Being Frank With His Holiness

I like Pope Frank.

Even for a heathen like me (especially for a heathen like me), he is an absolute joy. He is peaceful, champions equality, has spoken out about gay rights, and overall is so liberal that Catholics themselves are questioning  him; which can only be a good thing. 

Having said that, I must disagree with some of what the man in the pointy hat said recently in the wake of the attacks in Paris on Charlie Hebdo. 

The pontiff has stated, that while he does not condone killing other human beings, people who insult the beliefs and religions of others should "expect a punch", in the same way they would if they had insulted his own mother.

So in a nutshell, he has said that belief should never be mocked. If we do mock it, we should expect physical violence. He is trying to put it on a pedestal. 

First of all- and I feel like I trot out this phrase all the time but- ideas do not have rights. Much as they would have you believe, there is not a belief system on earth that is above and beyond scrutiny and criticism. Everything can, and should, be examined for both morality and validity- and more often than not, religions fail in both these categories. When our ideas are scrutinised or challenged- that is when their worth is proven. A sound idea will stand up to attack because of the evidence backing it up. 

Comedy is part of our culture as much- if not more so- than religions are. I've stated before my feeling on this and will not repeat myself at length- suffice to say nothing should be immune from a joke. Comedy serves only to entertain and make people laugh. The moment you start saying what people can and can't make a joke of, is when serious problems start, and escalate. 

Above and beyond anything else, ideas and beliefs proven to be true do not need defending. They are true whether you believe it or not, and whether you like it or not. Indeed, we don't call them ideas or beliefs anymore at that point; they are known as facts. 

However, ideas proven to be ridiculous; which are still clung to regardless of evidence to the contrary; are laughable. Such things hardly need mocking? And are definitely not deserving of any respect. For instance, organisations such as The Flat Earth Society, claim exactly that; the earth is a flat plane, with an edge. We know this to be false. We also know that the previously held belief that the earth is the centre of the universe has also been proven false. Did you know however, that the Catholic Church only acknowledged this fact at the eve of the 21st century? It wasn't until 1999 that they actually conceded that Gallileo was correct; despite their persecution of him at the time he made his theories.

If we are to take the myths of Christianity at face value; the bible states that the earth (and by extension, the universe and existence itself) is between 6000 and 10,000 years old. This is nonsense- and not even close. The earth is around 4.6 Billion years old (4,600,000,000). Human beings as we know them haven't been around that long, comparatively- but we still beat Christianity's best guess by a long shot, at around 200,000 years. Indeed, by the time the bible-thumpers reckon the universe began, we had already managed to invent glue and domesticate dogs. If we are not to take it at face value, then how are we to understand the Old Testament? As metaphor? Allegory? Figuratively? Do we disregard the entire Old Testament or only certain parts? By what criteria do we decide? I think there would have to be a companion handbook. If someone has one- please lend it to me.

Beliefs such as this deserve to be placed on the same level as Scientology and The Flat Earth Society. If you believe something you cannot prove, because you haven't bothered to investigate the facts, then you are simply ignorant. Remember, "I can't think of anything to explain it, God must have done it" is not a superior answer to "I don't know". It's okay to admit you don't know; but go and find out. It's all out there- this is the Internet age after all. If you believe something you cannot prove in any way, despite there being evidence to the contrary, then quite frankly you are an idiot. If you are wilfully ignorant- then you are beyond help. 

Unless you have genuine mental issues in regard to this- you deserve to be mocked. I can mock you, and I will. I will mock you in the same way I would mock a member of The Flat Earth Society, someone who believes in the supernatural powers of astrology, or someone who believes the moon is made of Camembert and inhabited by Clangers. 

 

Body Beautiful?

I wish people would stop saying things like "every body is beautiful" or insisting that everyone recognise that someone is- whether they agree or not. Beauty, like art, is completely subjective and individual to the observer. If you proclaim something or someone objectively beautiful- sorry- but you're wrong; or at least, to someone, you'll be wrong. You are only beautiful if at least one other person thinks you are.

I read this morning an article entitled "Fat Femme Artist Picks Apart Your Preconceived Notions of Beauty"

Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/kelli-jean-drinkwater_n_6456750.html

It did not. My perception of beauty, and what I find attractive and aesthetically pleasing in women has not changed one iota. I did not see beauty in any of the photos shot. The lighting was interesting and dramatic; there, I was positive about something. To be brutally and wholly honest, I didn't actually view every single photo; I got about half way down the page and closed it again. I'm not the most svelte of men (the diet is going well by the way!), but I have no desire to look at rolls of hanging fat, "spare tyres" and cellulite under any kind of studio lighting. 

