The final blog...

Age?
22

Sex?
Male

What is your degree subject (both if joint)?
History AND Philosophy

Does ‘Being Bad’ relate well to the other modules you are taking?
Certainly my other philosophy modules (or they relate to it). Not so much my history ones, directly anyway, but I like that – makes a change!

If so, how? And if not, why not?
The way we’ve been encouraged to think in this module ties in with the way we’re being encouraged to think in PH1105 – taking something far beyond face value. In terms my history modules that way of thinking is also integral, but not given so much focus. There were ties with ‘history’ in certain lectures on this module, but not with what I’m studying. But, as I said, that is a good, good thing, and I’ve enjoyed an awful lot ‘Being Bad’.

Have you found ‘Being Bad’ too demanding, too easy, or at an appropriate level?
The interdisciplinary aspect was challenging – as a history student the essay was fine, but the creative writing piece (or the alternatives) were a stretch, but probably not a negative one. I definitely think that aspect has made me work in a different way. Other than that, although in the end I enjoyed the blog, I would’ve preferred either a longer essay and just the blog, or a longer essay and an interdisciplinary assignment – the 600 words of the essay might be challenging to be concise, but the interest level of certain lectures could easily have provoked a much more in-depth response.

Do you think the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate?
All of them appropriate, as i think one of the messages of the module was challenging what we consider to be bad - anything is up for grabs. All interesting? No, but then that is a personal taste issue, and some we brilliant. And I'm a student, i have to take what I'm given :)

Are there any topics not included in the module that you would like to see included?
Gluttony or eating in general. So eating disorders as well. I did a post on Gluttony, and think an area that could be explored, and would probably provoke debate. Little delicate though.

Do you think that the format for classes has worked well?
Because of the modules content, i think there was no need for seminars, and the lecture format was great - as long as some areas were given over to audience participation, which most did, and that made up for the lack of seminar groups.

What did you think of the module team?
Overall, they were fantastic, I have to say that some of the lectures (thinking drugs, body modification, and few others) were some of the best i have ever experienced in any educational environment, and that really is a testament to the lecturers. Also, there was a lot of support, and Mark was always contactable, and made an effort to inform us of goings on through WOLF. So impressed.

Do you think it would have been better to have had more:
Small group discussions? No
Discussion and debate among the class as a whole? It differed from lecture to lecture - in some certainly.
Information and talk from lecturers? I can't think of a situation where i felt more input was needed from the lecturers. Most got it spot on.

The approach taken in the module is interdisciplinary (drawing on perspectives from English Literature, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Media Studies and Politics): do you think this a useful way of approaching the topics covered in the module?
I think I've already answered that, and as a history student, not the best person to ask.

Do you think that interdisciplinary modules are a good idea?
Definitely, as long as they do not exclude people who don't do the other subjects included e.g by the type of assignments set.

Do you think you have benefited from the interdisciplinary approach taken in the module?
Again, probably have already answered, but it challenged me, and think positively.

Would you like to see more modules that cover this kind of subject matter?
Yeah, very interesting. A rare module that gives you interest, education and humour - a good mix.

Are you planning to take the follow-up module PH2004 ‘It Shouldn’t Be Allowed’ at level 2?
Yes.

Would you recommend ‘Being Bad’ to a friend?
Yes i would.

Do you think that the blogs (web logs) were a good idea?
As I've said, i did enjoy them, but it is more their relationship with the other assignment more than anything else.

What did you think of the other assessments (e.g. would it be better to have one longer assessment rather than two shorter ones?)?
I defiantly already answered this. But yes, i think there should be a longer assignment to the detriment of either the other one or the blog.

What have you learned from the module?
Certainly re-sharpened my critical analysis skills, and I've learnt a great deal (information wise) form the lectures themselves.

What parts of the module have you found most useful and why?
Not sure about this one - but probably the overall approach to what we were studying - making philosophy assessable.

