Friday, December 09, 2005
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Practical hypocrisy
Citizen Kane left me feeling cold, stunned and for a little while, frightened and enlightened. Kane's inability to truly love anyboy except in his own terms sounded very very very familiar.
I was reminded of a conversation that I had with my friend a few months back on what I'd call practical hypocrisy. I was doing what I do best - blasting stereotypical tambrams and their capillary-mindedness and we came to a rather interesting point on how anonymity plays an important role in supporting liberal candidates in a strongly conservative society.
This led to a discussion on what is called practical hypocrisy. I am of the opinion that if you don't speak what you think, it was hypocrisy, and he was of the opinion that it wasn't. Rather, if you don't believe in what you think you believe, that is hypocrisy - was his point.
To clarify things, lets take a very sensitive topic- say, incest. Yes, taboo on incest has a biologically sound reason, a very sound reason indeed. But, this is under the assumption that you have sex just to procreate, or that you don't use contraceptives. But now, when you have protection and people have sex just for fun, I don't see anything wrong with the concept of incest. But years of social indoctrination has made me unattracted to people I am related to.
To not say publicly that I don't believe that incest is wrong wouldn't amount to hypocrisy, but proclaiming that it is a despicable act certainly amounts to hypocrisy.
But, my friend thinks otherwise. According to him, as long as you know what you believe in, it isn't hypocrisy. You need to maintain an acceptable social image to survive well in the society and not die as a lonely old man. Makes sense to me. But having taken a path, one shouldn't be reluctant to take on the pains that come with it.
Pointless post, I know.
I was reminded of a conversation that I had with my friend a few months back on what I'd call practical hypocrisy. I was doing what I do best - blasting stereotypical tambrams and their capillary-mindedness and we came to a rather interesting point on how anonymity plays an important role in supporting liberal candidates in a strongly conservative society.
This led to a discussion on what is called practical hypocrisy. I am of the opinion that if you don't speak what you think, it was hypocrisy, and he was of the opinion that it wasn't. Rather, if you don't believe in what you think you believe, that is hypocrisy - was his point.
To clarify things, lets take a very sensitive topic- say, incest. Yes, taboo on incest has a biologically sound reason, a very sound reason indeed. But, this is under the assumption that you have sex just to procreate, or that you don't use contraceptives. But now, when you have protection and people have sex just for fun, I don't see anything wrong with the concept of incest. But years of social indoctrination has made me unattracted to people I am related to.
To not say publicly that I don't believe that incest is wrong wouldn't amount to hypocrisy, but proclaiming that it is a despicable act certainly amounts to hypocrisy.
But, my friend thinks otherwise. According to him, as long as you know what you believe in, it isn't hypocrisy. You need to maintain an acceptable social image to survive well in the society and not die as a lonely old man. Makes sense to me. But having taken a path, one shouldn't be reluctant to take on the pains that come with it.
Pointless post, I know.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
The UK government is considering raising the miniumum legal smoking to 18 and this guy said this on BBC.
Some people have become too self righteous. Hoping to banish all disease is egocentric in the hope of getting close to immortality. Increase the age of legal purchase to 18, but don’t wave your finger in the face of those who smoke. It is patronising to 25% of our population who do. Take away all ‘fashionably preventable’ disease and you are then left with the spectre of dying of dementia or Alzheimer’s – an end worse than death itself. I would choose lung cancer at 70 than Alzheimer’s at 99.
Sometimes, civilisation leaves you feeling scared. I plan to blow my brains out when I am forty-something. Let's see how things go.
Some people have become too self righteous. Hoping to banish all disease is egocentric in the hope of getting close to immortality. Increase the age of legal purchase to 18, but don’t wave your finger in the face of those who smoke. It is patronising to 25% of our population who do. Take away all ‘fashionably preventable’ disease and you are then left with the spectre of dying of dementia or Alzheimer’s – an end worse than death itself. I would choose lung cancer at 70 than Alzheimer’s at 99.
Sometimes, civilisation leaves you feeling scared. I plan to blow my brains out when I am forty-something. Let's see how things go.
We, the people
Sunday's edition of We, the people had a section on Should censorship be put away with!, and I was quite surprised that this did not lead to a frenzied Hamari paramara thingie.
The problem with a liberal cameraman/editor is that when anybody justifies an argument calling to help hamari parampara, the camera pans to focus on people who are laughing their ass off.
Coming back to the point,I was surprised that nobody raised this point.
I do not believe in censorship; the fact that a few people decide what I see is an insult to my intelligence. However, looking at the current episodes in TN, for instance, I don't think the society is ready for it yet.
