What exactly is racism? A quick check with wikipedia yields these various definitions by different dictionaries
"According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races. The Merriam-Webster's Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism thus: the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others."
Common among these definitions is that racism involves some form of belief or ideology that one races is superior over another. It is one thing to make hasty generalisations on different races of people out of ignorance and another to practice racism. For example, if one were to state the following: "All chinese love to gamble", that would not be considered racism. That's just a hasty generalisation, unless you can show that the love to gamble makes someone inferior. Racism would be something like refusing to hire a chinese cashier for fear that he/she would steal money from the cash box because "all chinese love money" for it implies that the chinese are inferior in terms of honesty.
On the blogosphere, I found a couple of examples of what people construe as racism. For example, this blogger thought that an Irish woman who voiced out her fears that immigrants were abusing the migration policy of her country was considered racism. I wonder how such a simple fear translates to a belief or ideology that her race is superior over another.
Another example would be this blogger who thought that a joke, on how the different races in Singapore choose a spouse, made by his teacher in secondary school was racist. This was the joke, taken from his blog
“Well boys, listen carefully. A Chinese lady, will not care if her man is handsome or does not have a good character. As long as he has money.An Indian lady, will not care if her man is handsome or has no money. As long as he has good character.A Malay lady, will not care if her man has no money or character. As long as he is handsome.”
At most, this joke was only about stereotyping. Hardly racist in my opinion, unless of course you consider that the love for money, the love for good character and the love for good looks fulfills the criteria of racism as mentioned above.
It seems to me that Singaporeans are a tad too sensitive when it comes to anything that has got to do with race. So much so that whenever one mentions anything related to race, he risks being seen as a racist. For example, I would be surprised if most people did not find this joke offensive
Question: How do you blindfold a chinese?
Answer: With dental floss!
Have we become so sensitive to the point that even a harmless joke on the ocular size of the chinese is considered offensive? Offensive enough to generate anger and hatred?
This begs the question: Why are we so sensitive when it comes to matters with regards to race?
I have my suspicions that the government's attitude to racial matters plays no small part in this anomalous sensitivity. The constant fear mongering that we should not take racial harmony for granted serves only to heighten our fears of racial problems, very much in the same way how an allergen sensitises the immune system of a person so that the next time that person comes into contact with that allergen, he might suffer a huge allergic reaction. This is akin to the story of how a man who wanted to hide his 300 tales of gold. He dug a hole and buried his gold, then put up a sign that says "No 300 tales of gold buried here". Needless to say, his gold was stolen.
Perhaps it's time to remove the requirement to have "race" printed on our identify card. If the government wants to reduce divisiveness in our society it seems to me that this is a very obvious step to take. After all, what exactly is a race? I bet different breed of dogs have more genetic differences than any 2 human races. All race is, is really the different amounts of pigmentation produced by certain cells in our skin. A classification based on skin colour is only as logical as to classify people based on the amount of body hair they have or their differences in height. Perhaps a course in biology would very much dispel these misconceptions people have with regards to race. After all, the root of racism is ignorance.
PAP's idea of achieving racial harmony is really more like casting shadows to scare yourself.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Monday, November 5, 2007
Mee Siam Mai Hum and Phantom Trains in the CTE
PM signals tough measures ahead
He says more initiatives needed to improve health care, transport By Goh Chin Lian
| |
PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday served notice that some major policy measures which may be tough or 'painful', like means testing for hospital care and further steps to deal with car ownership and usage, are on the cards.
He cited these as some of the initiatives that will be taken in coming months to help
Noting that it is time to implement means testing in hospitals, he said this is one way to make sure lower-income Singaporeans get a higher subsidy than those who are better off.
The Health Ministry is studying the idea and will consult the unions when it has firmer ideas on what to do, he told some 1,000 unionists and guests at the National Trades Union Congress National Delegates Conference.
He was speaking on the first day of the three-day conference at Orchid Country Club in Khatib. The conference is held every four years to chart the labour movement's future direction.
In a speech that outlined the unions' role in economic progress and government policy-making, Mr Lee said
Health care is one area where many initiatives are being rolled out to improve the system and ease fears about its affordability.
Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan, who was present at the conference but declined to speak to reporters on the issue, gave notice in April that means testing will start in a limited form in public hospitals within a year.
He said then it may include checking a patient's finances if he exceeds the average five-day stay in hospital.
