|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 3, 2015 2:30:55 GMT
I'm usually not one for pop culture, but there's a new (and I believe healthier) beauty ideal being spread for women through the media right now. The "bootylicious" look. Hip hop culture is turning the phrase "junk in the trunk" from something negative to something positive and I think it's a wonderful thing. Personally, I've never felt the need to jump into bed with a woman who's so skinny that the only way to tell the difference between her and a bike rack in the dark is temperature, so I welcome it. But yes, there's still a whole industry out there devoted to telling us all that we're not good enough as we are. In some cases they're right. There's nothing healthy about being overweight. But in most cases they're horribly wrong, because there's nothing healthy about having less than 1% body fat either. Our problem is self image. Movies, TV and fashion magazines tell us we all have to look like Brad Pitt or Scarlett Johansson and for some reason we believe them. But take a walk through your local mall and get a reality check. How many people actually look like that? Even if you only look at the ones who aren't overweight, who look like they're perfectly healthy and take care of their bodies, very few people in the world are that beautiful. Chances are your high school prom queen, even though she may very well be prettier than most other girls at your school, doesn't even come close to these ideals and is very self-conscious because of it. Does that mean we're all ugly? Of course not! It just means that a lucky few are better looking than the rest of us. If anything, they're the "freaks of nature", not us. Self-image is correct! If I could, I'd like to suggest a possibly new term to use for discussing part of this dilema. The term would be "off-weight" rather than overweight or underweight. Because, it is no fun being the too-thin, freakishly-tall and lanky one either! Anyone who is considered "off-weight" for whatever reason probably suffers greatly due to socially-driven poor selfesteam issues like you mention. Ironically, many of those considered unnaturally beautiful can end up suffering too. Being the constant focus of lust or other semi-perverted tendencies from a growing number of internet porn freaks out there, is a problem too. We may not easily see it from our vantage always, but it does occur. I have one of those friends who could hide behind a flagpole (at least until she started approaching middle age - now she's up to a telephone pole) of course, the "bootylicious" thing, like everything else, gets taken to the extreme. oh, and did I hear someone say there was a temperature difference between their girlfriend and a bike rack? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 3, 2015 8:57:21 GMT
Yes... the bike rack is warmer in cold weather.
The Bike rack wont decide that she doesnt need to take a coat..
Mainly because she already has one.
The one YOU are wearing..... you know, the one you took to keep YOU warm?...
Bike racks stay where you leave them if you go shopping, and dont wander off on their own and blame YOU when they get lost.
BTW, The Village Bike is a derogatory term in UK.
Self explanatory?..
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 3, 2015 10:03:59 GMT
I'm usually not one for pop culture, but there's a new (and I believe healthier) beauty ideal being spread for women through the media right now. The "bootylicious" look. Hip hop culture is turning the phrase "junk in the trunk" from something negative to something positive and I think it's a wonderful thing. Personally, I've never felt the need to jump into bed with a woman who's so skinny that the only way to tell the difference between her and a bike rack in the dark is temperature, so I welcome it. But yes, there's still a whole industry out there devoted to telling us all that we're not good enough as we are. In some cases they're right. There's nothing healthy about being overweight. But in most cases they're horribly wrong, because there's nothing healthy about having less than 1% body fat either. Our problem is self image. Movies, TV and fashion magazines tell us we all have to look like Brad Pitt or Scarlett Johansson and for some reason we believe them. But take a walk through your local mall and get a reality check. How many people actually look like that? Even if you only look at the ones who aren't overweight, who look like they're perfectly healthy and take care of their bodies, very few people in the world are that beautiful. Chances are your high school prom queen, even though she may very well be prettier than most other girls at your school, doesn't even come close to these ideals and is very self-conscious because of it. Does that mean we're all ugly? Of course not! It just means that a lucky few are better looking than the rest of us. If anything, they're the "freaks of nature", not us. Self-image is correct! If I could, I'd like to suggest a possibly new term to use for discussing part of this dilema. The term would be "off-weight" rather than overweight or underweight. Because, it is no fun being the too-thin, freakishly-tall and lanky one either! Anyone who is considered "off-weight" for whatever reason probably suffers greatly due to socially-driven poor selfesteam issues like you mention. Ironically, many of those considered unnaturally beautiful can end up suffering too. Being the constant focus of lust or other semi-perverted tendencies from a growing number of internet porn freaks out there, is a problem too. We may not easily see it from our vantage always, but it does occur. I like that. "Off-weight". But while we're at it, can we dispell another myth here? Perverts have existed much longer than internet porn or even the internet itself. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and a whole host of other sexually driven serial killers didn't have a cell phone with internet access, but they turned out well and truly perverted anyway. And just to dial that back, so it's not just about the sickest types, the stereotype of a good looking woman walking past a construction site and being gawked and whistled at has been around for just about as long as there have been good looking women and construction sites. Women in general enjoy more respect from men today than they've ever done at any other point in history, so I'm not buying into the whole "internet porn is the worst thing ever" story (EDIT: I'm not saying all women enjoy the respect they deserve, just that it's gotten much better for most - at least in the West). Sure, it skews what many men think sex should be, but I don't buy that there are more rapists and what not because it exists. If anything, I'm more inclined to believe that a would-be rapist or two have had their desires kept in check by easy access to graphic imagery. That being said, a sick mind is a sick mind and someone becoming a pervert probably has more to do with how he's raised by his parents than what he finds on the web. Respect or lack of respect for women is something you're taught. The internet can only do that if no one else beat it to it. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 3, 2015 15:09:55 GMT
Self-image is correct! If I could, I'd like to suggest a possibly new term to use for discussing part of this dilema. The term would be "off-weight" rather than overweight or underweight. Because, it is no fun being the too-thin, freakishly-tall and lanky one either! Anyone who is considered "off-weight" for whatever reason probably suffers greatly due to socially-driven poor selfesteam issues like you mention. Ironically, many of those considered unnaturally beautiful can end up suffering too. Being the constant focus of lust or other semi-perverted tendencies from a growing number of internet porn freaks out there, is a problem too. We may not easily see it from our vantage always, but it does occur. I like that. "Off-weight". But while we're at it, can we dispell another myth here? Perverts have existed much longer than internet porn or even the internet itself. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and a whole host of other sexually driven serial killers didn't have a cell phone with internet access, but they turned out well and truly perverted anyway. And just to dial that back, so it's not just about the sickest types, the stereotype of a good looking woman walking past a construction site and being gawked and whistled at has been around for just about as long as there have been good looking women and construction sites. Women in general enjoy more respect from men today than they've ever done at any other point in history, so I'm not buying into the whole "internet porn is the worst thing ever" story (EDIT: I'm not saying all women enjoy the respect they deserve, just that it's gotten much better for most - at least in the West). Sure, it skews what many men think sex should be, but I don't buy that there are more rapists and what not because it exists. If anything, I'm more inclined to believe that a would-be rapist or two have had their desires kept in check by easy access to graphic imagery. That being said, a sick mind is a sick mind and someone becoming a pervert probably has more to do with how he's raised by his parents than what he finds on the web. Respect or lack of respect for women is something you're taught. The internet can only do that if no one else beat it to it. I'm inclined to think that in more cases than not, it has more to do with his (or her) brain being sick than with hoe his parents raised him. the other side of the coin is that there are certain negative aspects to internet pork: the first is that a person with a sick mind can troll it for ideas that they might not have come up with on their own. the econd is that it can provide a much easier degree of access for people with an exhibitionist nature. othrwise - crime by proxy certainly has fewer victims than multiple individual crimes - but if it takes crime to create a piece of internet porn, then that is still crime. (and I am discounting adult professionals from this category) |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 3, 2015 20:56:49 GMT
