G.O.D.

so i have been watching some documentaries lately. it includes a documentary discussing the evils of religion (any religion), a good quote to come out of that would be

"if there was no religion, good people would do good things, bad people would do bad things. it takes religion to make good people do bad things"

a lot of interesting things were brought up. ill discuss a couple here:

now i have agreed with most of the stuff that were presented to me, so bare that in mind when you read the rest of the blog.

religion is a set of beliefs in simplicity. you are christian, islamic, jewish, etc.
political beliefs run similarly. labour voter, democrats voter, etc.
now there is a reason why kids can't vote. and there is also a reason why young kids are not labeled by their parents.

parents send their kids to religious schools to be taught about their religion, and thus they are labeled by the rest of the society as "muslim kids" or "christian kids" but you never label someone a "labour kid" or "national kid", because they are too young to comprehend the complexity of politics. why is religion an exception?

human logic and instincts after maturity, is to question things presented to us. for example, if i bought something off you on ebay, and i transfered the money into your account, you would usually make sure what i said was true before sending the product.
or if i told you there were no one on the streets, logically you'd want to get verification, and the best way is to see for yourself. that is how science came in. a theory and then evidence to back it up and then maybe one day proven wrong.

now religion works completely against this system, you are told to believe and have "faith" despite all the evidence contrary to your belief. you are told that the more you believe these stories without doubt and question, the more likely it is that you will be rewarded when you die.

also the story of god seems to be watered down in religion taught at school. so is this not brain washing? from a young age i was told that moses wrote the old testament, now older in life i have discovered thats actually false. so why are countless young children told this?

now of course, science can never prove that god does not exist. technically, science can not "prove" anything, there is never 100% chance that something will happen. As Einstein said, not even 1000 experiments can prove him 100% correct, but a single experiment can prove him wrong. But that is the beauty of science, it is forever changing, old ideas are updated with new ideas and evidence to support it.

the bible written hundreds/thousands of years ago, with no credible author, edited numerous times by numerous people, heavy contradiction within itself, is said to be the word of god and is believed by billions unquestionably.

what is going on?

the art of war

recently i started reading the art of war with commentary by various figures.
i have finished reading the actual "art of war", the commentary may take a while.

let me just say that i recommend this to everyone who is thinking of doing anything at all. and i do mean anything at all.

for me it put a lot of thoughts i have had into words that can be written down. if you have read one of those quote calendars or a quote book full of good quotes from people that get you thinking. well this book is full of them.

whos really crazy?

i think that if we were all a little crazy in some aspects, this world would be a better place.

for example.
a while ago, i was on a train with i think approx 4 pregnant women and 1 lady who had just given birth probably not long ago and had her newborn in her arms. 2 foolish white trash people got on the train and lit up. for those people who are unaware, you are not allowed to smoke on trains and i think its probably morally wrong for everyone to smoke near pregnant women and new born babies anyway. so one of the ladies told them to stop, they told her to F off like any foolish white trash people would. well a few attempts later they were still smoking, a gentleman in his 40s i think also asked them to put it out. so later on the lady had no choice but to press the big red button and the train conductor announced that he had called the police (bluff obviously) and will wait for them to arrive. the bogans got off and told the ladies to watch their backs.

now today i was oblivious to something until the last point. i was sitting on my train listening to my ipod trying to check out a girl next to me. anyway, so i noticed this crazy white lady who ran past me and pointed to LED display that showed which station it was and she was yelling it out loud. i had no idea what was going on and ignored it. later on one station before i get off, i took out my headphones and realised the reason why she was yelling was because she was trying to get her communication across to a Chinese lady who obviously spoke no English and had missed her stop. the crazy white lady took her off the train and explained again where she is meant to go. now if i had heard earlier what was going on, i would have been able to speak to the Chinese lady in Chinese and everything would have been fine. but the crazy white lady whom i have deemed crazy because she was over enthusiastic about it all and got off at a different station than she would have to explain to the Chinese lady where to go.


I'm not sure exactly how i can word it so that the first story fits into context, but i think you get my drift.

worst feedback, ever.

"An interesting topic to look at. i think you could have defined the 2 groups more clearly with facts and references and talked about their origins and evolution through the 70s, 80s and 90s. and relate it strongly to the clothing + music. you need a lot more fact based information which is available in cultural studies such as DVDs like - dogtown and the zboys, style wars etc. the hiphop origins were unclear and some things you said were actually wrong. what year was flashdance made? skating was banned by the government? which government in 63? the presentation was a bit random and needed much more depth of research. you touched on the relationshops and crossovers between the subcultures, but you needed much more in terms of lifestyle and music. the personality profiles were very good and engaging. more observational comments from you about the clothing + shoes would have been great. more in depth analysis of the topic would have lifted your result" - rebecca