I have only one condition to fall for a woman - she should be a liberal feminist. And Pooja Bhatt is one.
The problem with a liberal cameraman/editor is that when anybody justifies an argument calling to help hamari parampara, the camera pans to focus on people who are laughing their ass off.
Coming back to the point,I was surprised that nobody raised this point.
I do not believe in censorship; the fact that a few people decide what I see is an insult to my intelligence. However, looking at the current episodes in TN, for instance, I don't think the society is ready for it yet.
I have only one condition to fall for a woman - she should be a liberal feminist. And Pooja Bhatt is one.
Deja vu
I haven't seen Citizen Kane earlier, but all the scenes have a vague familiarity.
Was Citizen Kane remade in Tamil?
Was Citizen Kane remade in Tamil?
Friday, December 02, 2005
l
I tell you, being born as a mammal was a bad, bad choice. I hate hair and sweat, and guess what, bingo!
I hate to shave, trim, crop and clean once every so often. If it was male sexual selection that gave led to women shedding their body hair over time, I hate those prehistoric women who chose men with body hair.
I hate to shave, trim, crop and clean once every so often. If it was male sexual selection that gave led to women shedding their body hair over time, I hate those prehistoric women who chose men with body hair.
Dinosaurs - Earth's first astronauts?
This dude suggests that dinosaurs took to space 65 million years before humans did. His argument looks quite convincing to me. This opens up the possibility that we might one day get dinosaur thigh steak marinated in red wine on mars :)
Quite possibly, dinosaurs were earth's first astronauts and started the space race. We are 65 million years behind.
P.S: Bimbo, I am kidding, of course. Read the article.
Quite possibly, dinosaurs were earth's first astronauts and started the space race. We are 65 million years behind.
P.S: Bimbo, I am kidding, of course. Read the article.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Being a parent.
Aekta's post criticising excessive sexuality in movies reminded me of my apprehensions about parenthood.
I dread being a parent; probably the only thing I dread more is being trapped in an all-gaboor room with people playing antakshari all day long. The reason why I dread it so much is because I don't know the first thing about bringing up a child, the type of moral instructions it should or shouldn't get; to bring up a child as an atheist or as an agnostic; to impose a sense of right/wrong at an age when it is too young to form impression; and if doing all this or not doing this will affect the child's psychological and emotional character in any way, and if it does, will I be responsible for it.
Heck, I don't even know if I should feel responsible. My upbringing tells me that I am responsible, and my mind tells me that I am not. Left to myself, I'd bring up the child as a scientifically-minded atheist that doesn't hold anything as right or wrong. But again, will I be being fair to the child. Not that there is anything wrong in bringing up a child in a way that would pput the child at a disadvantage later in its life, but it would ease my guilt.
Sometimes I wonder how parents bring up children the way they bring them up. Do they do what their parents did, their society is doing, or do they apply their minds to it and decide it on a case-by-case basis? Who told parents that exposing children to sexuality at an early age will lead to mental trauma later in life? Or are parents acting on what every other parent says?
How do parents decide to tell their children that, for example, that certain things are right and certain things aren't? What if the parents themselves can't discriminate between what is right and what is wrong?
How do parents tell their children to be patriotic? How do parents do the things they do? Am totally confused... Will somebody please clarify?
I dread being a parent; probably the only thing I dread more is being trapped in an all-gaboor room with people playing antakshari all day long. The reason why I dread it so much is because I don't know the first thing about bringing up a child, the type of moral instructions it should or shouldn't get; to bring up a child as an atheist or as an agnostic; to impose a sense of right/wrong at an age when it is too young to form impression; and if doing all this or not doing this will affect the child's psychological and emotional character in any way, and if it does, will I be responsible for it.
Heck, I don't even know if I should feel responsible. My upbringing tells me that I am responsible, and my mind tells me that I am not. Left to myself, I'd bring up the child as a scientifically-minded atheist that doesn't hold anything as right or wrong. But again, will I be being fair to the child. Not that there is anything wrong in bringing up a child in a way that would pput the child at a disadvantage later in its life, but it would ease my guilt.
Sometimes I wonder how parents bring up children the way they bring them up. Do they do what their parents did, their society is doing, or do they apply their minds to it and decide it on a case-by-case basis? Who told parents that exposing children to sexuality at an early age will lead to mental trauma later in life? Or are parents acting on what every other parent says?
How do parents decide to tell their children that, for example, that certain things are right and certain things aren't? What if the parents themselves can't discriminate between what is right and what is wrong?
How do parents tell their children to be patriotic? How do parents do the things they do? Am totally confused... Will somebody please clarify?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
