guns (how can someone not be?"Something is wrong in this country when a child can grab a gun so easily and shoot a bullet into the middle of a child's face, as my child experienced," said a parent on her daughter's funeral) ,against hunger,poverty and suffering.
Please, politics is a civil right and duty.You can make a difference.
Some petitions:
http://www.eco-gaia.net/forum-pt/index.php?topic=83.0:International petition against the use of uranium weapons

http://www.petitiononline.com/CH1/petition.html :For democracy in Iran

http://www.freedomfromhunger.org/action/petition/ :Against hunger

Start your own petition:http://www.ipetitions.com/start-petition/

How to stop crime!

2008-09-25T08:56:00.000-07:00

We live in a world where ,due to social differences,crime will never be erradicated.I'll therefore give my opinion on the subject and i'd appreciate if you gave yours as well ,as a comment.

In the middle ages most crimes were punished with the death penalty.If a man stole a lump of bread to feed his family he'd be hang up.Unfortunately,it was a punishment too strong for trying to survive and too light since he'd die anyway from hunger,so, he'd have nothing to lose and wouldn't therefore be stopped by such a horrible death.

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to stop crime would be creating a society with no social differences,where everything would be state propriety ,distributed equally to everyone.Everyone would be as rich or poor as everyone else.This way,if a man stole something from some else he'd be robbing himself since the state would replace the robbed person's stolen items, making the entire country a bit poorer.

This idea being a bit too perfect and therefore undoable disenabling it as a practical solution.

As far as i'm concerned, there is only one long-term solution:parenting and education.
If children are raised to believe that commiting a felony is a wrong thing they will not do it!Though most parents try to do it ,they are dangerously unaware that what they're doing is actually useless.Everyone is bound to do some mistakes when they're young','i can't keep him from trying drugs','i'm working all the time so i can't control his every move'!These are all ex cuses from parents that don't truly care about their children (well,in most cases).The moment parents stop actively parenting the child will eventualy start trying newer and greater crimes, and an idea that crime pays off is bound to start sinking in!

Most white collar crimes do actually pay off , the chance the criminal will be arrested is very slim and the punishment a simple 'ticket'.We must rely on our children's values and hope they will not try to make it at the expense of others,otherwise we're headed towards disaster!Our only hope is to raise better people...