Musings of a Teenager

In response to:War

2009-07-16T17:42:16+02:00

I'm sending this image to pacifists online in the hopes that it will inspire peace!
http://klogtheblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/steve-kilian-flikp-demon-brand.html
The HTML ended up with a weird string, but it's benign!

In response to:Empire of Sports - Review

2008-06-04T17:53:02+02:00

Skateboarding is relatively modern. A key skateboarding trick, the ollie, was only developed in the late 1970s. This ollie was used only on vertical ramps on flat ground. A decade later, freestyle skateboarder Rodney Mullen invented the kickflip which before was called a Magic Flip outsourcing data

In response to:What's so Funny?

2008-01-14T08:44:22+01:00

so funny
http://www.btbnt.com

In response to:Fame

2008-01-08T17:55:52+01:00

I want to be happy. I would like to be known. I would like to be comfortable money-wise. I could not do interviews. I could not be chased by paparrazi. I could not do that lifestyle. But I think that I want to be known. I am certain of it. I want to be famous. But I don't want to have everything that entails. And I know what I want to be famous for, but I'm keeping that under my hat!
I think what I meant was that if someone talks about my blog to their friends. If someone tells someone else that it's a good read. Then that is enough fame for me. It satisfies my definition. And it would be a nice feeling to know that I, a bog-standard teenager, in a bog-standard town leading a bog-standard life, had made that small impact. I think that would be so fun!

In response to:Fame

2007-12-12T14:48:28+01:00

Young people nowadays seem to confuse fame and love: they think that to be famous is to be loved (haven't they noticed what happened to Bog Brother's Charlie?). In a way that has always happened: people like Madonna have always sought validation through fame.

But nowadays everyone is so much more materialistic that they aren't able to see the downsides, don't think about what an empty existence it is etc. I agree with you that being famous for doing something (nobel prize or whatever) is different. But nowadays so many people want to be famous, rather than want to be a famous writer or whatever. I don't even want to be famous. I want to be happy!

In response to:The News - Jean Charles de Menezes Case

2007-12-12T14:40:24+01:00

Sir Iain Blair is to blame because he is ultimately responsible. He allowed the growth of a culture within his organisation where it is fine to pump bullets into the head of an innocent man when he is on the ground. Where it is fine to obstruct the enquiry into the incident (and he did this himself, so he is DEFINITELY responsible here). Where it is fine to allow witness statements to be ridiculed: until the CCTV backs them up and shows the Police were lying.

You can delegate a task: you cannot delegate responsibility. All GOOD bosses know that. An honourable man would have resigned.

In response to:One must consider the Psycology of the Individual

2007-11-24T12:09:23+01:00

I want you to visit the article on the Weight loss program that will allow you to understand the psycology of the fat people.

In response to:Grammar Schools

2007-10-25T13:43:20+02:00

I think if someone can't be bothered then there's not a lot you can do to help them. Streaming is about the best you can do, because if you are being constantly evaluated, there is always a point to working.

I think school should be fun, and that's why I'm glad I went with my friends. The single sex thing is a real problem, I think. I was really shy when I was younger, but at least with a mixed school you have boys around and you can have a laugh with them.

In response to:The (Non-)Existence of God #3: Notes and Addendum

2007-10-19T17:53:44+02:00

Firstly, thank you so much. Your comments have been highly enjoyable and it makes it all seem so worth it. I can't thank you enough for your comments about thinking.
I think that God can exist alongside science. But the Bible, as you say, can't. You can't have both the Creation myth and the Big bang being true. And this is the distinction I think I failed to make clear in my original post. I agree, the Bible was created by a council who chose from over 80 books. What makes the final version real?
Thank you again.

In response to:The Donkey and the Daughter - Part Two

2007-10-19T17:46:50+02:00

No, I don't think it would be different. It would just be a lot harder. I think it would mean that throwing the daughter of was out of the question. But the donkey has such a life ahead of it. Or does it? What quality of life does a donkey have? Oh, and God would chose the donkey too. We are made in the image of God. In the Bible (if you believe it) we are set aside from the animal kingdom. Our bodies our temples of him (Corinthians). I think this means that he would have to throw the donkey of. Does that sound like a kind, caring, benevolent God?

In response to:War

2007-10-19T17:37:05+02:00

That's what I've realised. I thought about it long and hard and realised I couldn't kill either. And no, it can't make anything better. It would just make one mothers life worse.

In response to:Grammar Schools

2007-10-19T17:27:32+02:00

I think streaming is a good idea. If it is used effectively and across the curriculum. The problem is when it disheartens weaker candidates. It might ablso fail those candidates who have the 'Can't be bothered.' philosophy. They are the sorts of people who could just drop to the bottom of the year and sit there.
I would personally be against someone choosing school based on where their friends are going. I didn't and I think I'm glad I didn't. The one problem with grammar schools is that most aren't mixed. I don't really know what effect this will have on me yet. I don't really socialise that much outside of school. I have loads of hobbies but don't really do many clubs. This does mean that I'm awkward around girls and find them hard to talk to. This is obviously natural, but I think it is affected even more if you don't socialise with them whilst you are a teenager.

