Lying......Or Is It??

Is lying really so bad?

Quick scenario: Imagine you are being asked, by a friend, to go out with him and his girlfriend. You don't want to because you hate his girlfriend. In fact the mere sight of your friend with his new partner all kissy and shit makes you want vomit blood onto his shoe. Do you outright tell him that you would rather have sex with a giant tumour than spend an evening with them two? Or do you lie and make up a neutral excuse that will keep you from hurting your friend's feelings?

See, lies can (and often are) used to protect peoples feelings. "Lying with integrity" basically. If a woman cheats on her husband and lies about it, is she doing it to protect herself or to protect her husband from being emotionally crippled and incidentally ends up climbing a clock tower with a sniper rifle? Or maybe it's a combination of both. But when a person does lie in order to cover something up it may be that they may have to continue lying in order to cover all aspects of the accusation.

MAN: "Where were you?"
WOMAN: "In the cafe having a coffee"
MAN: "Who were you with?"
WOMAN: "Jane from down the road"
MAN: "I saw her outside not 20 minutes ago though"
WOMAN: "She...has a doppleganger..."
MAN: "Fine. I'll call her house and check"
WOMAN: "NO don't! Her phone is...in the belly of a chipmunk..."
MAN: "Ooook...I'll go down to her house and ask her"
WOMAN: "No you can't! Her house has bipolar and could explode any minute"
(Long pause)
MAN: "Right that's it! Where's the nearest clock tower?!"

So perhaps lying in situations like this is not always the best option. You can end up digging deeper and deeper holes until your shovel of subterfuge wears thin and battered. Being honest will more than likely clear the air and show you are honest. It may cause the break up of a meaningful relationship but then...IT CAN'T BE THAT MEANINGFUL IF YOU ARE PLOUGHING OTHER MEN BEHIND YOUR HUSBANDS BACK CAN IT??

Is it always right to be honest though? Would the world be a better place if nobody lied? Let's look at it from a somewhat aesthetic perspective.

What about people who make a living out of lying. Take politicians for example. Yes, they lie. But the lie can decieve the public and lead them into a false sense of security. But can it also be used with integrity? Are politicians just lying to "protect" us from the truth. Perhaps the truth is something they would rather we not know for our own safety.

Hmm,maybe politicians is a bad example of people who lie for a living. Ok then, let's try stand-up comedians. Billy Connolly openly admitted that he was a liar for a living which subsequently was the reason for him being "loaded". Comedians tell tales and make up scenarios on the spot in order to make us laugh. We know they are lies (or we assume they are anyway) and we don't care. It's not a harmful vice when a lie is used for our entertainment. Novelists are another example. They craft stories that may never have happened or reveal thoughts or opinions through character that they themselves might not believe in. So what, right? It's the entertainment factor that we are interested in.

Lying, I believe, is an integral part of living. Not really because we can make a living out of it. Not simply because it stops our loved ones from being hurt. But because we can. Because we have the a ability to do so. And that, my friends, is called freedom of speech.

Eat your heart every philosopher that ever existed!

Oh, one more thing. Check out this site for some interesting quotes about lying and liars.

BLOG RESPONSE TWO

Going off what Megan said in her blog about alcoholism, people who do become alcoholics obviously have some sort of problem. But whether she thinks that the problem is medical or personal or perhaps even social she does not say. When it comes to recovering alcoholics preaching to others about the "evils" of alcohol, I don't really understand why they would want to lecture complete strangers about how bad it is to drink. I mean, first of all they're sat in a pub (they being Meg and her friend) which suggests to me that the ideas being preached to them are not of great concern. If she's genuinely trying to warn people about what can happen when they drink too much then surely she can do it in a more constructive way; not by hopping from pub to pub hoping to convert people. And if she's doing it in a kind of "holier than thou" mentality, then maybe she, herself, needs to unwind with a drink. Or get a lobotomy.

"I'll Mostly Be Doing The SLOTS."

It's difficult for me to comment on gambling, having never done it. No not even the Lottery! I suppose the only reason people do actually gamble is because they feel they have a chance of winning some money (or some other item of value). I think also one of the reasons I don't gamble myself is because I have an addictive personality. I would devour many-a-wage packet in doing so and lose the ability to function in everyday society. No, in that respect, alcohol is my forte.