In step-down facilities like nursing homes, patients get a 75, 50 or 25 per cent subsidy if their family income divided by the number of family members is $1,000 a month or less. Public hospitals have no such income criteria.
Mr Lee said yesterday the idea is to target government subsidies at the lower-income group 'who need these subsidies most'.
'It's not easy to do. It's very sensitive... How to implement it fairly and simply, without making hospital care unaffordable for the middle-income group?'
The unions, he noted, are also working towards a portable medical benefits system that it has talked of for nearly 10 years. 'It's something which we should pursue with some urgency,' he said.
Land transport is another major policy area under review.
Recounting his drive to the conference that morning, he said: 'I was watching the trains going down into town along the Central Expressway. Every carriage was packed. I think we need to improve the public transport. We've got some ideas.'
Roads also need to be free-flowing: 'Driving out from town, the roads were fine. Driving down in the opposite direction along the CTE was not so good.'
There is no easy way to improve road traffic and 'painful measures' like Electronic Road Pricing and certificates of entitlement are 'necessary and we have to do more with them'.
'We are working out schemes and I think they'll be ready to be worked out... early next year, in January.'
Mr Lee said that, on all such major issues, the Government will keep in close touch with unions. He added that ministers Lim Boon Heng and Lim Swee Say will speak for the unions and 'ask the other ministers very tough questions'.
This is another “mee
Recounting his drive to the conference that morning, he said: 'I was watching the trains going down into town along the Central Expressway. Every carriage was packed. I think we need to improve the public transport. We've got some ideas.'
Sometimes, these anecdotes are really getting to me as it shows how detached our ministers are from the grassroot level. If you don’t see any MRT, please don’t recount anything.
PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday served notice that some major policy measures which may be tough or 'painful', like means testing for hospital care and further steps to deal with car ownership and usage, are on the cards.
Whenever our Prince has something to say, the peasants will suffer. The only positive news that we will ever get is before the elections when our Prince hands out money to buy our vote as mentioned by him in the 2006 GE. After which, we have bitter pills, painful and tough measures to endure with. Then we have our ministers deciding that they need pay raise to cope with all these and give them a 100% pay jump.
The dreaded means testing is coming to haunt the middle class soon as it is introduced for hospital. Maybe we would see another columnist get sack for ranting about it.
Why religion plays no useful role in the making of public policies
It seemed that NMP Thio Li Ann had expressed an opinion, in a special article in ST, that religion has a role to play in public policy making. If she thinks that this is for the general benefit of Singaporeans, then once again, I'm of the opinion that she isn't very bright. Not impressed at all. The reason is simple: A religion is essentially an unfalsifiable belief. Not a great idea to make decisions based on such beliefs, especially if it concerns the general public.
So what is an falsifiability? According to wikipedia,
"Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being disproved under hypothetical circumstances."
Yeah, so why is falsifiability important? To illustrate this, let's take a look at Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is actually a simple game theory in decision making, put forward by Blaise Pascal, a 17th century mathematician, physicist and religious philosopher. In essence, Blaise Pascal posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing.
In the form of a decision matrix, the possibilities and consequences are listed out.
So what is an falsifiability? According to wikipedia,
"Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being disproved under hypothetical circumstances."
Yeah, so why is falsifiability important? To illustrate this, let's take a look at Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is actually a simple game theory in decision making, put forward by Blaise Pascal, a 17th century mathematician, physicist and religious philosopher. In essence, Blaise Pascal posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing (which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the expected value of not believing.
In the form of a decision matrix, the possibilities and consequences are listed out.
Basically, it means that if you lived as if god exists and god does indeed exists, then you go to heaven, a reward of infinite value. And if god does not exist, you lose nothing (or at least not too much). However if you lived as if god did did not exists, you find yourself going to hell, a punishment of infinite value. And if god does not exist, you lose nothing (or at least not too much).
For argument's sake, let's take it that the values of rewards and punishments assigned in the matrix are accurate. Then it seems like it's the smart decision to believe in god doesn't it? Well, it seems that way until you realise that the existence of god is unfalsifiable and that you can similarly come up with an unfalsifiable belief that god will send you to hell for believing in him and send those who did not believe in him to heaven. Why would he do that, you ask. Well, maybe he's trying to weed out those dummies <----------unfalsifiable as well.
All this leads to is just an intellectual dead-end. You can get no useful conclusions out of it.
Issac Newton seemed to have gotten the hang of this idea around 300 years ago.