In response to:The (Non-)Existence of God #3: Notes and Addendum

2007-10-15T14:23:49+02:00

I think it is entirely consistent for science to explain everything, and there still to be a God. I don't mean God as in the Bible (a document which has to have been corrupted over the years) or any other religious book. I mean God perhaps as envisioned by gnostics and heretics. The idea that All is One and One is God.

I suspect that the great religious thinkers such as Jesus were actually trying to say this, but in a subtle way (such as when Jesus says 'the Kingdom of God is within you'). Life is about searching to find truth. And that is why I've found this blog so entertaining and interesting today: someone is actually trying to think about things, and that's a better way to get an education than following the National Curriculum.

I feel sorry for people like Richard Dawkins. His mind is so closed that his very disbelief in God has become a faith - but he can't see it.

In response to:The Donkey and the Daughter - Part Two

2007-10-15T14:14:07+02:00

Would the answer be different if the donkey was young and the daughter old?

I think it boils down to what would you say if one of them had to be thrown off the tower (to save the world or something)? I think everyone would choose to throw off the donkey. Except, possibly, for God.

In response to:War

2007-10-15T14:11:19+02:00

I'm a pacifist too. Most people don't realise that they don't really have it in them to kill. And that even if they did kill, it wouldn't make anything better.

In response to:Grammar Schools

2007-10-15T14:08:40+02:00

I really like that idea - that you agree with grammar schools or not according to where you were educated. I'd not thought of that before, but it is so true!

So I am comprehensive school educated and guess what? I don't agree with grammar schools! I'm not sure I agree that you are too young to decide at 11 what you want to do. I chose not to got to grammar school (well, Girl's High School where I was) because I wanted to be with my friends. I knew this was a big disappointment to my parents and my teachers, but I put my happiness firts, and I'm glad I did.

I finished school with three grade A 'A' levels (in a time when only 5% of those taking them got As, so that dates me!). I believe that it only makes sense that if you pick the cleverest children, your school will get the best exam results. I think it is better for society as a whole and for children in general if the academically brightest are spread around schools.

That said, I believe in streaming within comprehensives. Results plummeted in comprehensives when streaming was abandoned in the late 1970s. I believe it is back in at least some lessons nowadays, and the reason I think it is necessary is so that in mixed ability schools, the slower children don't hold back the brighter ones, and the teachers don't concentrate on the brightest children and disregard the others, leading them to become completely disillusioned with education.

The great advantage of streaming is that pupils can move between streams: there's no way that a one-off exam can decide their futures forever.

In response to:War

2007-10-06T15:46:55+02:00

Bother. Weapons, not weappons. I blame this keyboard.

In response to:War

2007-10-06T15:46:03+02:00

A boring old fart says: interesting to see that the non-pacifists are still using the same old questions they did fifty years ago when I was a brat. "What would you do if a German was raping your sister and you had a gun in your hand, eh?" And so on.

Your morals are logically correct, and the rest of the world is wrong, apart from me and a few others.

The flying is reason enough, for sure. I had a glider ride a few years ago, and thought it marvellous, and light aircraft are terrific fun too. Try to avoid the ones with weappons is my advice, which almost everyone ignores.

In response to:The (Non-)Existence of God #1: 3 Simple Proofs:

2007-08-29T10:06:42+02:00

Thanks!

That's a very interesting viewpoint. No, I don't think rational analysis can end up with belief. This is why I say at the end "I 'know' in science". I think although they came from the same starting point, to explain what we can see, the ways that they explain it requires a different terminology to be used for each of science and religion.
Yes, its complexity can be used to prove God's existence (it can't ahve been created by chance) and disprove it (it's too complex to have been made). A slight paradox I feel, yet another in a subject full of them.

In response to:The (Non-)Existence of God #1: 3 Simple Proofs:

2007-08-29T09:57:05+02:00

"The Universe is so complicated that it cannot have developed just by chance" - or, as I see it - it is so complex it couldn't possibly have been designed by one, or an infinite committee of superbeings.

Nature is so bizarre and wonderful, it defies intelligent design IMO.

But many scientists do believe - I think 'belief' is entirely separate from 'knowing'. One comes from the way we feel instinctively (and some have posited that belief is so common it must be a side-effect of the way our brains are wired); the other comes from rational analysis. No rational analysis can end up with belief - can it? The religions I know about are full of contradictions that their proponents don't like to argue with unbelievers.

Nice series of posts, btw.

In response to:The (Non-)Existence of God #1: 3 Simple Proofs:

2007-08-22T10:30:35+02:00

Read up on Pascal's Wager. It's an interesting proposition.

XoD.