Is Moral Education Important?

What EXACTLY is Morality? Many people have interpreted it wrongly, including myself.



In Malaysia, secondary school Moral Education is dumb as it requires students to memorize IN EXACT, WORD FOR WORD the definition of each moral value in order to score marks in the examinations.

However, when I entered college, the Moral Education is far different and is based on psychological and philosophical theories proposed (by known people such as Aristotle, Kant and so on) throughout the past as a logical means to convey information about morality.


In this post, I'm going to talk about Moral Education that is taught in my college, which is through psychological, philosophical and religious aspects and theories.


I've just finished my final examinations for this subject, and these are examples of what my coursemates say...


"Moral studies can rot in hell now. Just keep your ass there and I'll be in peace. Thanks."

"NOOB MORAL EDUCATION... MAKES NO SENSE!!"

Immanuel Kant. Many criticisms on this guy.

The Main Importance of Moral Education
From what I realized, MORAL EDUCATION in my college did not TEACH us how to apply morality. It has basically provided theories and philosophy proposed by wise people and their criticisms. This allows us to be more aware of HOW WE DETERMINE MORALITY, as different individuals have different views on it (egoism? utilitarianism? how do you determine what is moral or not?).

There is no supposedly correct theory, and for every theory proposed, there were criticisms. We were educated on ALL theories, including how certain religions think. When we learn it the philosophical way, we learn how to consider, accept and reason things out that covers many aspects. We learn WISDOM. THAT is the aim of the subject.








This subject is talking about how the WORLD thinks, and how different groups/individuals may apply different values. We always say that in the real world, we do not care about moral values, but morality is not as simple as you think. Whatever we do, whatever we think is UNDER the influence of our moral conciousness.






For Example, How are Selfish People Applying Morality?
From what I have learned in this subject, this is what morality means.


Morality is a social instrument that guides individuals and groups in their daily lives. All these concepts refer to the concept of human behavior that deals with right or wrong and also known as ‘good’ or ‘bad’.


This, in actual...is what MORALITY means. It means the "CONCEPT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR THAT DEALS WITH RIGHT OR WRONG", it does not mean to be respectful, good or considerate, which I once thought so.

As you can see, it is a concept of human behaviour that may vary from individual to individual. Morality applies to an individual. A selfish person is actually not "immoral" as we speak, but is actually applying one of the theories of ethics called Egoism.

Egoism Cartoon. Notice that Egoism is good when a person is of good nature like Gabe. Egoism is not entirely wrong.

Egoism is the theory where if an act brings benefits to self, it is considered moral/good. So are we correct to say that selfish people are bad and immoral? We only say so because we have our own understanding and theory of morality, and selfishness is contradicting our own moral laws.







Morality as the Cause of Conflict
Learning this subject well enough would have taught you by now that it is due to the difference in morality, values and beliefs that cause conflicts.

Whatever seems rude to you, may not seem rude to others.
Whatever seems nice to you, may not seem nice to others.
WHAT IS CORRECT TO YOU, MAY BE WRONG TO OTHERS.

You may think doing something is okay and benefits others. But some may think that you are overboard and trying to pick on them.

Moral Education presents you WHY and HOW the many different theories of human behaviour and judgement that results in conflict. They even proposed strategies of solving conflict, and the most important one was SEEKING COMPROMISE.

Some people believe praying helps, some do not.

So What Exactly is Good and Bad?
In what I have been taught, the good and bad can only be determined through LOGICAL REASONING. This is what philosophers have been trying to do, everything must be logical and there must be a reason. Question everything. Most of us had already treated something as bad or wrong without even considering it because it is customary.

But due to how different individuals can reason things differently in different situations based on different experiences, this is relative as well.

For example, the act of dishonesty may be considered bad. However, sometimes we have to lie in order to make people happy. Thus, if we say that whatever is bad are the acts that hurt people, it may not be correct because sometimes we have to do so for the good of others. Whatever that is good brings happiness may also be incorrect because anyone can be happy over anything (you can feel happy whenever you want to) as long as they feel happy to do it.

Good and evil?