Probably one of the most popular forms of gambling in this country - I would say - is the Lottery (Or "Lotto" as it's now called. What's next? "Lot" or the even lazier "L"...anyway...). It's easy to see how it's has gained a stranglehold on our society: you pay a measly pound to select a few numbers, and then BAM! you're holding a giant novelty cheque for several million in front of news cameras and sipping champagne. Most people (myself included I must confess) dream of being able to "escape from it all" with all that money. But there has to be a certain point you reach where you realise you've spent more money over the months than what you were saving for that holiday to the Spanish Isles on something where the odds of winning the jackpot are something like 1 in 14,000,000.

Does nobody else find this figure a little disheartening? Okay, there are smaller prizes that can be won but the odds are still against you. Check them out here.

Then there are scratchcards. If lottery draws twice a week just simply isn't enough for you, you can always head into your local Spar and buy a scratchcard. Oooh and they come in all kinds of themes and designs. How fun it is to hand over your hard earned cash to a small bit of card covered in silver.

Some people may argue the fact that the money they pay on Lotto often goes to worthy causes. OK I am willing to accept that. But what bothers me is that things like a new sports hall for an under-funded school does not seem such a "worthy cause" when there are families starving and people homeless and diseases that have yet to be cured. There is something rather aesthetic about these so-called "worthy causes".

So, no gambling is not really for me (I know I've only spoken about one aspect of gambling but it's the one that I would say everyone can relate to). It may seem hypocritical of me to not want to spend my money on a lottery ticket but be willing to purchase obscene amounts of alcohol. But at least with booze I'm guaranteed a result!

Smoking: The Sweetest Tabacoo!

With over 12 million adults currently smoking in this country (I don't mean like right now) it's easy to see why people take it up. I mean, if 12 million people suddenly decided that wearing clown outfits was the way to go I'm sure others would follow.

I'm a non-smoker (evident from the above paragraph). I'll be honest with you (yes all five of you), I've tried it and frankly I don't find the idea of wantonly inhaling thick smoke into my lungs such a fascinating passtime. This makes me out to be somewhat of a hypocrite seeing as I wantonly pickle my kidneys with large quantities of alcohol. But we're all hypocrites.

The easiest way to go about my argument is to weigh up the pros and cons of smoking.

The most obvious argument against it is that it is unhealthy. Wow...that's a shocker. It amazes me that when smoking first came about people generally didn't believe it was bad for you. Can you believe that? Were these people sucking on exhaust pipes in the summer time or something? But anyway, the point is that smoking causes cancer and will kill you till you're dead.

"ZOMG! Smokers die young!11!LOL"

Or do they?

American author Compton McKenzie estimated that by the time he was 74 he had smoked about half a ton of tobacco. That's about the weight of a pickup truck:



He went on to live to the ripe (and possibly disease-ridden) age of 84 when he died in 1972.

So there are exceptions to the rule.

Smoking seems to cause a lot of social problems as well. People say it makes you smell and turns your fingers yellow. Is it just me, or does this sound a bit snobbish? I mean, I know I'm a non-smoker (largely because it simply doesn't appeal to me) but I can't ride my high horse when it comes to smells. After a night out of beer and donner kebabs I emit more stench in one hour than a large group of giants smoking factory chimneys and buses. And as far as having yellow fingers goes...so what? It doesn't effect anybody else and it may not look pretty but I'm sure I'm not exactly that good to look at either first thing in the morning during a hangover knowing I've got to get some uni work done because I've put it off for too long and it needs to be done within the next 0.2 seconds...

Anyway, on to the some good points.

Aside from the obvious social problems mentioned above there are some aesthetic reasons as to why it can be considered good amongst society. For one, it makes people look cool. I, for one, have never understood this ideology and this kind of refers back to the first thing I said about the 12 million clowns. In the sense that people seem to only start smoking as it's a trendy thing to do. But if people think smoking makes them look cool then who am I to judge? Nobody that's who.

To be honest I'm firmly of the opinion that if people want to smoke then it shouldn't be any sort of social disobedience to do such a thing. I have friends and family who smoke and yes, maybe they will die at a younger age. Or just maybe they will do what my grandad did: survive a stroke and still carry on smoking despite being well into his 60's now. Go grandad!