This movement to glorify obesity, despite its numerous and well-understood underlying health issues, never ceases to baffle me. As I've stated before, sometimes, inborn or developed illnesses, as well as some medicines, can lead to uncontrollable weight gain. Having said that, for those who can help it, not exercising and piling it on because you eat fast food every week is nothing to be proud of. It's certainly not something other people should celebrate. Look after your body! It's the only one you've got! 

That is not to say that some people might find something artistic or beautiful within this photoshoot; but to state categorically that a few photographs of heavily overweight women will change my personal perception of what is beautiful, is profoundly false.

Which brings me back to beauty as an idea.  Not everyone is beautiful (not even "in their own way" that's just another lie Hollywood tells you), but what we should be recognising is- that's okay. Physical beauty isn't everything. There are more important things to value in a human being than how they look. Intelligence. Rationality. Creativity. Eloquence. Talent. People are so distracted these days by flawlessly airbrushed celebrities and models in media, that they forget what else can be attractive in others. Furthermore, this really distorts what beauty can mean to some of us- because there is so much falseness and lies in what we are told is "beautiful"

Also doing the rounds on social media frequently are (for example) images of young girls with Progeria; a disorder which causes rapid premature ageing of the body, or icthyosis; a disorder which causes skin to become very dry, cracked and painful all over the body. Tagged underneath it is usually the caption "Like if you think she is beautiful" or "How many likes for this beautiful girl??" I'm afraid this sort of thing turns my stomach; for a very different reason than the photoshoot. Here is a young person, facing near insurmountable odds and challenges every single day of their lives, and the one positive thing you can think to say about them, is falsely declaring physical beauty? Wow. 

If you're one of these people, take a good hard look at yourself; and I don't just mean in a mirror. Realise that there's more to a human being than a pretty face, that beauty is only skin deep- and however you currently look, you're only one horrific freak accident away from knowing exactly what that means.

Gotta save 'em all... But I can't.

I've discovered a lovely little game boy/DS emulator, and I've decided I'm going to have a go at The Nuzlocke Challenge on a version of Pokémon.

It's basically Pokémon; super hard mode.  I watch a YouTube user named Projared who has videoed his and it looks difficult. The rules are as follows.

1) You can catch only one Pokémon per area/route/cave- the first one you encounter.

2) When a Pokémon faints; it is considered dead. (It must be taken to the nearest Pokémon PC and released)

3) No revival items.

4) Once you have owned a Pokémon, you cannot catch duplicates of it.

I'm also embracing a few extra rules I've seen used:-

1) All Pokémon are to be given a nickname; The first one that comes into your head, or the first combination of sounds put together.

2)No healing in battle unless at critical (red) health. 

I will be playing the Pearl Version- because I haven't played it before. Already in my game there has been the first blood of war: my Kricketot had no moves except bide, and died in its second battle due to critical hits. 

I've also had a bit of fun with the trainer names. I've called myself "Fuck, I" which leads to such gems as "Fuck, I found a potion!"

But I also called the rival "...Shit" and that has proven for some unexpected laughter. 

I nearly fell off my chair with this one

Living in the Here and Now

I like to imagine how things would play out if I had made different choices. 

It's almost like a game. I guess at what would have happened, and whether whatever events transpire would be good, or bad.

Unfortunately, unlike a Bioware-esque RPG, we cannot go back and explore our "branching paths." We can't save our progress just before, and reset if it all goes ugly. We make our decisions and all we can do is wonder what might have been. 

"If I hadn't met you"

"If I had said no"

"If I had more strength"

"If I hadn't taken that job"

"If I had stayed friends with you"

And sure, doing that doesn't come without its fair share of regret, but the important thing is, now you're here- and you've got to make the best of what you've got. 

The past is in the past, and those you left there are left for a reason. Do not dwell there yourself, because the here and now is all that you can change. 

Here and now is all that is worth changing. Be that change.

What Katie Did.

Inside and out, Katie Hopkins is a repulsive individual. 

Tonight, her- I suppose you could call it- documentary "My Fat Story" airs. In it, Mrs Hopkins, 39 (astonishing, isn't it?), documents how she put on four stone, and attempted to lose it again. This is in hope of demonstrating that overweight and obese people are only that way because of their own actions and choices, and if they would only take control of their lifestyle, they wouldn't be that way. 