"All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction." - Issac Newton's third law of motion
Well, I have my version of it too
"All unfalsifiable beliefs occur in pairs, and the conclusions drawn from these beliefs are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction." - IMBS
Well, decisions must obviously based on reality and not unfalsifiable beliefs, if you ask me.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Discrimination: This time it's the cats!
Today November 2, 2007
Enact microchipping, neutering instead of banning cats in flats
Letter by Dr Tan Chek Wee
Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat owners like myself, who wrote to the Ministry of National Development, to keep cats as companion animals were given this reply: "Cats are not allowed to be kept in HDB flats as they are nomadic in nature and are difficult to be confined within the flats.
"Due to the nomadic nature of cats, the nuisances caused by cats such as shedding of fur, defecating/urinating in public areas, noise disturbance et cetera would affect the environment and neighbourliness in our housing estates. In view of this, the HDB has the policy of not allowing cats to be kept in HDB flats."
During the last five years, I decided to keep three cats that were rescued when they were kittens. They are now all sterilised.
I installed door and window grills in my flat to make sure that they do not venture out. However, they are happily home-bound.
They do not make noise from mating calls, called caterwauling, in fact, my neighbours have to make noise to call for the cats so that they can stretch their hands through the grills to"sayang" them.
They are also fastidiously fussy and will do their "business" in a bin filled with recycled pellets of paper or pine dust.
Responsible owners like myself support regulations instead of a ban to compel the few "black sheep" owners to be responsible.
Regulations that include microchipping, keeping home cats indoors and sterilisation will be more effective in reducing complaints about cats and in reducing pet abandonment. It is a win-win situation for all.
Letter by Dr Tan Chek Wee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the Ministry of National Development has finally revealed the reason as to why cats are not allowed to be kept in HDB flats.
"Due to the nomadic nature of cats, the nuisances caused by cats such as shedding of fur, defecating/urinating in public areas, noise disturbance et cetera would affect the environment and neighbourliness in our housing estates. In view of this, the HDB has the policy of not allowing cats to be kept in HDB flats."
From their explanation, it seems that cats are banned because
1) they dirty the surroundings (shedding of fur)
2) defecating/urinating in public areas
3) noise disturbance
Now reason 1 is ridiculous. Humans definitely shed more hair than cats, given the number of bald men out there. Furthermore, there are far more humans than there are cats in aggregate. Thus if the shedding of hair dirties the environment, then humans are far more guilty in this aspect than cats. Perhaps MND seems to think that cat fur can serve as a vector for the transmission of disease, or that cats are just dirty creatures covered with pathogenic bacteria. Nothing can be further away from the truth. You have a far greater chance of getting ill by touching a human than a cat. Someone needs to explain to MND what is the species barrier when it comes to the transmission of diseases. Besides, what about the dogs? Don't they shed hair?
Reason 2 is just as stupid. The reason for not allowing cats to be kept in HDB flats is because they may defecate and urinate in public areas?! Isn't that why they should all the more be kept inside the flats? Well they can prohibit cat owners from allowing their cats outside the flat without supervision. In any case, only 10% of desexed male cats and 5% of desexed female cats urinate outside their litterboxes (spraying) and far fewer spray in public areas. They way NMD views cats is that after being couped up in the flat for the whole day, owners would let them out and spray urine at the door step of neighbours just for the heck of it. As for defecation, cats tend to defecate in places where they feel safe. As such it is unlikely that a cat living in a flat would want to rush out of the house and poop at the door step of neighbouring flats. They would rather do so in the comfort of their own homes. Besides, what about the dogs? Don't they defecate and urinate too?
Similarly, reason 3 is retarded as well. We do have the means of controlling noise pollution already in place. Remember when your tone-deaf neighbour does his rendition of a Singapore Idol contestant next door? Well you can call the freaking police if you have a problem. Besides, the problem of cats vocalising can be easily solved. You can alleviate your cat's boredom by providing it with toys, set up your flat to be stimulating to your cat by utilising all 3 dimensions of spaces (provide high-level walkways), implement a chasing & jumping exercise routine, scratching posts, companion cat etc.. In fact, just by desexing your cat, you can solve most of the vocalisation problems since most of the time it's to call out to a mate. It's really as simple as that. Besides, what about the dogs? Don't they bark?
In other words, NMD is just full of shit. Was the maker of this lame policy attacked by cats previously? Or maybe his/her dog was attacked by a cat. Or does he/her think that cats espouse homosexual values? From what I see, Singapore does have a thing for discrimination. Age discrimination, sex discrimination, racial discrimination, sexuality discrimination, now even cats are discriminated against in favour of dogs. You name it, we have it. Singapore is indeed a city of possibilities.