So in my opinion, the good and the bad can only be based on ABSOLUTE values with logical reasoning that all parties involved benefit from it and CAN (not must) apply the rule. They are values that can be applied to everyone. For example,


STEALING violates human rights.
Human rights is the freedom to do whatever a human wants as an average person.
(Everyone has rights, humans can do whatever they want by nature)
Stealing takes away a person's possessions and his rights to his own possessions.
It benefits the thief, but brings loss to the victim.
Cannot be applied to everyone because nobody wants to lose his possessions without his/her consent.
Therefore, stealing is wrong.


Of course, there will be some arguments about this, but I guess this (utilitarianism based ethics) is the most logical fundamentals of right and wrong.







Conclusion
Many people think that a certain act is good or bad without even realizing that is is relative and subjective to different individual's thoughts and beliefs.

Moral Education teaches us not to blame people solely on what we BELIEVE is wrong.

Belief is not the right way in doing anything. Logic and reasoning is. To know the correct logic and reasons, we must study and have a very deep understanding on how different people think and act. In other words, we must be wise. Moral Education is teaching us how to do this, and most of us don't even realize it. So is it important? In my opinion, yes it is.





Love,
Nicholas.

Aminulrasyid Amzah's Shooting Case

Justice for Aminurlrasyid Amzah.


There has been a recent case that happened on April 2010 in Selangor, Malaysia that attracted many people's attention. I've been to many websites and blogs and I keep seeing people saying that the police were just doing their job and were not wrong. Please let me explain why I feel that these idiots don't know what they're talking about.

For those of you who don't know this case, let me tell you about it. I will first tell you about the statements from the police and witnesses, and then my rants.

15-year-old shot dead (26 April 2010) in a car chase by the police.

Police's Statement
2 policemen detected a Proton Iswara at Section 14, Shah Alam in a suspicious manner.

Police gave signal for the car to stop but was ignored and the driver sped off.

This caused the 2 policemen to start a chase with the aid of another 2 policemen with another patrol car.

Police had successfully stopped the car after the drive run against several traffic lights.

The police opened fire after Aminulrasyid attempted to reverse the car into them in Section 11 which caused them to shoot in self-defence.

They also claimed that a parang was found in the car.





Witness: Azamudin Omar's Statement

Azamudin Omar and the deceased intended to go Ali Corner at Section 7 to give a hand to a friend whose motorcycle tyre was punctured.

On the way, the car drove by the deceased was involved in slight accident with a car parked along the road.

They fled the scene of the accident and were in panic state.

About 5 motorcyclists apparently the friends of the car owner (the one in the slight accident) chased the deceased's car.

The deceased intended to go back to his home at Section 11.

At Kayangan Roundabout Section 12, a motorcyclist hit the car from the back and fell down and the motorcyclists stopped chasing them.

They overtook a police car at Section 14 and they were chased till Caltex petrol Station at Section 11.

The shooting began when they entered into Jalan Tarian junction.

The deceased was shot in the head and fell to his lap upon dying, but the car was still moving because the decease still had his foot on the pedal.

The car rammed into a wall and stopped.

Azamudin Omar crawled out from the car and fell into a drain. He tried to surrender himself, but was immediately kicked by a police offier at the back of his head. He was beaten up further by several other policemen.

He managed to escape and ran through the school (SMK Seksyen 11) and immediately went home.

They did not bring/have a parang in the car.





Witness: Zafrullah Ahmad Zainal Abidin's Statement

He heard gunshots, sirens and the crashing of the deceased's car outside his house (the car crashed near his home).

He rushed out to see what happened and saw the crashed car at the wall in front of his house.

The front wheels of the car were in the drain which makes reversing impossible.

He saw one of the perpetrators (first witness, Azamudin Omar) who was running from the police and successfully escaped in doing so.

There was no occassion where the police found or took out any weapon or parang from the car after searching the car.

There were other people who came to the scene to see what happened as well.

The 2nd witness proved 3 points testified by the 1st witness which are:
a) There was no reversing of the car or attempt to fight back.
b) Azamudin Omar successfully escaped from the police.
c) There was no weapon/parang found in the car.
Consistent enough to prove that the 1st witness was telling the truth. The parang the police claimed to have found also did not contain any DNA or fingerprints and was deemed useless/not an evidence.