What parts do you think were a waste of time and why?
Don't think there are any in particular, although i didn't enjoy some of the lectures, more for the style than content i think. But as i said, you can't have it all your own way.

Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding ‘Being Bad’?
Nope.

And that, amigos, is that.

Stop theif!...

I don't just want to talk about theft here, but all of the 'big' crimes - the classics.

Murder, rape, theft, assault. The things in society (or variations of, I'm kinda counting child abuse under rape - all sex without consent) that we traditionally find most abhorrent.

As any who have (and i pity you) read my blog all the way through, although never my only criteria, harming other people is the main one i use to definitively claim something is bad - if not, then it's open for discussion.

So this should be easy. I hope. What i want to discuss is whether any of these crimes can ever be excused in any circumstance.

Let's start with an easy one - and I'm only bringing this up because i included it in my list above. Rape. Or any kind of un-consensual sex. I cannot see any time when there would be the slightest reason to even try and understand (as opposed to absolve) why someone has committed this kind of act. I'm not going to state an opinion on whether these people are mentally ill or just bastards, because I'm not sure you can actually blanket when it happens so much, but independently it has to be a 'bad' act.

The three we are left with i think may offer more complication. Let's take stealing. I think it depends on you political outlook (sadly enough), but as what would probably be described as liberal (with a small l) and definitely a humanitarian, i can foresee instances where people may be stealing simply so survive. Is that a failure of society? In my opinion yes, it certainly can be, and I'm not prepared to write off people for their choices - people can change, and that to me is important. You have to say though, that for the most part, theft is a pretty bad thing, and i think we can all agree (even those who don't believe in private property - that may be goal for some, but until we're there, then that tenner was gonna buy me lunch).

Murder, assault? Well... any kind of rational pre-meditation makes this act 'bad', full stop. But it's that word rational that's important. Absolution is difficult for these kind of offences, but understanding can be there in a minority of cases. Revenge for a family member killed, wading in to protect someone in the street and ending up seriously hurting the attacker - all crime, and maybe bad, but i think each case probably deserves independent analysis, even if we cannot give absolution.

What i hope we can learn from this kind of thought is that we have to continue to analyse our own morality (and this goes for all aspects of 'being bad') so that we never become brittle in our views. It matter less what you think, than how you've got there, because if you've really thought it through, i hope the similarity of opinion with others (who do the same thing) will surprise you, at least on some things. And for those that refuse, those who continue to be narrow minded - well you can feel superior, and that's always nice :)

Here, for any who are interested, is something a touch lighter - unusual laws all 'round the world (don't know how many are actually true).

http://www.mindlesscrap.com/trivia/laws.htm

So Bernard Manning's dead? hmmm... oh well.

I'd like to say I'm sorry if that offends any Bernard Manning fans or family, but I'm not. He was a racist, homophobic misogynist who the world is better off without.

So today, I'm definitely off the fence. Go me.

As you most probably know (if you knew who the hell i was talking 'bout, and if not, you're lucky, lucky people) I'm talking about 'bad' comedians. And what that entails. To me, in theory, it's simple. I don't like prejudice. It's not fair, and it's lazy. To me, an individual should be judged on themselves. Then, if you find out that they're a prick then it's OK, because you've taken the time to get to know the real them. Or something. You get the idea.

So case closed eh? Well... maybe not. I'd have to say that when Bernard Manning was making his wonderfully thought out and intelligent jokes about whoever he felt the need to pick on at the time, i don't think he was satirising the stereotypes he was talking about, but i suppose there is the outside chance that he was.

See, i don't think that's bad - holding something up and lampooning it by taking on a persona or telling jokes on the subject in such a way that it's obvious how narrow minded or ignorant that view is, but how do you tell? I've sat in a room with somebody who has found something offensive that I've found hilarious, because I've seen the act in a different light.