Enact microchipping, neutering instead of banning cats in flats
Letter by Dr Tan Chek Wee
Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat owners like myself, who wrote to the Ministry of National Development, to keep cats as companion animals were given this reply: "Cats are not allowed to be kept in HDB flats as they are nomadic in nature and are difficult to be confined within the flats.
"Due to the nomadic nature of cats, the nuisances caused by cats such as shedding of fur, defecating/urinating in public areas, noise disturbance et cetera would affect the environment and neighbourliness in our housing estates. In view of this, the HDB has the policy of not allowing cats to be kept in HDB flats."
During the last five years, I decided to keep three cats that were rescued when they were kittens. They are now all sterilised.
I installed door and window grills in my flat to make sure that they do not venture out. However, they are happily home-bound.
They do not make noise from mating calls, called caterwauling, in fact, my neighbours have to make noise to call for the cats so that they can stretch their hands through the grills to"sayang" them.
They are also fastidiously fussy and will do their "business" in a bin filled with recycled pellets of paper or pine dust.
Responsible owners like myself support regulations instead of a ban to compel the few "black sheep" owners to be responsible.
Regulations that include microchipping, keeping home cats indoors and sterilisation will be more effective in reducing complaints about cats and in reducing pet abandonment. It is a win-win situation for all.
Letter by Dr Tan Chek Wee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the Ministry of National Development has finally revealed the reason as to why cats are not allowed to be kept in HDB flats.
"Due to the nomadic nature of cats, the nuisances caused by cats such as shedding of fur, defecating/urinating in public areas, noise disturbance et cetera would affect the environment and neighbourliness in our housing estates. In view of this, the HDB has the policy of not allowing cats to be kept in HDB flats."
From their explanation, it seems that cats are banned because
1) they dirty the surroundings (shedding of fur)
2) defecating/urinating in public areas
3) noise disturbance
Now reason 1 is ridiculous. Humans definitely shed more hair than cats, given the number of bald men out there. Furthermore, there are far more humans than there are cats in aggregate. Thus if the shedding of hair dirties the environment, then humans are far more guilty in this aspect than cats. Perhaps MND seems to think that cat fur can serve as a vector for the transmission of disease, or that cats are just dirty creatures covered with pathogenic bacteria. Nothing can be further away from the truth. You have a far greater chance of getting ill by touching a human than a cat. Someone needs to explain to MND what is the species barrier when it comes to the transmission of diseases. Besides, what about the dogs? Don't they shed hair?
Reason 2 is just as stupid. The reason for not allowing cats to be kept in HDB flats is because they may defecate and urinate in public areas?! Isn't that why they should all the more be kept inside the flats? Well they can prohibit cat owners from allowing their cats outside the flat without supervision. In any case, only 10% of desexed male cats and 5% of desexed female cats urinate outside their litterboxes (spraying) and far fewer spray in public areas. They way NMD views cats is that after being couped up in the flat for the whole day, owners would let them out and spray urine at the door step of neighbours just for the heck of it. As for defecation, cats tend to defecate in places where they feel safe. As such it is unlikely that a cat living in a flat would want to rush out of the house and poop at the door step of neighbouring flats. They would rather do so in the comfort of their own homes. Besides, what about the dogs? Don't they defecate and urinate too?
Similarly, reason 3 is retarded as well. We do have the means of controlling noise pollution already in place. Remember when your tone-deaf neighbour does his rendition of a Singapore Idol contestant next door? Well you can call the freaking police if you have a problem. Besides, the problem of cats vocalising can be easily solved. You can alleviate your cat's boredom by providing it with toys, set up your flat to be stimulating to your cat by utilising all 3 dimensions of spaces (provide high-level walkways), implement a chasing & jumping exercise routine, scratching posts, companion cat etc.. In fact, just by desexing your cat, you can solve most of the vocalisation problems since most of the time it's to call out to a mate. It's really as simple as that. Besides, what about the dogs? Don't they bark?
In other words, NMD is just full of shit. Was the maker of this lame policy attacked by cats previously? Or maybe his/her dog was attacked by a cat. Or does he/her think that cats espouse homosexual values? From what I see, Singapore does have a thing for discrimination. Age discrimination, sex discrimination, racial discrimination, sexuality discrimination, now even cats are discriminated against in favour of dogs. You name it, we have it. Singapore is indeed a city of possibilities.