Chronology of the Incident







Cause of Death
Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah senior forensic consultant, Dr. Khairul Azman Ibrahim testified at the Sessions Court that, the 15-year-old died within seconds of the bullet penetrating his skull. Other abrasions found on his body could due to "impact of blunt objects and friction."

Dr Khairul said it penetrated the skull from the back of the head and hit the brain stem which caused massive bleeding. With no other abnormalities in organs or any sort of forensic evidence, the kid most likely died due to a SINGLE GUNSHOT TO THE HEAD.

Based on this article.




Court & Trial
The trial is still going on and the police were not charged yet. The recent trial is on Corporal Jenain Subi, 48 under Section 304(a) of the Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a fine.





My Opinions



Look at the post posted by the Anonymous. I would like to point out a few things...

Firstly, the deceased's car overtook the police car and did not stop when asked to. The car was only speeding. The police can only open fire for self-defence or when other's lives are threatened. The deceased did not have a weapon and did not attempt to fight back. RUNNING AWAY is not FIGHTING BACK! At best, the police can only fire ONLY to stop the car, in which is to fire at the tires or set up road block/spike-traps. What? The Malaysian police doesn't know how to set up road blocks and traps?

Now look, the kid's got a bullet to the head. Even if the police fired in short controlled bursts, so what? The police aimed for DRIVER, not the car. The police may have had the intention to only stop the car, but soon it became the intention to kill.


Now another thing, about the "what-if-there-was-a-suicide-bomber-in-the-car?"...

The police cannot fire at someone based on "SUSPICION" only. Running away from the police when being called upon is against the law, but the police cannot fire at the person if the person does not fight back like I said earlier. Furthermore, it is the middle of the night. It's impossible for the police to make correct speculations that the driver is up to something bad just because he's speeding. There is also a possibility that the driver is drunk, so you begin to fire at him?


Additional Note: If you think it's correct to gun down drunk drivers because you think they deserve to die, you're wrong. Nobody cares the moral values you believe in. This is the law.


Just because there is a possibility of a suicide bomber does not give the rights to the police to open fire. If so, I could suspect everyone and open fire at anyone I like. Do you guys even know the law? The sole fact that they fired at the car is already wrong. You cannot shoot someone just because you're not sure what they're up to.





http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/fmt-english/news/general/5218-aminulrasyid-to-blame-says-psychologist

This is another article which is about a psychologist saying that the deceased is to be blamed. I can't express how stupid this is. I'll comment based on the quotes there.


"And police on this shift are usually armed with automatic firearms because they don't know what they will be up against. The usual procedure is to pull a suspicious car over and shine a torchlight inside, but they didn't have a chance to do that in this case. So, they opened fire," said Dr. Teoh the psychologist.

YOU CANT OPEN FIRE JUST BECUZ SOMEONE'S SUSPICIOUS DAMNIT, KNOW THE LAW! It's what Malaysian cops do, they have no balls. When they suspect someone, they open fire first. If they're correct, they get all the credit. If the person is innocent, they make up some story.




"An automatic weapon sprays bullets. It is likely that a stray one hit the boy. I have handled firearms before and I can tell you an object moving quickly in the dark is almost impossible to shoot at."

What? You think the police never handled a firearm before? The police have professional training of firearms and were taught to shoot in controlled bursts like what Anonymous said. If they could let a stray bullet hit the boy, it is also their fault and can be charged for man-slaughter.

Due to professional training, there is no room for error. If the police's actions have a slight possibility of killing someone that is not armed or does not attempt to fight the police (can be anyone, even robbers and gangsters), the police CANNOT open fire or he will be charged in court.



“People are overlooking a most important issue, which is that a minor was behind the wheel. As far as the law is concerned, he was in the wrong.”

Here, this is the stupidest part. The most important issue was the child behind the wheel? Are you dumb? The child was wrong, DUH. That does not give the right to the police to open fire, I repeat again. "Do not fire unless fired upon," this is what the police have learned in training school. The most important issue is the police had killed the child.




Conclusion
The police fabricated evidence (parang in car) and misled the public by giving false information about the case. Aminulrasyid did not have a weapon and did not attempt to fight the police. He only tried to escape because he was in a panic state. The police had no reason to fire at him. Suspicion is not a valid or legal reason to open fire leading to the child's death.