You also can have humour that is intensely aggressive and violent to make a point about something serious. An example (of that situation at least) would be someone saying that all paparazzi should be killed without mercy - bastards, hounding people like Britney or Lindsy Lohan or Amy Winehouse or even Princess Di until they fall apart. And though i hope it's clear that the actual message is maybe the media should back off and stop behaving like animals, there will always be one person who thinks that it means that all paparazzi should be killed, and how disgusting that is to say (not sure who that would be, either way it was taken - what with the paparazzi being so popular and all...). But hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.

There's also stereotyping that i can find funny, depending on the comedian and the context. So Americans being fat and stupid, or the French being cowards, or the Scots being tight, or the Welsh... well never mind. I don't believe any of that, and have to say that i only find it funny when i believe that the comedian in question (and i think this kind of thing tends to occur on prime time comic panel shows) doesn't either - they've dragged it out because it's related to some situation or statistic and then put away again. And it can be funny. But i do cringe when i think that there might be someone watching the same thing believing that the comedian is being sincere and wholeheartedly agreeing with him, or that I've made the mistake and that the person I'm watching isn't dragging out a cliche but is espousing opinion, and that I'm making excuses for finding it funny.

I will make clear that some of the comedy that i enjoy is 'offensive' - satirising religion, politics, or violence. And some people will not like it, or indeed find it upsetting or derogatory to a situation. So how do i draw the line?

Well, i think that telling jokes about a subject can help diffuse our feelings about something, help us come to terms with it. So jokes about terrorism i can find funny - i feel as I'm degrading what these people are trying to do, which is inspire fear, by laughing about it. I have to say that if i had had family hurt in a terrorist bombing then i might feel differently. So it's very hard, and very subjective, but it's a long way (in my opinion) from telling jokes about black people being stupid, or women less intelligent that men (which just have no element of truth in them what so ever). Unless you're satirising that. Which is OK... this really isn't simple is it?

All i can say is what i said at the beginning - that barring interpretation and satire, anything that directly and maliciously offends (in terms of stereotyping and prejudice at any rate) to be funny just shouldn't be. But it can really difficult to tell them apart in a lot of cases, though i suppose that's the only reason it's good that Jim Davidson is still alive - sometimes we need it simple. Bastard.

This may not be funny to people who are supporters of the BNP or fans of Mr Manning, and does contain a little bad language. But still.

http://www.funny.co.uk/stand-up-comedy/art_75-966-Bernard-Manning-Racist-Tosser.html

Intoxication - "pass me a bevvy"

I wanted, as we're getting to the end of blogging for this module, to look at an issue which I've touched upon briefly before - is getting out of your head, in whatever manner you choose, intrinsically bad, irrespective of any other concerns (such as physical health or the emptiness of you wallet)?

See, my biggest problem with drugs, and booze for that matter, is that I'm embarrassed by the need to escape from the world in that way - looking at the world through the bottom of a glass, or the smoke of a joint. And nearly all of us do it - have something physically intoxicating that we do on a regular basis. And I'm not talking about getting that way because your unhappy or stressed, although that can be part of it, I'm just talking 'bout your normal Friday night.

I guess I'm trying to deconstruct why we enjoy these activities so much. When Joe Bloggs (by the way, has anyone ever, in the history of the world ever, been called Joe Bloggs?) is working in the week he, quite naturally, looks forward to the weekend and not being at work. But your same average person also looks forward to getting a skinfull on a Friday night. Is it simply that it is an activity that has an intrinsic happiness attached to it? Or is it something that allows that person to unwind from a stressful week because there's a chance that getting pissed will make him forget, and narrow his focus to the here and now for a couple of hours (as he's not so capable of doing anything else)? The second to me sounds so very much like dependency, like running away, like hiding - even if you're having fun. So which is it? The same question can obviously also be applied to drugs.

I don't know. I'm not sure anyone does - but it is something that worries me every time i look forward to going out and getting drunk because i know I'll be able to unwind. I'm ashamed to be hiding, and wish that i didn't need to.