Oh, and just a sidenote. I found this game over at addictinggames.com. Meg figured it would be appropriate for this post so enjaw!

http://addictinggames.com/cigarettekiller.html

BLOG RESPONSE ONE

In reply to Viran's blog here I do agree that the film was not as shocking as it was originally hyped up to be. But I'm not sure I agree about it being as shocking at the time of its release. It was after all only 12 years ago. I believe it was only controversially received because of its gritty realism (particularly with the dialogue and camera movements) of teenage suburban living, not necessarily because of its depiction of sex, drugs and violence.

Is It Wrong If I Say "We Were Watching KIDS In Class..."?

This one particular lecture was entitled "Bad Cinema". It conjured up images of films like "Batman & Robin" and "Aliens Vs Predator" and other such tales of tripe. However, much to my disappointment, this wasn't the kind of bad they were thinking of.

Instead we were treated to a showing of Larry Clark's 1995 movie "Kids". The general air of this film seems to be that of controversy. It details the lives of several teenagers who undergo social antics such as underage drinking, sex, drugs and crappy ghetto-talk. The main focus of the film is on Jennie who, despite having only had sex once, discovers she has contracted HIV (Oh shit indeed!). She then goes in search of the guy she lost her virginity to whom we find out is busy ploughing other virgins. I think the gist of the film was to portray the gritty reality of what young kids (as opposed to 'old kids'??) get up to when parents aren't around. In fact, there are hardly any adults in the entire film.

At the risk of turning this entry into a bloody film review, I didn't think "Kids" was as controversial as our lecturer made it out to be.

So why make 'bad' films?

We all know that controversy draws attention, whether it's video games, films, artwork or that party trick I used to do with an elastic band and a tent pole.....ahem.

Or maybe films are so shocking because they show an un-sugarcoated portrayal of what goes on in real life. Maybe people just aren't prepared to admit that these things happen in their towns and cities and, indeed, in their own neighbourhood. "Scum" showed that prisons are not how we percieve them in those watered-down programs such as "Bad Girls" etc. "Trainspotting" hit a sore spot after people began believeing that it glorified drugs (as Mark Renton says about heroin, "Take your biggest orgasm, multiply it by a thousand and you're still nowhere near it"). And "Kids", well that seemed like a sort of wake-up call to Parents.

You will find that most controversial films do have a message. Albeit it often a surreal and discreet one. So it makes me wonder whether these so-called disputed films are as bad as these so-called experts claim. Or perhaps they are justified in their actions and bannings and so forth. Maybe they feel that people can accept what goes on in the real world, but they don't need to be subjected to them on-screen. But the obvious argument against that isno one's making them watch these films.

For more info on Larry Clark's "Kids", go here.

When You Absolutely Positively Have To Fire One Out...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Bag Full Of Herpes

Continuing with the theme of "Watching Shit And Then Answering Questions On Them".

This time around we were treated to a segment of "Breakfast At Tiffany's" (see more about the film here). In particular the scene in which the woman (I forget her name) thanks her date for a nice evening and for paying and shit. While the honourable man seems disappointed at the prospect of 'not getting any' despite paying for his date all night. Oh, and all her wench-like friends.

The question put to us was:

Is it prostitution to take money from someone who is expecting sex, but then not supply it?

The idea behind prostitution is that one pays for sex. Rough sex. Possibly violent sex. According to dictionary.com the definition of "prostitution" is the "act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money". But anyway...

In this incident it isn't pro-ing (a word I just invented) so it doesn't really come into it. The woman has clearly seen the whole scenario as nothing more than a date with a kind gentlemen who has offered to pick up the tab for the whole night. If he misconstrued the whole thing then that's his own fault.

it is not uncommon these days for men to go on dates in the hope of getting some 'poon' at the end of it. Nor is it unusual to witness desperately drunk single blokes buying drinks for ladies all evening and then taking them back to their place for some much deserved screwing.

So no, it aint prostitution because sex does not seem to have been implied at all nor has it taken place. If that were the case, then there would a lot more hookers in our society than originally anticiapted.

If it isn't prostitution then is it more or less socially respectable?

Again, it seems to depend on the situation. Had the woman known the man was after sex and then had still taken his money despite the fact that she knew she wasn't going to give him any at the end, the yes this is somewhat a faux pas. Essentially you have conned someone out of their money so you could have a good night out. You freeloading bitch, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your anus!

However, if the opposite were true then no, this is simply a case of misreading the scenario. Obviously this means either the man or the woman cannot communicate in an adult and upfront fashion and thus are doomed to remain single.

Either way you're fucked!

If it prostitution, how much is a reasonable charge?