With all that evidence, the police should be charged with MURDER instead. The kid died with a single bullet to the head and dozens of bullet holes in his car. The police saw a speeding car, chased after it and gunned it down with the intention to kill.

JUSTICE FOR AMINULRASYID AMZAH. Please don't say the police aren't wrong! Don't be stupid! Even the police knew they could be charged, that's why they tried to cover up the case by fabricating stuff! Gather publicity so that the police can't cover up their wrongdoings!




Love,
Nicholas.

How is Respect Determined?

In the world, people keep telling each other about being respectful. But how is respect measured or determined?


Many people nowadays are said to have lack of respect. The word respect is kind of overused as well, even the slightest things can be "disrespectful" to some people. We're just going to look at respect in a more philosophical/logical way. In what cases does respect really apply?



Definition of Respect
Based on Wikipedia,
Respect denotes both a positive feeling of esteem for a person or other entity (such as a nation or a religion), and also specific actions and conduct representative of that esteem.

According to a journal article research on PubMed Central,
What Does ‘Respect’ Mean? Exploring the Moral Obligation of Health Professionals to Respect Patients
Respect is the recognition of the unconditional value of patients as persons.


Although the second one is for doctors and patients, but I'll combine it in a way that it makes sense. The definitions here suggest that respect is a PERSONAL feeling for ONE person/entity that has no condition. Why personal? Because not everyone has the same positive feeling/recognition towards something. In other words, what actions do you consider it rude? Different people don't mind about rudeness at all. And to say that it is UNCONDITIONAL is true, you don't need a reason to respect someone...since everyone says, "You're supposed to respect everyone!"




ADDITIONAL NOTE - DEFINITION OF RUDENESS (WIKIPEDIA)
Rudeness (also called impudence or effrontery) is a display of disrespectfulness by not complying with the social "laws" or etiquette of a group or culture. These laws have been established as the essential boundaries of normally accepted behavior. To be unable or unwilling to align one's behavior with these laws known to the general population of what is socially acceptable is to be rude.

Srsly. WTF?

I don't know about you, but it's dumb if we have to spend our time learning all these social "laws" of different groups and cultures all over the world just to be NOT RUDE. Not only different GROUPS...but different INDIVIDUALS may have their own perception of "ACCEPTED BEHAVIOUR" as well. Why not just wipe away all that and look at mine? There are only 4 situations of disrespectfulness which you'll see later on.




To Whom Does Respect Apply To?
Respect comes from humans. To whom does it apply to? Humans. But let us not forget the fact that for different human beings, they have a different perception of respect.

What may seem respectful to you, might not be respectful to them or vice versa. So, how do you know when a person is respecting another or not? These are the few points I would like to point out that some actions should NOT be deemed "disrespectful."

OBJECT OF RESPECT refers to the person/entity to be respected.



Non-Disrespectful Acts
1. Doing acts in a situation where the object of respect is not affected of his/her original actions.
For example, in a class of 10 students, if the object of respect is a teacher and only one student does not pay attention by silently fiddling with his handphone, it should not be considered disrespectful.

The main reason being that the teacher is able to teach without any disturbances, and the teacher is able to move, think, and say freely without any restrictions from the so-called "disrespectful" student.

According to Stony Brook University, disruptive behaviour ACTIVELY INHIBITS (yes, actively inhibits!) students' ABILITY TO LEARN, instructors' ABILITY TO TEACH, or the regular operation of the campus. I just wanted to show what is considered disruptive, it ACTIVELY INHIBITS the ability of a person to do something.

If in any case where the other 9 students focus their attention to the one student who's playing with his handphone, the teaching process may still go on. However, the main response from most people would be this,


"Stop that. Other people want to study, don't be selfish."


Sitting quietly and playing with the handphone does not take away the teacher's ability to teach/talk nor the other students' ability to learn/listen. It is not possible for students to pay 100% attention at 100% of the time, it is human nature and the people who really want to study would not bother about minor distractions at all. Consider the fact that many people do miss out important details in a class even when there are no distractions becuase it is impossible for a student to maintain complete focus throughout the class. It comes down to the person and his/her self-discipline. (Not to mention, a good multitasker can pay attention to two or more things at once, really!)