The flip side of course is that if nearly everyone does it, and has done for millenia, then maybe we're meant to be able to hide from and forget life for a while to actually be able to carry on with it in the long term. And i don't dismiss that possibility - I'm just not convinced.

In terms of alcohol, here is what the Royal College of Psychiatrists has to say:

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/alcoholanddrugs/alcoholourfavouritedrug.aspx

Links to comments!

I'm going to update this post with all the links to comments that I've made on other people blogs, so they're all in one easy to find place. Fab.

1) http://franhelpedmemakethis.blogspot.com/2008/03/d-worddrugs-shhh.html

2) http://gorillabull.blogspot.com/2008/05/liar-liar.html

3) http://ejtblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/fines.html

And My assingments -

This is my essay on smoking:

Tobacco Companies have long sought to deny that cigarette-smoking constitutes an addiction. What other strategies of denial can you identify in the exhibits 8, 9 and 10 on the lecture handout? Comment on their plausibility


In the three extracts we find denial in different forms. We have public denial, internal denial (within the tobacco corporations), denial on the health consequences of smoking, and of course, denial over the addictive nature of the habit.
Let us look first at the idea of smoking as a choice – not an addiction, and how this is driven both publicly and privately. The very first paragraph in the opening exhibit shows us the drive of the tobacco companies to create an inner atmosphere of belief in the product, “We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug effective in the release of stress mechanisms”[1]. Although an admission of the addictive nature of smoking products, the implication is that it is the resultant effects that are addictive (the ‘stress relieving’ aspect), and this constitutes a mental, rather than physical addiction. Exhibit #9, a more contemporary source, and a public one, theoretically with years more research and public reaction behind it, still talks about the “pleasure of smoking”[2], and is reticent (interestingly in an article that does not want to debate semantics) to use the word addiction at first, going instead with, “difficult to quit”[3], an idea that attaches well on the idea of smoking as, first and foremost, a pleasurable activity, rather than an unpleasant addiction. The very last exhibit (exhibit #10), coming we would assume before further research into the effects of smoking and pregnancy, but when it was acknowledged that it caused a decrease in birth weight, argues that women might smoke because they wanted smaller babies – another argument that presents smoking as a choice with a positive outcome. Going back to exhibit #8 finally, we even have public flat denial, “I do not believe that nicotine is addictive”[4], from another modern, and theoretically informed source.
Another major form of denial here is something that is explicitly talked about as a tool in exhibit #8 – doubt. “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public”[5]. We see a specific strategy to, if not deceive, then spread doubt in the validity of research to provide the consumer with a point of denial. This is shown in practice in the very next paragraph in exhibit #8, coming two years later in a public document from the same company, “…the statement ‘cigarettes cause cancer’ is not a statement of fact but merely an [sic] hypothesis”[6]. As is pointed out above, this may give the consumer a point of denial, which, from the viewpoint of the company, may well be just as effective as actual evidence to support smoking as a habit. Exhibit #9 also shows the effectiveness of this strategy, with, “the popular understanding today is that smoking is addictive”[7], which is a far cry from saying it is addictive, and sows the seeds of doubt.
How plausible can we say these strategies are? Well, in light of the ‘body of evidence’, to use a phrase from one of our sources, it seems that arguing the idea of smoking as non-addictive, or addictive only in light of it’s positive effects, is one that simply cannot prevail in the long run. However, as a stalling tactic, to retain customers, or one used in the strategy of spreading doubt, then if not scientifically plausible, it certainly seems to have been effective, and in the long run, that may be all the tobacco companies are looking for.