I'm inclined to think that in more cases than not, it has more to do with his (or her) brain being sick than with hoe his parents raised him. the other side of the coin is that there are certain negative aspects to internet pork: the first is that a person with a sick mind can troll it for ideas that they might not have come up with on their own. the econd is that it can provide a much easier degree of access for people with an exhibitionist nature. othrwise - crime by proxy certainly has fewer victims than multiple individual crimes - but if it takes crime to create a piece of internet porn, then that is still crime. (and I am discounting adult professionals from this category) I think you're right about these people having defective brains in general. Doing what some of them do to other people... I just can't imagine what kind of mind it takes to even find that interesting, let alone be aroused by it. To me at least, rape (not to mention the ones who don't even stop there) takes a special kind of sick. If you're any kind of normal, even being turned down for a hug will stifle your "mood". How someone takes it further when their "lover" (as they see it) is literally kicking and screaming to get free, I'll never understand! Having said that, sure there are instances where the parents couldn't have made a difference no matter how hard they tried, but there's more than just a little evidence to suggest that more often than not, these people become what they become because of damage done to the psyche during childhood. And, more often than not, the parents are responsible for that damage, either directly through abuse or indirectly through just not doing anything about it when someone else is abusing their child. As for people finding inspiration for sick things on the web, if it isn't the web, it's just something else. Sick minds will always be able to find inspiration for sick acts. For centuries, people have blamed their atrocities on voices in their heads, characters in books, song lyrics, movies and now video games and the web at large. The common denominator for all of them hasn't been any particular book, musician, game or website. It's been that they've all done something unspeakably horrible and tried to play the "it's not my fault, it's so and so" card afterwards. What's more scary than anything to me is that supposedly sane people are still buying into it and the "Mothers Against (insert target)" groups are still demanding cencorship of pretty much anything and everything that's ever inspired a sick mind to do something despicable, even though they should all just be going: "Sure, Marilyn Manson's song may have inspired you to kill that girl, but did Marilyn Manson actually kill her? No? Then why should we be blaming him? Millions of other Marilyn Manson fans around the world have never killed anyone, so guess what that makes you... That's right. You're a sick, loathesome creature that doesn't deserve to ever see sunlight again. Oh, and by the way... Here's a letter from Marilyn Manson saying you're a sick f***, he wants nothing to do with you, he's going to dedicate his next concert to the memory of your victim and at each entrance there's going to be a picture of you with the words, "FEEL FREE TO SPIT ON THIS PIECE OF HUMAN GARBAGE!" written underneath. Have a nice ride in the electric chair!" When will these people ever realize that when a sick and twisted person decides to blame someone else for their atrocities, it's just to deflect attention from themselves. A way to justify their actions. By buying into it and blaming a video game or a band or whatever, you're actively helping the perpetrator achieve that goal. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Feb 3, 2015 23:48:24 GMT
Back to the origional topic of various quotes:
On Religion:
"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." -- Brigham Young (Journal of Discourages 9:150)
My personal view on religion:
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." -- Marcus Aurelius
Education:
"THe more I learn, the more I realize I do not know. The more I realize I do not know, the more I want to learn." Albert Einstein.
Life lessons:
"1. Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.
2. If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be “meetings.”
3. There is a very fine line between “hobby” and “mental illness.”
4. People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them.
5. You should not confuse your career with your life.
6. Nobody cares if you can’t dance well. Just get up and dance.
7. Never lick a steak knife.
8. The most destructive force in the universe is gossip.
9. You will never find anybody who can give you a clear and compelling reason why we observe daylight savings time.
10. You should never say anything to a woman that even remotely suggests that you think she’s pregnant unless you can see an actual baby emerging from her at that moment.
11. There comes a time when you should stop expecting other people to make a big deal about your birthday. That time is age eleven.
12. The one thing that unites all human beings, regardless of age, gender, religion, economic status or ethnic background, is that, deep down inside, we ALL believe that we are above average drivers.