If a person is not deprived of his/her original rights and actions, it should not be disrespectful at all.



2. Disagreement of a certain topic or difference in point of views.
Nothing is the truth, everything is permitted. There are endless possibilities in the world and some researches are not even evident enough to prove a fact. Despite the lack of evidence and other possible factors, some people make it as if it is true immediately.

If another person disagrees with what you have to say, it is not disrespectful. He/she is not your dog, he/she doesn't need to listen to you. Being ignorant is not disrespectful. Unless, the person puts the topic aside and does personal attacks on you. This might be disrespectful because the original topic/action is ignored/interrupted and it is a waste of time as you hear irrelevant information that does not benefit anyone (not because of the attacks were personal).

And that's why you get BANNED!

3. Difference in tone of speech or writing.
Most people would say the tone in speech or writing pretty much defines whether a person is showing respect or not. However, I disagree with this point.

Firstly, you cannot determine the tone in writing properly because it is not a face-to-face communication.

Secondly, a person's view on another's tone of speech may differ from one person to another.

A person may seem as if he's shouting his words out, but to him, he's just speaking normally. Is this person disrespectful? Annoying, maybe. Again, it comes down to your open-mindedness to accept that people may not be as skilled as using different tones in their speech like you can. Judging whether a person shows respect through their speech is judgemental and may lead to you yourself being disrespectful instead.

This is Graham's Hiearchy of Disagreement, which is quite true. Response to Tone, Ad Hominem and Name-Calling are the disrespectful reactions which are quite common.

4. Difference in religion or belief.
Your own race or religion is not the only one that exists in the world. Also, just because the others may have the same religion or race as you, it does not mean that the person has to believe in all superstitions or traditions like you do.

To some people, wearing a hat indoors is disrespectful and to some others it is not. We must accept the other person that he doesn't apply your tradition. Who cares if you follow a tradition or not? Don't expect everyone to follow you; again, they're not your dogs.

Another example would be the American A-Okay sign. In some other regions, that sign may be a vulgar expression (invitation to hump the hole!) or something. Look, if you interpret it as something bad or good, that's just you. In this situation, this is not being disrespectful. This is called a miscommunication.





Situations of Disrespect
- Taking away a person's right to do something.
- Interrupting a person's intended/original actions.
- Taking away a person's belongings (time is included).
- Threatening a person's life/security.


Situations of respect is just the opposite of this...almost all the points are related to each other anyway.

I DONT SEE SHIT ABOUT ESTEEM OR PRIDE! Yeah, because as how you cannot measure respect, you cannot measure a person's feeling for the esteem of another person/entity as well.

How does a person's self-esteem or pride gets challenged? According to Wikipedia again, a person's self-esteem is a term used in psychology to reflect a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of his or her own worth.

Different people think differently. Just in what situation do you think your self-esteem is challenged? When people call you dumb and incompetent for no reason? This is psychological. If you have great self-esteem, I bet you know what they have said does not affect your self-esteem at all. Now that's what self-esteem is all about, dude. Therefore, challenged pride is not a situation of disrespect. Wasted time and interrupted actions are better points.

Random picture. Respect for nurses, anyone? :D

Conclusion
The conclusion is simple. Remember the second definition for doctors and patients? The recognition of patients as persons. As long as you do not deprive someone from their rights or actions as a human being, an average person, then it is not disrespectful. This is how respect should be determined, and not from "whatever seems nice" to you.




Love,
Nicholas.

Are Video Games Useless?

Do video games bring any benefits at all or they just make you addicted and regret years after that you've wasted your time?

Right, today's my birthday and it's a Sunday, so there are two notices before I start on this post.


1. No WNx comic strip today because I'm busy on my animation project.
2. Yes, it's my birthday! :D


Now take a look at this video. It says about how video games affected this person's life and how much time he has wasted. He regrets and warns people not to play video games because you'll eventually get addicted and so on.

FIRST THING'S FIRST
Okay, the first thing I would like to say...which is not-related to the video is this.

There are PLENTY of people giving inspiration nowadays and I'm surprised that they could come up with dumb and wrong inspirations that people believe to be good and correct. Take for example, this quote from a talk in INTI University Nilai, in Malaysia where Bill Clinton gave a talk.