Bibliography

Ph1000 week 4 handout: Smoking – Exhibits #8, #9, #10

[1] PH1000 Handout – Exhibit #8. Paragraph 1
[2] PH1000 Handout – Exhibit #9.
[3] PH1000 Handout – Exhibit #9
[4] PH1000 Handout – Exhibit #8. Paragraph 4
[5] PH1000 Handout – Exhibit #8. Paragraph 2
[6] PH1000 Handout – Exhibit #8. Paragraph 3
[7] PH1000 Handout – Exhibit #9

And this is my short story on Drugs -

“I think it’s starting to take effect. Look at them eyes!” I looked over at him, wondering how I was letting myself be goaded by someone who was missing that many teeth, and formulated my response.
“Fuck off”
“Not my fault now is it son? Manners don’ cost nothin’ do they? An’ a job’s a job, gotta keep meself entertained some ‘ow ent I?”
Glancing over at what he was gesturing to, I had to admit the eyes did look a little vacant.
“Still no’ used to it, are ye? Always takes you types a while, dun it? Anyway, best pay attention, don’t wanna miss ‘im fallin’ over.”
The figure we were looking at broke out laughing and stumbled forward, smashing into the table in front of him, and sent his now empty syringe flying over toward us. Flinching before I could catch myself, I scowled as my guide cackled at me.
“Can’t ‘urt you can it? Anyway, dun ‘e look like ‘e’s ‘aving a good time? Envious are ye?”
I looked at the eyes again. There was nothing there now, just oblivion. The fall had left him with a cut just above his left eye, and the blood was slowly trickling behind the lid. He didn’t blink. I had an overwhelming feeling that he wasn’t there, and that the unusually slow rise and fall of his chest were just hinting at life. He still wore the smile the laugh had faded into, but it was somehow grotesque without the animation behind it. I turned away.
“Can’t stomach it eh? What, you fink I bought you ‘ere to scare ye? Show ye a bad trip? Son, this is what ‘e wanted to get like. This is why he did it. An’ ‘e ain’t dead neither. Give ‘im a couple o’ ‘ours an’ he’ll be at it again. Glamorous life eh?
I closed my eyes. I didn’t have the energy to answer back, “Take me home. Please”.
I hesitated. “For fucks sake, just take me home!” Opening my eyes I wheeled as if to turn on my guide, and stared at the empty space. I glanced ‘round and realised the change.

Home.
I sighed, and looked toward the table at my feet. Syringe and spoon, lighter and smack.
I waited, just a second, and walked away.


Rationale

In terms of the content of my piece I decided early on that I wanted to carry on the debates I started in my blog: rather than the health implications of drugs, I’m interested in the consequences of complete escapism. As such, I’m using a first time heroin user confronted with the realities of taking heroin. The very thing that has driven him to the drug is the opportunity to escape the world, and yet it this aspect of escapism to the point of incapacitation that scares him the most when confronted by it. The fantasy aspect of it I think demonstrates the opportunity to always turn back from that brink, which is an important message when dealing with the bleak reality of hard drugs. These two aspects contribute to the debate by reaffirming the disturbing nature of withdrawal from the world and reinforcing the fact that serious drug abuse it is a tragedy.
The choice of a first person narrative was deliberate to try and engender sympathy for the character in the reader, which links to the point above. The secondary character that was introduced has three deliberate parts. Firstly, being unlikable (which I think he is for the most part), reinforces the idea that likability and right don’t necessarily go hand in hand: the unlikable can be right, and although not directly a comment on governments or schools or parents, it is that idea that the message should be listened to regardless of the medium. The second aspect to his use is the earthiness he brings to the plot. It is simple – the individual that was being watched was a mess, and he was never going to dodge that. Thirdly he acts as a foil to the thoughts of the main character, linking his internal monologue and pushing the narrative along. The piece is meant to challenge the reader – what would you do? How would you feel? It is not a guide to a moral, and though I hope that people will end up with the same view as my character, that is not the purpose.
In terms of how successful I feel the piece is, I believe it has been wholly appropriate to the topic, bringing up questions on the morality of drug taking and its affects, as I have mentioned. The only aspect to it which I think it hinges on is the likeability of my main character, and that unfortunately is out of my hands!