13. A person, who is nice to you but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person (This is very important. Pay attention. It never fails.)
14. Your friends love you anyway.
15. Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic.
16. Final thought for the day: Men are like fine wine. They start out as grapes, and it’s up to the women to stomp the snot out of them until they turn into something acceptable to have dinner with." -- Dave Barry
"Brethren, Don't fret your gizzards." -- Brigham Young
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 4, 2015 2:40:42 GMT
I'm inclined to think that in more cases than not, it has more to do with his (or her) brain being sick than with hoe his parents raised him. the other side of the coin is that there are certain negative aspects to internet pork: the first is that a person with a sick mind can troll it for ideas that they might not have come up with on their own. the econd is that it can provide a much easier degree of access for people with an exhibitionist nature. othrwise - crime by proxy certainly has fewer victims than multiple individual crimes - but if it takes crime to create a piece of internet porn, then that is still crime. (and I am discounting adult professionals from this category) I think you're right about these people having defective brains in general. Doing what some of them do to other people... I just can't imagine what kind of mind it takes to even find that interesting, let alone be aroused by it. To me at least, rape (not to mention the ones who don't even stop there) takes a special kind of sick. If you're any kind of normal, even being turned down for a hug will stifle your "mood". How someone takes it further when their "lover" (as they see it) is literally kicking and screaming to get free, I'll never understand! Having said that, sure there are instances where the parents couldn't have made a difference no matter how hard they tried, but there's more than just a little evidence to suggest that more often than not, these people become what they become because of damage done to the psyche during childhood. And, more often than not, the parents are responsible for that damage, either directly through abuse or indirectly through just not doing anything about it when someone else is abusing their child. As for people finding inspiration for sick things on the web, if it isn't the web, it's just something else. Sick minds will always be able to find inspiration for sick acts. For centuries, people have blamed their atrocities on voices in their heads, characters in books, song lyrics, movies and now video games and the web at large. The common denominator for all of them hasn't been any particular book, musician, game or website. It's been that they've all done something unspeakably horrible and tried to play the "it's not my fault, it's so and so" card afterwards. What's more scary than anything to me is that supposedly sane people are still buying into it and the "Mothers Against (insert target)" groups are still demanding cencorship of pretty much anything and everything that's ever inspired a sick mind to do something despicable, even though they should all just be going: "Sure, Marilyn Manson's song may have inspired you to kill that girl, but did Marilyn Manson actually kill her? No? Then why should we be blaming him? Millions of other Marilyn Manson fans around the world have never killed anyone, so guess what that makes you... That's right. You're a sick, loathesome creature that doesn't deserve to ever see sunlight again. Oh, and by the way... Here's a letter from Marilyn Manson saying you're a sick f***, he wants nothing to do with you, he's going to dedicate his next concert to the memory of your victim and at each entrance there's going to be a picture of you with the words, "FEEL FREE TO SPIT ON THIS PIECE OF HUMAN GARBAGE!" written underneath. Have a nice ride in the electric chair!" When will these people ever realize that when a sick and twisted person decides to blame someone else for their atrocities, it's just to deflect attention from themselves. A way to justify their actions. By buying into it and blaming a video game or a band or whatever, you're actively helping the perpetrator achieve that goal. I was thinking of the ones who have the sociopathic tendencies, but lack imagination. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 5, 2015 7:00:48 GMT