Meet me at the cooling tower at midnight. We'll discuss a price list...

Generally Being Bad

Week Three of "Being Bad" (Ooh it's all getting exciting now).

OK, we watched Family Guy. Jealous? I would be. But that's beside the point. There was meaning behind this ten minute extract. In this episode Lois resorts to shop-lifting. Not simply because she can't afford the item she wants but for some reason it seems to get her almost sexually aroused.

"I feel so alive!" she exclaims at one point.

Anyway, several questions were put to us after watching the clip:

Is shoplifting different to any other kind of theft?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: No, it isn't.

Yeah...I probably should elaborate.

Theft in general is never a good thing. The idea that someone steals some sort of possession that does not belong to them is bound to put a downer on people. I mean, imagine if it was your George Foreman Grill or your Spongebob DVD.

But with shoplifting you are essentially taking things that don't belong to any one person. In short: it's a victimless crime. Much like money laundering or midget porn. So people can rest easy knowing that the item they have stolen doesn't effect any one person directly.

Fuckin' A I'm awesome!

Some basic stats about shoplifting

According to this BBC article in 2005 about 700,000 people in Britain admitted to shoplifting. Of those though, 2% said it was accidental and promptly returned the goods, 6% claimed it was also an accident but didn't return the stolen items (Hmmmm "accidental" you say...?) and only 1% admitted to pre-meditated shoplifting (HIGH FIVE!)

Why do people who can afford things shoplift anyway?

Well for some people, it gives them a fucking huge stiffy.

The PG version of that above sentence reads: It excites people and makes them feel alive.

Why people do it is subjective. But the obvious answer to this question is that if the opportunity arises for one to steal something chances are most people will take that chance. With on-the-spot fines / punishments being carried out it seems that shoplifting has a more lenient attitude. So have at that George summer blouse and those bottles of Irish Knights!

Another reason people do it is they could see it as a form of anarchy. To be honest I have yet to come across any scenario whereby a young juvenile has dashed out of a local Tesco supermarket with a bottle of gin cradled under their bomber jacket screaming at the top of their lungs "Down with the establishment!"

I think the whole anarchy side of shop-lifting is a ploy. Face it, you wanna get wasted on cider and copydex that you just couldn't be arsed to pay for...

That's Always a Social Faux Pas

Exactly how do you go about shoving a dildo up a dog's arse?

Week one of our "Being Bad" module at University left us (well...me mainly) pondering such an uncomfortable task. That poor creature having it's rectum defiled by a sex toy designed to keep wives from missing their husbands. The very notion that someone, somewhere, held the offending item in one hand, caught sight of the dog walking past and thought "I know what'll be a laugh."

Right, many of you have stopped reading at this point. (I'm surprised some of you made it this far) However, for those who are still with me allow me to explain.

In this introductory lecture we were, after being subjected to a long-winded discussion on what we can expect in this module, asked to jot down on a piece of a paper a 'bad' thing we had done in the past. Perhaps even the baddest thing we had ever done. After which each confession was folded up and jumbled up in a box - like some sort of pensioner raffle prize draw where first prize is a tin of Whiskers and some cod liver oil. You can guess what came next. Yeah, we all took turns choosing a confession from the box and contemplating what was written on the piece of paper.

Suffice it to say the majority of the ones that were drawn out by people around me were of sub par standard. Nothing juicy or interesting of any sort. Some of them couldn't have been any worse if I'd unfolded the paper and the only thing staring me in the face were the words "I once did something not good".

So no, I didn't get the "I once shoved a dildo up my dog's arse" confession. That one was circling a select few people in the room. Many of whom recoiled back in disgust. Some people passed it off as nothing more than a lie. While others (myself included) contempated the ethics behind this foul act. How one manages to insinuate the act of inserting a dildo into a dogs arsehole without the confused and possibly frightened animal struggling to fightoff the pervert was one asset of the debate. And the obvious "why" question hung over all our heads as the confession was read out aloud having no idea who the scribe was. We saw no hint of any red-faced, teary-eyed person, nor spotted a panicking person heading for the nearest exit through fear of being lynched.

We all kind of came to the conlusion in the end that the person was in fact lying. And if not, well there may just be a small household pet wandering around the house bow legged with his ears down in shame.




Yeah, as the vast majority of confessions in todays lecture were somewhat on the lame side, I thought I would post a link to this confessions website. See people expose their most inner secrets to the Internet public.