"Dude, that's far out", or the drug cliche of your choice...

Drugs.

Are they bad? And if they are, why does that not stop the thousands of people who take them in this country?

As i have mentioned in previous blog entries, there is almost a set standard of 'bad' elements to a behaviour that we have to wheel out each time - is it bad for your health? Is it bad for the health of other people? Does if affect other peoples lives in other negative ways? Could you be spending the money on more worthy things, such as helping the needy, you horrible and selfish people (difficult to get sarcasm across in print isn't it?)?

The other big issue is whether there is a moral implication on getting wasted in any shape or form, but I'm going to talk about that in it's own blog, so more on that later.

I'm reluctant to tackle 'drugs' as a single topic, as if we look at the main aspect that ties them together under this category (with the exception of legality) then you have to include drinking, and also smoking, which has been given completely separate billing on the Being Bad course.

The problem you have is that each drug, both legal and illegal needs to be judged separately. Drinking in moderation, for instance, has been vindicated as being for all intents and purposes harmless, and in fact it has been suggested that drinking a moderate amount of some drinks, like red wine, can be good for you. Binge drinking can be bad (health wise) for you, but assuming that you don't puke on the pavements on the way home and don't get into any fights - is it harming other people? Maybe not in the short term. But then it might put a strain on, say, any relationship you might be in - whether because they can see the damage that it might be doing to you physically and find that difficult to cope with, or whether because you are doing it so much that it starts to appear that it means more to you than they do. Or not. And this is the real problem. You can't generalise. Is any activity that can do you damage, whether physically or psychologically, bad because those around you who care for you know the damage it might do, even if directly it does harm to only you?

Cannabis, as another example, if taken to excess is known to do serious long term damage. But taken moderately it is not known whether it will cause any long term damage at all. But it might. Again we have the same problem.

It has to be said that going through the list of drugs, things become a little more clear cut. Drugs that are massively addictive, both physically and emotionally, and expensive, have a much clearer path to what it is difficult to argue isn't a 'bad' position. In the majority of cases we see addicts of drugs like heroin turning to crime, such as robbery or prostitution. Clearly this isn't affecting just you, and while there is always the possibility of an exception (maybe the person who takes heroin once every couple of months at parties and is in total control) to this rule, you don't really hear about them, and I've never met any either.

I could, in theory, go through every illegal and legal drug that is designed to intoxicate and analyse them one by one, but i, and to be honest anyone who reads this, have other things to do.

To finish then, let's just say that individually drugs may or may not be bad, but it depends strongly on your definition. And as to my first question, why, if they are bad, do people take them? Well, I have, and probably will again, and objectively I'm probably not doing myself any good.

Things are never simple are they?

If you want to see how the governments are seeking to tackle drugs, or if you just want to know a few hard facts, then this is useful: http://www.talktofrank.com/

Columbine... and so on and so forth.

I know that this is a sensitive issue for people, so i will apologise in advance if i offend anyone. Can't see how, but anyway, disclaimer over.

Right, to be precise in any case, I'm not talking about the tragedy of Columbine High School - full details at this link: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/frameset.exclude.html

What i am going to talk about is 'bad' cinema... and 'bad' music... and 'bad' computer games... you get the general idea. As i mentioned briefly in my last blog on body modification, there has been a debate for many years on this 'chicken and egg' question - do entertainment products that depict violent or illegal behaviour promote this kind of behaviour in the user, or do the kind of people who commit these acts in reality enjoy this kind of thing (as opposed to the many, many people who don't ending up shooting up schools or taking drugs but do kinda like Pulp Fiction) because they are predisposed to those kinds of acts? This is obviously a microcosm of the 'nature Vs nurture' question that so baffles psychologists, but as I'm not really qualified to talking 'bout this kind of thing on that level, let's keep it simple.