I think you're right about these people having defective brains in general. Doing what some of them do to other people... I just can't imagine what kind of mind it takes to even find that interesting, let alone be aroused by it. To me at least, rape (not to mention the ones who don't even stop there) takes a special kind of sick. If you're any kind of normal, even being turned down for a hug will stifle your "mood". How someone takes it further when their "lover" (as they see it) is literally kicking and screaming to get free, I'll never understand! Having said that, sure there are instances where the parents couldn't have made a difference no matter how hard they tried, but there's more than just a little evidence to suggest that more often than not, these people become what they become because of damage done to the psyche during childhood. And, more often than not, the parents are responsible for that damage, either directly through abuse or indirectly through just not doing anything about it when someone else is abusing their child. As for people finding inspiration for sick things on the web, if it isn't the web, it's just something else. Sick minds will always be able to find inspiration for sick acts. For centuries, people have blamed their atrocities on voices in their heads, characters in books, song lyrics, movies and now video games and the web at large. The common denominator for all of them hasn't been any particular book, musician, game or website. It's been that they've all done something unspeakably horrible and tried to play the "it's not my fault, it's so and so" card afterwards. What's more scary than anything to me is that supposedly sane people are still buying into it and the "Mothers Against (insert target)" groups are still demanding cencorship of pretty much anything and everything that's ever inspired a sick mind to do something despicable, even though they should all just be going: "Sure, Marilyn Manson's song may have inspired you to kill that girl, but did Marilyn Manson actually kill her? No? Then why should we be blaming him? Millions of other Marilyn Manson fans around the world have never killed anyone, so guess what that makes you... That's right. You're a sick, loathesome creature that doesn't deserve to ever see sunlight again. Oh, and by the way... Here's a letter from Marilyn Manson saying you're a sick f***, he wants nothing to do with you, he's going to dedicate his next concert to the memory of your victim and at each entrance there's going to be a picture of you with the words, "FEEL FREE TO SPIT ON THIS PIECE OF HUMAN GARBAGE!" written underneath. Have a nice ride in the electric chair!" When will these people ever realize that when a sick and twisted person decides to blame someone else for their atrocities, it's just to deflect attention from themselves. A way to justify their actions. By buying into it and blaming a video game or a band or whatever, you're actively helping the perpetrator achieve that goal. I was thinking of the ones who have the sociopathic tendencies, but lack imagination. And I'm saying that those people might as well be "inspired" by an episode of Criminal Minds. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 5, 2015 7:10:27 GMT
there are things they don't show on criminal minds.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 5, 2015 8:07:08 GMT
there are things they don't show on criminal minds. My point is that if you're a sicko needing inspiration for your sicko desires, you'll find it no matter how many books and movies and websites we ban and censor. There are people out there who find trees sexually arousing. Should we ban trees because those people are weird? Of course there should be limits to what can be shown. As you said, if a crime has to be committed to make certain pornography, then that pornography is a crime in and of itself. I'm not disputing that. But I think we need to pay more attention to the people committing the crimes than to what inspired them to do so. After all, in most cases, the people who let themselves be inspired to commit crimes by a musician or a book are one in a billion and odds are that if it hadn't been THAT musician or book that inspired them, something else would have instead. If the purpose of something (book, movie or whatever) is made purely to inspire and incite hatred and crime, then yes. Let's ban it. But if that isn't its purpose and the number of people being inspired to commit heinous acts because of it is one in a billion, then no. Don't ban it. Punish the perpetrator, not the source of his inspiration or the millions of people who look at that content and do nothing wrong because of it. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 5, 2015 9:14:08 GMT
There are a number of people in society who are incapable of looking after themselves.
Should we therefore ban cars in City Centres because lemmings with a halo of distortion cant sense traffic?...
Someone says "yes", and now we have traffic free city centres.....
But no one can get there because the transport is shafted.
So what do we do to control other people who will distort the rules?...
Ban the stuff they are distorting, or seek them out and educate them into behaving?...
Smoking laws.
Now we have the question of plain packaging.
Will that deter smokers?...
Will it heck.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 5, 2015 15:30:27 GMT
I think we have a consensus. - it is the same principle behind the mythbusters using *bleep* and *squawk* in their explosive mixtures. - making something that will satisfy those of us who want a big boom without providing a how-to for the do it yourselfers.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 18, 2015 17:03:22 GMT
I want to use an anecdote, but I've got conflicting ideas on how.