Typical ST forum letter
ST Nov 3, 2007
Be specific about disruption in train service
TRAIN service in town was disrupted on Thursday at about 6.30pm. I was at City Hall Station waiting for the train when I heard the following announcement:
'There is a track fault causing service disruption for trains going south towards Marina Bay Station. The service disruption will last more than an hour.'
One would logically deduce that the track fault was somewhere between City Hall and Marina Bay stations.
My wife who was waiting to take the train at Somerset Station to Tampines at around the same time also heard the announcement.
Hence, we were confused as to where exactly was the track fault. Was it between Somerset and Marina Bay or between City Hall and Marina Bay?
Thus my wife was uncertain if she should take a bus home or continue to wait for the train, hoping that the track fault was between City Hall and Marina Bay. By this time, lots of peak-hour commuters were crowding Somerset and City Hall stations.
SMRT could handle service disruptions better by doing the following:
Have more frequent and detailed announcements on the location of the track fault, which part of the train service is affected and which is not.
Put up signboards to inform commuters about the service disruption so that affected commuters need not go into the stations unnecessarily.
Modify entry gates to handle ticket refunds during service disruptions.
Eric Ong Leng Kee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sigh.
Does it matter where the track fault was? The train service would have been disrupted no matter where it was.
Friday, November 2, 2007
10 simple steps to protect homosexuals from verbal abuse
To all homosexuals out there: Are you sick of being discriminated by homophobes? Sick of being labelled as a threat to society, a paedophile, a zoophile or a necrophile? Sick of the law that hangs over your head, threatening you with imprisonment? Fear no more! IMBS will teach you how to get around that in 10 simple steps. Yes, just 10 simple steps. Comes with a 30-day money back guarantee!
So without further ado, IMBS will demonstrate to you how to protect yourself from any verbal attacks, discrimination and perhaps even repeal S377A once and for all. Then again, IMBS still wonders how come the whole lot of you failed to see this easy method of solving your problems.
Step 1: Form a support group. Let's call it XXX for the time being
Step 2: Have members of XXX gather every Saturday for social events
Step 3: During such gatherings, sit orderly in rows, close your eyes and hope that all the hatred against you will disappear from this world. (This is called TAR)
Step 4: Before you open your eyes, shout out loud the phrase "Stop hating us!"
Step 5: After opening your eyes, go pass around a container to collect some coins in order to consolidate financial power
Step 6: After collect enough money, go buy a piece of land and build a fancy building as the venue for future gatherings
Step 7: Write a book that contains the codes of conduct for the members of XXX
Step 8: In that book, invent a character, well call him gaylord or something, that plays the role of your invisible best friend.
Step 9: Worship that fellow
Step 10: Rename your group as "Faith of Homosexology" (Inspired by the Church of Scientology)
VIOLA! You have a new religion. And now, all you need to do is to use the law to your advantage. This is because IMBS found out a secret from Zuco's blog. There is a new clause added to the penal code that says
"298. Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
By now, I'm sure you get the hang of it. So learn something from the lawyers for once. Apart from sucking your money dry, they do actually have something useful to teach you. Just kidding! :)
So without further ado, IMBS will demonstrate to you how to protect yourself from any verbal attacks, discrimination and perhaps even repeal S377A once and for all. Then again, IMBS still wonders how come the whole lot of you failed to see this easy method of solving your problems.
Step 1: Form a support group. Let's call it XXX for the time being
Step 2: Have members of XXX gather every Saturday for social events
Step 3: During such gatherings, sit orderly in rows, close your eyes and hope that all the hatred against you will disappear from this world. (This is called TAR)
Step 4: Before you open your eyes, shout out loud the phrase "Stop hating us!"
Step 5: After opening your eyes, go pass around a container to collect some coins in order to consolidate financial power
Step 6: After collect enough money, go buy a piece of land and build a fancy building as the venue for future gatherings
Step 7: Write a book that contains the codes of conduct for the members of XXX
Step 8: In that book, invent a character, well call him gaylord or something, that plays the role of your invisible best friend.