The reason i think people make such a big deal over this (particularly the kind of people who do criticise violent media) is because they are looking for a moral hook for their distaste. Finding a film offensive in this day and age is usually greeted with a "turn it over, and stop whining", which i have to say is about the size of it - why should you tell me i can't watch this because you don't like it? However, the suggestion that say watching Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs or playing Fear is going to increase the chance that i might commit an act of random violence - well then there's suddenly a legitimate argument for the restriction of that kind of media.

The thing is... well, that's bol**cks isn't it? There are a huge number of people who use and enjoy this kind of media, and the vast, vast majority of them will never commit any act that is likely to cause the kind of harm to people that is depicted in violent films or games.

However, i am not going to make the claim that people who have psychological problems, whether related to violent behaviour or not, may be affected by this kind of media. It may be true that that minority of people are more likely to commit violent crime after viewing or using that kind of material - i don't know, and I'm not going to pretend that i do. It does seem to me however, and here is something applicable to all 'bad' behaviour, that the question of civil liberties comes into play. There will always be an argument between those who believe that infringements of civil liberties are acceptable if they make us safer, and those who believe that by taking away an individuals choices you are depriving them of the very thing that makes them human, and every argument in between.

So, violent or 'bad' media - is it actually bad? Maybe, sometimes to some people. But i think, as ever, the majority of criticism levelled against it is people looking for excuses for why, sometimes, human beings do inexcusable things. And you know what? I'm not sure there is rhyme nor reason.

Your gonna put that needle where now...?

Ah, body modification.

To be more specific, the kinds that are traditionally not so 'the norm'. So we're thinking tattoos and piercings, cosmetic surgery, and less getting your hair cut.

You may spot a pattern to my posts, in that i appear to sit on the fence when discussing the 'badness' of an activity. I tend to, when talking about activities which either never hurt other people (say masturbating... assuming you're not in church), or if done in a certain way won't either (smoking, assuming your not blowing it at babies), leave the individual to decide whether something is bad or not. So as ever reader (that sounds a touch pretentious now doesn't it?), the choice is yours on body modification.

While this kind of behaviour can be damaging to your health, mostly, and if done properly, that is not a problem. There are exceptions of course - I still can't wrap my head 'round collagen (so that's actual poison? and you're going to actually inject it into my face? what could possibly go wrong...?).

I do however think there are issues with this kind of behaviour, especially cosmetic surgery. Is it harmless, or does it hint at deep rooted phsycological problems? This is true of tattoos and piercings as well, though perhaps to a lesser extent. What is it about yourself that drives you to permanently alter your appearance? I'll admit to having piercings, and most of my friends have them or tattoos, and i think I'm not doing too bad. I just like them. Or at least i think i just like them. So maybe it's like violent movies - do the people who go out and commit murder and watch them do the deed because they watch them? Or do they watch and enjoy them because they're already predisposed to killing people? More on that question in another blog i feel. But i do think that in some people body modification can be an external sign of internal struggle, although I'm not sure that makes it bad.

Another major criticism of body modification, especially tattoos, is that when your old your going to look like a twat. Which may or may not be true, but it hardly makes them bad - just, if you do have that opinion, a little bit daft.

Overall I don't think that body modification is in itself a bad thing. For instance having an 'offensive' tattoo might be bad, but that would be the message rather than the medium. I can't see how it could damage someone else, and as I've said, that's the key for me.

Did i just get off the fence... i feel a touch giddy.

Oh, and if anyone is interested, here is a lovely website with some examples of tattoo art.

http://tattoo-art.com/

Oink oink...

I thought that today, children, we would look at something not strictly in the syllabus.

Gluttony.

Is over-eating, obesity (assuming that there is no medical reason), or just being a bit tubby bad?