The anecdote involves George Albert Smith, who at one time was the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
One day, a work crew was dispatched to perform some "shovels & pick axes" work on the road near his home. The work in and of itself was difficult enough, but the day was unusually hot and so the workers were even more miserable. In short order, they were cursing so loudly that they could be heard up the block.
One man tried to reprimand them. This only produced a more voluminous tirade.
President Smith offered them some lemonade and the use of his shade trees for a few minutes. They were much more pleasant to be around after their break.
On one hand, I'm thinking that I can do a piece on how kindness at the appropriate time can solve problems.
On the other hand, I can also do a piece on how the key to solving a problem is making sure that you're solving the right problem in the first place.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 18, 2015 20:32:33 GMT
Or combine the two. Using kindness to solve a problem usually involves identifying the problem first, so you know what kind of kindness to apply to the situation.
If I'm sweating my butt off, working out in the sun, you coming up to me with a cup of hot chocolate may be kind, but it definitely doesn't solve my problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 19, 2015 4:37:12 GMT
Or combine the two. Using kindness to solve a problem usually involves identifying the problem first, so you know what kind of kindness to apply to the situation. If I'm sweating my butt off, working out in the sun, you coming up to me with a cup of hot chocolate may be kind, but it definitely doesn't solve my problem. good point. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 4, 2015 3:41:14 GMT
I had an idea for a bit explaining the issue of historical revisionism. On one hand, when new, unimpeachable evidence surfaces about something, then it's time to rewrite history. For example, while doing research to help fill in a chart of "who aired what when" during those seasons in which "Trasnformers" was broadcast over-the-air in the US (as opposed to being broadcast on cable or digital), I found evidence to indicate that three previously-held notions about how the 1980s cartoon was handled in syndication were not hard-and-fast.* On the other hand, we have people who seek to re-write history not because new material has surfaced but because they must do so to fit their world view. For example, we have people who try to argue that the Texas Independence movement was all about slavery. In reality, slavery was but one of many issues on which the Mexican government and the Texas settlers disagreed; a more proximate cause of the conflict was the inept and often ham-handed fashion in which individual government officials responded to these issues, thereby fanning the flames of discontent and creating a vicious cycle of aggression on both sides of the issue. Any ideas on how I can put together a piece on this for an all-ages audience? Thanks. *The notions were as follows: 1. "All stations which aired the 1984 season began broadcasting episodes by September 1984." - KCEN delayed broadcast of Transformers until January of 1985 so that they could use it as a mid-season replacement for a different syndicated show. 2. "Most, if not all, stations that aired the 1984 season aired episodes on Sunday mornings." - The show KCEN replaced aired on Saturday mornings, and so Transformers was broadcast on Saturday mornings. 3. "Only one station per media market aired the series." - Down in Austin, the show was aired by both K13VC and KBVO (now known as KEYE) for at least two seasons. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 4, 2015 11:10:53 GMT
Okay, a couple of questions:
First of all, what's the end point you're going for? The "moral of the story", so to speak?
Do you want to end the article with open questions for people to reflect on, or do you want to write your own conclusions? I see potential for both, if it was me writing it.
Do you want to include both of those historical fallacies in your finished story, or are they just working inspirations? I ask because I see a huge gap between the significance of those two events. One has to do with a cartoon and one has to do with war and slavery. Not to belittle your love of Transformers, but compared to the latter, the former seems like a historical trifle. I'd find two things that are closer together in terms of significance.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 4, 2015 21:31:20 GMT
I was just tossing out examples.
Yesterday was a long day for me, and I was tired.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 4, 2015 21:52:38 GMT
I was just tossing out examples. Yesterday was a long day for me, and I was tired. Okay. That answers question number 3  What about the two others? |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 5, 2015 4:38:24 GMT
I was simply toying with article ideas. I've hit a dry spell, and so I'm testing the waters for whatever comes.
|
|