Step 9: Worship that fellow
Step 10: Rename your group as "Faith of Homosexology" (Inspired by the Church of Scientology)
VIOLA! You have a new religion. And now, all you need to do is to use the law to your advantage. This is because IMBS found out a secret from Zuco's blog. There is a new clause added to the penal code that says
"298. Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
By now, I'm sure you get the hang of it. So learn something from the lawyers for once. Apart from sucking your money dry, they do actually have something useful to teach you. Just kidding! :)
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Religion: The limits of tolerance
ST Nov 1, 2007
Sexy women are a distraction, says PAS leader
KUALA LUMPUR - MALAYSIA'S Muslim men are suffering sleepless nights and cannot pray properly because their thoughts are distracted by a growing number of women who wear sexy clothes in public, a prominent opposition cleric said.
Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat, the spiritual leader of Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS), said he wanted to speak about the 'emotional abuse' that men face because it is seldom discussed, the fundamentalist Islamic party reported on its website yesterday.
'We always (hear about) the abuse of children and wives in households, which is easily perceived by the eye, but the emotional abuse of men cannot be seen,' Datuk Nik Aziz said. 'Our prayers become unfocused and our sleep is often disturbed.'
He has made controversial comments about women in the past, including that women should stop wearing lipstick and perfume to lower the risk of being raped.
Women's groups have slammed his statements. They say comments like his encourage rapes because they put the blame on women.
Datuk Nik Aziz is also the Chief Minister of Kelantan, the sole Malaysian state that is not ruled by the Barisan Nasional governing coalition.
In the northern state, the Islamic party has fined Muslim women for not wearing headscarves in workplaces and implemented separate check-out lines for men and women in supermarkets.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When Datuk Nik Aziz said 'We always (hear about) the abuse of children and wives in households, which is easily perceived by the eye, but the emotional abuse of men cannot be seen, our prayers become unfocused and our sleep is often disturbed.' , i totally flipped.
So that's what he calls emotional abuse. I suppose when jewellery stores display what seems to be an endless variety of ear-rings, neckless and pendants, that's emotional abuse. Or how about someone munching on his burger, walking past you down the street. That's emotional abuse too. What about the emotional abuse you suffer when someone zips past you in a flashy ferrari down the expressway? I'm damn sure that gives you good justification to steal that insensitive bastard's ferrari. Or bar him from driving his million dollar speed machine at least.
Still on the topic on the inane and not-so-harmless things religious leaders sprout out every now and then, the Vatican surely qualifies as the number 1 clown when they say stuff like "condoms don't stop HIV" despite studies establishing
"It is not established whether the condom is as effective at preventing heterosexual transmission of HIV as it is for preventing conception. An overall estimate of condom effectiveness for HIV prevention is needed. Methods: Information on condom usage and HIV serology was obtained from 25 published studies of serodiscordant heterosexual couples. Condom usage was classified as always (in 100% of acts of intercourse), sometimes (1-99%, 0-99% or 1-100%) or never (0%). Studies were stratified by design, direction of transmission and condom usage group. Condom efficacy was calculated from the HIV transmission rates for always-users and never-users. Results: For always-users, 12 cohort samples yielded a consistent HIV incidence of 0.9 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.8). For 11 cohort samples of never-users, incidence was estimated at 6.8 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 4.4-10.1) for male-to-female transmission, 5.9 per 100 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-15.1) for female-to-male transmission and 6.7 per 100 (95% confidence interval, 4.5-9.6) in samples that specified the direction of transmission. Generally, the condom's effectiveness at preventing HIV transmission is estimated to be 87%, but it may be as low as 60% or as high as 96%. Conclusions: Consistent use of condoms provides protection from HIV. The level of protection approximates 87%, with a range depending upon the incidence among condom nonusers. Thus, the condom's efficacy at reducing heterosexual transmission may be comparable to or slightly lower than its effectiveness at preventing pregnancy."
Suddenly it isn't so funny anymore.
How about the creationism/intelligent design movement in USA? You can read more about it by clicking on that wikipedia link and find out how much time was wasted by the scientific community in order to debunk those clowns.
This begs the question: What mechanisms can we put in place to protect our society from the damaging effects of those lies?
I have no answer to that. It's a really tough question.
How do we balance the need to respect the beliefs of others with the realities of our world?
According to this wise man H. L. Mencken, "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
In other words, when you say that your wife, who looks like this
is prettier than Sonija Kwok,
we wouldn't bother shutting you up. We may politely agree with you in your presence and then laugh at your bad taste in your absence. Or we may act in the more politically correct manner and say "You are entitled to your opinion".
But if you were to attempt to take away Sonija Kwok's Miss HK crown and give it to your wife, then we have a problem. Because the fact is that Sonija Kwok is the beautiful one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