It certainly has things in common with other 'vices' in terms of being bad. If we can afford to smoke, drink, take drugs, or indeed, over-eat, then why do we not do more for those who can't afford a loaf of bread or find clean water? It is a tough question, and one i didn't examine when looking at smoking. I think we have to ask ourselves whether this kind of behaviour is different from indulging ourselves in other ways, say buying DVDs or buying designer clothes. It is all money, and it is all enjoyment, and yes, it could all be given to the needy.

This right to judge, i have to say, remains a personal choice. I don't think we can demonise an individual for this kind of behaviour without including ourselves, and therefore we have to draw that line through our own experience, and 'critical thought' (thank you ph1105).

Of course there are other criticisms that also tie in with other types of 'bad behaviour'. Lets be honest, being fat is not great for you health, and even if your not, not eating the right stuff is not so good for you either. But then so is smoking. And taking drugs. And, probably (though i don't really want to admit it) drinking. Alright, so eating is natural, and it can be argued none of those are, but eating so much that you can't see you feet? Hmmm, maybe not so in tune with nature.

It all ties in with the same arguments you will see time and time again for any kind of pleasurable behaviour that may not be so great for you. Is it being bad? God knows... anyway, anyone want a biscuit?

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publichealth/Healthimprovement/Obesity/index.htm

If the government think it's bad, it's got to be worth doing...

le singe fume la pipe...

Smoking... always a divisive topic. Even for smokers. You see, i count myself as one of that number, yet, in my short yet colourful life, have started, given up (briefly), started again, given up for three years, and then, last August, started again. And then, with a cough i haven't been able to rid myself of (alas, at the age of 22), have sort of, maybe, given up... possibly.

And automatically, i would say anything to reproach the idea that it was physically addictive. It is always an emotional attachment. To my youth, or time for myself in a hectic world. Which may or may not be utter bol**cks, as i have been craving one unreservedly while i have been sick, doing nothing in my flat, having all the time in the world to myself, and to do anything else that has a ringing attachment to my life. That's the thing about smoking. It messes you up and convinces you it's a fab idea.

So why, other than weighty addiction, do people do it? Why start?

I think we will probably see some real similarities drawn between my thoughts on smoking and on drugs, but if can try and be specific to smoking i will. You see, for me, it's always going to be a complicated mix of factors, and if i could be so bold, probably for everyone else as well.

To be cool? Quite possibly. To rebel? As before. But, like all smokers, i honestly believe it's hard to put you finger on it. As a friend of mine said about self harm, 'if i understood why i started, I'd still be doing it'. It think that rings true about smoking. It ends up as a craving... emotional and physical. So is it bad? That would be the crux. Well... it kills you, hooks you, and empties you pockets. But i quite enjoy it. I never said it would be simple...

And, just for a change (though i can hardly agree), here is the premier pro-smoking British group, http://www.forestonline.org/

To cheat or not to cheat? hmmm...

To be honest, infidelity is something i struggle with as a concept... would I? wouldn't I? Would it really matter?

I think it's this last aspect of it, the 'would it matter if they didn't find out' aspect, that kinda plays on my mind most. It's that whole 'if a tree fell in a forest and no one was there...' you get the picture.

Is there a divine edict (well, apart from that divine edict... less applicable for the agnostics methinks) that says we can't? Is it the consequences alone that dictate the rightness of an action? I mean, if my conscience can handle it, and the other person never finds out... c'est difficile, non?

I'm not sure... and there is the rub, as they say. Hurting someone by a deliberate action is quite difficult to defend to most people - especially if they themselves have been the victim of said offence and start brandishing sticks. But as I've said, if they never know...

All i can say is that I'm not too sure i would appreciate being cheated on. Maybe that's enough to sway my thoughts. And on that note, i don't think I'd be alone. Happens quite a lot apparently - http://www.infidelity.com/

Who knew?

Being Bad's Field Trip!

Field trip to... 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show'

Apart from the rocking show tunes and the cool clothes, it would be an oppertunity to see a commentry on the consequences of sexual excess. In Drag.

I think we're done here.