"You cannot focus on what you can't do, but you focus on what you can do and find people to do what you can't do."
- William J. "Bill" Clinton.









USE LOGIC AND THINK FOR YOURSELF
1. What do you mean by something that you cannot do? Do you even need to go out there and find people that can do what you can't do? Just learn it and do it yourself!

2. If you can find people to do things for you, you probably need to pay them. There is no free lunch. If you're not capable yourself, just do something simpler or learn how to do it. Leading a team of people who are 5x more knowledgable than you is not going to get you anywhere and you'll just get overwhelmed. You first need to be capable and intelligent in what you do, then become a wise and strong leader, then you lead people.

3. Someone posted this on Facebook and I don't know what in the world is so inspirational about this. There was even this comment, "so inspiring" wtf...?




NOW MY OPINIONS ABOUT THE VIDEO
Back on topic.

Video games waste a hell lot of our time? This is relative and to be honest it is a swooping statement. If you read tons of stories like Harry Potter and the sort as much as a gaming addict plays video games, you are also wasting your time as much as a gaming addict does.

The benefits of reading are just about the same of the benefits of video games. But in video games, I bet you get more of it than reading. Such benefits are:

1. Strategic planning, anticipating changes, solving puzzles, do logical reasoning and so much more especially in strategy, puzzle and simulation games.


2. Socialize. Games unite the world through online gaming and gaming competitions, people share the same interest and stuff. To say that a video game makes you less sociable because you stay at home all day in front of the computer is the same as how bookworms sit at home all day and read books. What's the difference? In games, you get to socialize online and you get to compete with others, that's the difference.

It is true that games unite people. This is a picture of me and a bunch of other gamers from other states/country in a gathering. We were going to play paintball.

3. Games increase your creativity that lets you solve problems in various ways. Look at Touhou. The fans create videos and music that are so awesome and imaginative, they could've made a hell lot of money if it were original creations.

IOSYS is a circle that creates high quality (THE BEST) fan-made music and flash animations based on the Touhou game series.

4. Teamwork, leadership and co-ordination. I got this out of L4D and COD4, and I could watch the actions of my teammates to sync with them without any sort of communication. I was able to use this skill in reality and it's like learning psychology.


5. Hand-eye coordination that helps you do everything with ease. Games like COD4 actually improve your vision and reflexes where you actually strain your eyes to see people blending with the backgrounds and other entities. In COD4, they even had snipers with ghille suits and they're hiding in the grass. Serious gamers could spot them and take them out...while I couldn't. Now that's improving vision...even the slightest colour difference could be seen and your field of vision (you could interpret things even if it is at the corner of your eye) is increased.

COD4's Ghille Suits look exactly like grass.

These are just the few benefits I thought of on my mind while writing this. Do you get these benefits in reading? No! Games also portray their story and some games even give you a bunch of stuff to read as if you're reading a novel. Games interact with players so much more and give really healthy benefits.

Why put the blame on video games?

Rinnosuke is a character in Touhou, not much is said/shown about him. The fans called him MANnosuke and gave him MANLY skills. That's just random... and most importantly..FUNNY & CREATIVE! This comic strip is drawn by Wong (not me).

WHO IS TO BE BLAMED
The one to be blamed is the player who lacks self-control and self-discipline. If you're a parent, just get games that a Teen rated or games for kids if your children are still young. Play in moderation. Too much of anything will bring negative effects, DUH.



CONCLUSION
So look, don't say video games are bad. They're only bad if you play too much with no self-control and sense of time. Almost everything's like that. I'm a gamer and I benefit from gaming a lot. I gained confidence and logic skills to sort out things in my life. I am great in my studies, I accept criticism, I do not get angry easily (after all, online gamers like to talk crap and scold you over the simplest things, but in the end you're having fun) and I could manage time properly (the Sims helped me in my time management). And yeah, I'm not friggin' obese. My BMI's normal and I spend my time bboying as well.

I am relaxed and I feel great as ever. Without games, I couldn't have gotten so many benefits. If you do not play excessively, you get a bunch of benefits, so why not?



Love,
Nicholas.

Messy Hair

Yeah, I've been told a thousand times...