The main problem with this is the tone; but we will get to that. The first criticism that should be levelled is the complete ignorance shown. Many people simply eat too unhealthily, too often, and exercise too little, but not all people are fat due to diet. Our metabolisms all work at different rates- and there are an array of glandular problems that can cause a person's body to put on weight, despite eating quite well. People can also put on weight due to steroid and contraceptive medication, largely outside of their control. In that light, whilst it may or may not be easy for Katie, it won't be easy for everyone. However it's not really in what she is doing- it's the way she is doing it. She is highlighting only her own preconceived notions and prejudices- not anything of intellectual value.

But that's just Katie. Despite the backlash over this programme, she has dismissed her detractors as "angry chubsters". Most of the bile she coughs up in public appearances and social media is designed solely to shock; she is in-fact, a troll that ventures into the outside world as well as the online one. She fits the profile perfectly. Dim-witted, blundering and swinging with no regard for what's going on round about her. This is the same woman, we must remember, who professed on This Morning that she determined the class of a child by his or her name, and wouldn't allow her own children to play with kids she seemed of lower class. Asked to provide examples of such names, she included "any geographical names"; despite the fact her own daughter is named India, as Philip Schofield pointed out with baffled incredulity.

This week she has outdone herself though- taking to Twitter to proclaim that we in Scotland are "Sweaty little jocks" who are "sending Ebola bombs to London in the form of sweaty Glaswegians". This was referring to Pauline Cafferkey, the Scottish nurse who contracted Ebola whilst volunteering as a nurse to help victims of the virus in Sierra Leone, and was transferred to a London hospital from Glasgow. In a separate tweet, she remarked "Not so independent when it matters, are we Jocksville?"

So, I reported her to the police. I also posted a link to the Police Scotland report form for hate speech on several prominent newspaper articles on Facebook, to encourage others to do the same. 

After doing this, I received a number of reply comments on the threads, saying that it was a waste of time and police resources. It was suggested that instead, I should adopt the stratagem of "ignore her and she will go away", which likens her behaviour as a mere schoolyard bully. I was also accused of being too eager to cry offence, and along with the rest of the Scottish populace, accused of having a victim complex. 

Let's get one thing straight; to a Scot, the word "Jock" is a slur- it implies and imposes many negative stereotypes upon us. If Katie had used a similar derogatory word aimed at someone of a different ethnicity, ("Paki" for instance) there simply would be no debate. Indeed, substitute another nationality and its corresponding racial slur, and see how that sounds to you.

But that isn't the only reason. As well as using a slur against a nation of people, she didn't even acknowledge Pauline Cafferkey as a human being. Rather than the brave and selfless human being she is, having risked her life to save the lives of others, she has been held in the same regard as a plague rat. For that reason, Katie should receive the same treatment as that scumbag from Sunderland, who insulted the victims of the George Square tragedy. Why should her ill-gotten celebrity status make her exempt from the law? Reporting her online conduct is completely justified.

Katie Hopkins, you are an utter carbuncle. My sincere hope is that your next misadventure will be "My Jail Story", and that nobody but you will be subject to it. The next image of you I hope to see, is you being led away in handcuffs with that sanctimonious smile wiped right off your face. 

Day zero.

Yesterday was diet day one- but truly- it was day zero. Going to work this morning was always going to be the first challenge: going into the garage to get a newspaper, surrounded by all those energy drinks and other unhealthy delicious stuff. I got some olives instead.

It feels a bit weird at first substituting lettuce leaves for bread- but it works. I don't get the heavy bloated feeling, just feel pleasantly full afterward. 

I also took my day one photo. I'm not going to post it here and now- I want something to compare it to. I am quite self-conscious of my body (as weird as that might seem coming from a 6ft 2" beardy fella). I imagine that'll get better with the progression of things, but I'm still unlikely to be one of those guys who loses the top in the summer days. 

The next big challenge for me will be the food shop. Over the next few weeks I'll be trying out some Paleo recipes- I'll post one on here too, so that you guys can try it if you so desire!

Happy New Year Everyone!

Another year gone. 

Aside from my dietary changes- I will also resolve to write here more often and also to tweet more- not that many people give a monkeys what I say in either place. 

Still, "All the world's a stage", an eloquent gentleman once said