Rebecca who is my tute of "cultural explorations in fashions" told me she really liked my presentation and that i got a good mark.... and what was that mark? a P-

so reading that review got me a bit angry, because i had a crap load of references. i've seen the documentaries she listed for me at least 10 times and plus a crap load more. but according to her that "didn't show" in the presentation. what the hell am i supposed to do? say where i got the information every time i make a statement? jeez. i had a list of references at the end.

i asked her what part of my presentation about hiphop was wrong. she referred to when i said jokingly that mr.freeze from rocksteady crew "did the moonwalk like 20 years before michael jackson". apparently from her view an "academic" view, she has to take everything i said literally, which i think is ridiculous.

my presentation was 30 minutes, which was the maximum. there was absolutely no way to fit more content in without going over time.

she initially stated that i needed to focus on the music and lifestyle, but dude, this subject is cultural explorations in "FASHION" which was why i had alot more stuff about the fashion. i can rant to you all day about lifestyle and music.




so bottom line is, all the staff at RMIT fashion department are all a bunch of freaks. i did this presentation with no criteria supplied to me or anyone else thats doing it. and then she marks me with a crappy criteria of

1. content
2. research
3. presentation


and thats it. nothing more. a mark for one of those 3.
why did she give me low marks for research? i don't know.
was there somehow not enough content in that 30 minutes? i don't know
was the powerpoint really bad quality? at least i don't think so.


thats my angry rant. thankyou

the debate.

i have decided to give blogspot a shot, moving from my long term blog of xanga for the last couple of years. and to kick things off, i am gonna put some extra effort into this post here. heres some stuff to discuss.

so a couple of weeks ago i had a large debate whilst over at my family friends new house. i was a little shocked really, to see that this sort of mentality could even exist anymore in this day and age but here is pretty much the main topics that were presented to me


1. terrorists are heroes. Americans are the real terrorists.

2. mentally disabled people are not(in china)/should not be allowed to reproduce. as it will slow human evolution, cause suffering for the spouse, produce mentally disabled children who will also suffer.

let me address the mental thing first.

now ok, thats all fair game apart from the fact that the person who was suggesting this was overweight and had diabetes. he also had a daughter...hrmmm
obviously there is a lot of hypocrisy there.

1. he is overweight and has produced a child that was also born genetically overweight (no offense intended)
2. he also has diabetes which puts his child at risk of diabetes

he suggested that mentally disabled people would have long died away if there were no medicines, hospitals etcetera. if things were to return to natural selection. they would be long gone without care. that governments should have policies so that people who slow down the course of our evolution should not be allowed to reproduce.

again there are so many levels of hypocrisy.

1. he is overweight, i don't think he can even sprint for 20 meters. lets not even talk about competing with natural predators.
2. he has diabetes and takes a hefty amount of medication to suppress his glucose levels so he doesn't pass out. (and get eaten by the animals)

where do we draw the line of mental retardation? where do we draw the line of what sort of illnesses may prove to slow down the evolution process? humans has not evolved for thousands of years. he stated that its a medical fact that they are mentally disabled, and they should not breed.

now that is really nazi. medical fact? years ago it was a medical fact that black people had smaller brains? or women had smaller brains. everyone had smaller brains and the white race reigned supreme above all. jews were slowing down evolution and were the source of all evil at one point too. has he learnt nothing?

now it is probably a medical fact that Asians (i am Asian for anyone who doesn't know)on average have smaller eyes. what if Kevin Rudd were to announce a new policy next year, that all Asians who do not have a certain dimension of eyes, are not allowed to breed? i don't imagine him being very happy.

now his counter argument to that is the mental disability could inflict lots of trauma and stress to the spouse and produce more mentally disabled children.

first of all that is really stupid. if a person is WILLING to marry and produce children with all the risks in their mind. why should they not be allowed to? it is not even 100% that the children WILL be disabled either. having said that, mental disability doesn't come from a whole line of disabled people. that is if someone was disabled, its not like everyone before him in his family were disabled too. it comes out genetically from non-disabled people, average, "normal" people. so should everyone who has a chance of giving birth to a mentally disabled person be banned from reproduction? then i guess no one in this world is allowed to mate ever again.

his counter argument to that, is incest. why is incest illegal? because apparently its to stop genetic and health problems associated. i disagree. i believe its a social and cultural taboo. to demonstrate i asked him is the law the only thing that stops you from reproducing with your sister or your daughter? check mate







terrorism.

now we all know that the Americans along with some other countries are doing some stupid ass shit in the middle-east which is at the very least, comparable to what the terrorists have done if not worse. but calling the terrorists heroes, now thats next level.
a murderer who has murdered 1000 people rather than 1000000 people, is still a murderer. and there you have it.

its easy to say things like that if you are no involved, oh yes the terrorists are heroes. they are defending their nation and whatever. retaliating to oppression from the USA.

but if your daughter, your wife or a friend was killed by a terrorist attack. you'd beg to differ.









anyway on a lighter note.

new proddies

SF Puma blaze of glories and Nike spiridons


provider new balance 1500