"Your hair is weird, you should just cut it!"


See, I know my hair is unkempt, messy and ugly because I do not spend the time combing it or going to a barber for a haircut. It is also the way it is because of the curly nature of my hair. So it goes left, it goes right, it goes boom, it goes everywhere like a mop/creeping plant/pile of noodles!

Literally, noodles.

Do I really look like someone who cares how physical appearances lay an impression on just about anybody's mind? I am just a college student, still looking for deeper knowledge. I am not working for money yet, so it doesn't matter.


I hate haircuts since I was young because I have to sit around for half an hour doing nothing. I also hate haircuts because of the annoying sounds the scissors/shaving thing make every time they cut. So, I'm not gonna do anything to my hair until my girlfriend comes and rants about it! Simple.

CrashCromWell's photo.

Some of you might think, "Guys are all like that! They don't care about anything! Insensitive!", but this post has nothing to do with that. I just have no interest to look good and let people who judge books by their covers to have a liking on me. If I look good, it is not going to gain me anything anyway. I'll just waste more time and energy to look good for people who don't really care at all. So, why bother? :(




But I'll always try to look good in front of you, baby! Next time you just tell me how you want me to look and I'll do that. ;) When you come next year, of course.


Love,
Nicholas.

Christianity

Nico no likes Christians! :(

Yes, but I am one! Unbaptized, perhaps know nothing about Christianity, I don't even claim myself as a faithful believer, I'm just stated as "Christian" because my father is one. From a young age I've always been pondering...and wonder why people keep talking about God and stuff when we all don't know if He even existed.

Oh and Nico, there was a time you thought I was angry at you because you don't like Christians, I actually did not. ^_^

"You" in this post refers to anyone reading this post who are obsessed with their religion.


Start of the World
If the world had nothing in the first place, I mean, no dust, no particle, no buu-buu, nothing. As time travels, there will still be nothing. So something has to exist in the first place right? And most of us claim that it is God that existed. But there is always a possibility for something else to exist. Something else can be a very unstable, large source of energy.

That large source of energy can might as well be the Sun itself, but it existed, and it's unstable. It will create something else that is not equal to itself, something inferior, a new element. Scientists say the Big Bang! is the start of everything. The Big Bang might as well be a massive and long chain reaction of nuclear fission, an ongoing decay and separation of the nuclei of atoms, bombarding electrons to one another, itself, and more.

How did Big Bang happen? How did the Sun get there? Dammit, how does this differ from how God is suddenly there? Just because He is a spiritual being, you can't see Him and He is not matter? Light isn't matter, it has no mass. Light = Photon. Photons come from electrons. Is it spiritual too? We can't see Infrared/UV, zomg, spiritual.


Religion
Why Christians as the true religion? Why not Buddha and Hindu? Well because they have some flying elephant creature and super magical powers, okay. Why not Islam? Islams don't have super powers or miracles, just plain message from God and that's it. Oh well, Nabi Muhammand could be a very strategic planner, but...the hell he knows what's gonna happen to him next and plans what to do in future AND succeeding everytime. Someone must have told him! :D

NOES! Christians have a FULL history and PEOPLE have SEEN the miraculous acts of Jesus Christ. The Bible's original language isn't English. How many years it has translated from language to language till now? Those old Catholic folks would alter anything in the Bible to get dumb citizens to obey them and be a good boy. They hold the most power back then. As far as I know, people who study about the bible found out that the English translation has different sentence than it's original, Hebrew. Different sentence = different meaning. For the miracles, imagine street magicians. Many possibilities. But the design of all living creatures, DNA and so on are so intelligently made...how is that possible? If mutation is possible, anything's possible...but I could be wrong.


My Point?
My point is that religion or not, none of us know what existed back then. We choose what to believe, deal with it. Just accept what others have to say and don't persist on persuading them into believing what you believe. We are all humans, and in this world, the things we give a damn about are love and money. Focus on your goals instead of fighting for religion and pray for everything. It's not bad to have faith, but...


Faith doesn't give you fruits, it gives you seeds.


Get it? No more conflicts and arguements about religion then. So Nico, you still wanna marry this unfaithful son of a gun ranting about religion? :D


Love,
Nicholas.