Useless fact of the day:

Jamie Farr (who played Klinger on M*A*S*H) was the only member of the cast who actually served as a soldier in the Korean War.

Moving along...

Again, a looooong time has passed since I wrote my last Blab, nothing new there. The surroundings in which I usually wrote the Blabs are less than favorable.

I have, however, been engaged in several discussions in various places. Most notably in #gnug, and on the Rants & Discussions forum on TAuniverse.com. This place is has seen a lot of various ethical and moral discussions lately, ranging from religion, to underpants... The level of seriousness also ranges a lot as you might have noticed. *cough*

One particular discussion was on the question if a civilized society needed freedom of religion. The answer is an obvious 'yes' ofcourse, but I saw the discussin taking in the direction of asking more "Is religion needed?", and almost "Is religion needed to build an advanced society/Is religion needed in an advanced society." The difference between the 2 last ones that are seperated by the slash is that one is in past form, and the other in present. Someone on there made it sound as if one easily could just go back in time, to whenever, and yank religion out of the grand equation. The equation of societies evolution that is, into what we have/are today. This is a response I started to write, but didn't post for various reasons:

---
Try to pull one string in the carpet...

Some resemblance to religions can be seen in interest groups, which "resort" to lobbyism to influence society in a direction they desire...

Societies and individuals today need something... If not religion, you can bet there would be a closely related movement of sorts.

The question that I think should be asked, is did society need religion to get to where we are now?

The obvious answer would be "yes", on some level. Thing is just... What does one associate with religion on this level? For me, questioning existance would be the basis of religion I guess.. And seeking purpose, and harmony is what I would contribute to be basic building blocks of an advanced society.

But now one could of course begin to question if it's been all good... Which I doubt it has. Just like the "bad" things probably have brought some prosperity... Such as wars.

But obviously, this world, at this point needed religion to get to where it is today... Just another piece of the puzzle.
---

Just like with so many things, it's always the negative effects that are more/most visible. I for one think it is pretty obvious that there's both negative and positive things about religion. The deciding factor, making it good or bad, is still the people, the individuals, the human factor.

The human factor was also a common denominator in the 'Gun Control' discussion. The views were very much varied, but it seems there's a lot of social and cultural factors involved in the involved persons' viewpoints. A recurring phrase was, however, the classical 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.'

(On a sidenote: This is where I drew parallels to the religious debate, where a few people mentioned all the killing in the name of religion through time, by saying that 'Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.' Some of the same people were involved in the 'Religious' and 'Gun Control' threads.)

Like the effects of religion, no one would be able to tell what would happen if one just ripped one factor out of the grand equation. No one has enough far/hind/in/whatever-sight to be able to see what the effects would be, but a lot of people seem to be very sure about knowing it. I find that weird, and somewhat disrespectful towards... well, towards everything and everyone. Thinking oneself to be wise and knowing is a most ignorant and arrogant way of thinking.

Another heated and interesting subject, was the one about whether or not Premarital Sex was OK. Again, adamant arguments in both directions. The yes-sayers seemed to rest mostly on the 'try-before-you-buy' argument, while the nay-sayers spent most of their time disputing this, but also falling back on the fact that sex wasn't supposed to be the most important issue in a marriage. Counter-arguing, the yes-sayers said that sexual-incompatibility was a serious enough issue to be able to break a marriage apart. That is the core issues that seemed to dominate the discussion. A lot of good points were made by both sides, and various individuals, but for me, and some of the participants, the case involved more around the respect, or lack of, in the approach of the whole matter. Sex is such a serious issue, and it involves both life (procreation, raising kids.) and death (sexually transmitted (and deadly) diseases.). Also involved (usually) are feelings, and this is not something you will want to go around hurting. These facts didn't seem to be discussed at all by some of the participants, and I found that somewhat disturbing.

In the more head-shakingly unexplicable end was the mentioning of discontent about Metallica, and their involvement of banning a lot of users on Napster. The fact that this is even an issue says something about what a sad world we're living in today. Simply put. You got caught stealing, so stop nagging!!!!!

What incredible arrogance to think that anyone had a right to 'steal' those mp3's, and what indredible arrogance and ignorance to actually complain and whine about it when they got banned. Bleh I say!

Homosexuality, and whether it was OK to be homosexual, was also a subject which received quite a bit of attention. There were perhaps not as many immature responses as one could have thought, since it seemed that most of the time the posters were of the older generations. Many of the nay-sayers seemed to be basing their reasons on either religion, or nature (and how nature dictates procreation to be performed by differently gendered participants, not same-gendered.).

The argument about homo-sexuality being unnatural fell to the floor a bit, since homosexuality has actually occurred in nature (with animals...). And as for the religious aspect... That was ofcourse only really relevant to the religious participants. There was a lot of "I think it is OK to be homo-sexual as long as they stay away from me/It is OK to be gay, as long as they don't have to parade around with it." and such. That does sound slightly contradictive in terms to me...

There was a fair share of respect and intelligence in the discussion, but also some intolerance, ignorance and downright stupidity. I would, however, say that it's a lot better to have this confined on a message board, and not let it burst out into physical violence as an escalation to a heated discussion.

I think I have stated earlier that I believe we all have a right to think what we like on any subject, aslong as it isn't taken out on anyone in the manifestation of said thoughts. This wrong method of manifestation being mainly the one of violence. For me, the most fundamental kind of disrespect and unright is to physically hurt/assault someone. The right for everyone to exist is universal.

As for voicing ones opinions, and how that can often lead to violence. I would say that a lot of it lies in how you put it. One can easily voice ones opinions without being provocative and arrogant, and without causing the discussion to escalated into anything more than just that: a discussion.

I think many should try to learn the Art of Arguing... And yes, there is an art to it!

Until the next time, Boil on!

Gnug215