• Castration Of Paedophiles – Dangerous Precedent ?

      3 comments
      29th Sep 09
      David

    Human rights activists have responded with criticism when polish lower house approved a law on friday making the chemical castration of paedophiles mandatory. The upper chamber of parliament is still yet to approve but it is likely to go ahead.  Under this law, paedophiles that are convicted of raping children under 15 years or a close relative would be forced to undergo chemical therapy when released from prison.

     

    Piotr Kladoczny from the Helsinki Foundation of Human Rights replied with the statement "Introducing any mandatory treatment raises doubts as such a requirement is never reasonable and life can always produce cases that lawmakers could never have even dreamt of,".

     

    The controversiality of this subject is on par with that of capital punishment, and i myself had a hard time reaching a decision on the topic.  I find that i am in agreement with the prime minister in his disgust for paedophiles for the acts that they commit are unforgivable and capable of destroying young lives beyond repair.

     

    However looking at this with a broader view i believe that chemical castration is setting a dangerous precedent and in this way is totally different from capital punishment. Capital punishment was introduced as a way of removing someone from the population when deemed they would never be fit to re-enter society.  The difference is that castration is not the removal of the offender, but the alteration.

     

    "The purpose of this action is to improve the mental health of the convict, to lower his libido and thereby to reduce the risk of another crime being committed by the same person", statement by polish government.

     

    Now this does seem like a possible solution, though i have seen no evidence as yet to validate or disprove this method.  But what i am more concerned about is the possibility of this becoming a gateway situation that will undoubtedly lead to further "correction" of the things that make us individuals.  The A Clockwork Orange situation is one such possibility and this cultivates difficult moral questions that i do not believe society is yet ready to answer.  Who has the wisdom decide what things about another person should be changed?

    A ball is harder to stop once its started rolling.

    Post a comment if you have an opinion

      Uncategorized

  • File Sharing Benefits B Movies, maybe..

      0 comments
      26th Sep 09
      David
    File sharing has become commonplace for millions of people wanting to take advantage of everything that the vastness that is the internet has to offer.  The ability to share large files to anywhere in the world using the internet connections of millions of people is a relatively new and incredible thing, the so-called "problem" with this is that the majority of files being shared copyrighted and sharing is a big no-no. Why? Well that should be obvious. I will use movies for an example, shareing is free and movie producers dont like it when they spend $100 million on a movie and there are alot people getting to watch it for free.  The less money the producers make from said movie, the worse it makes them look, they will receive slightly less money and perhaps have to postpone buying that 8th yacht they’ve always wanted (insert sad face here).
     
    Now this is true for A Grade Hollywood movies, but it is perhaps a different story for B Movies.  When a B Movie is made it (most of the time) isn’t an attempt at making an A Movie that failed, its a different kind of beast and they know it.  Because of the usually low budget needed for a B Movie it gives the director a chance to ignore current popular methods and think outside the box.  There are also many actors currently considered very famous that had their beginnings in B Grade horror movies.  Johnny Depp plays a supporting role in A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) and yes it was his first movie.  Kevin Beacon was a murder victim in Friday the 13th (1980).  There are many more like this but you’ll have to find those yourself.
     
    Now to my point, if a B Movie is not only orientated around gross $ earnings, then is sharing doing it harm or is there a possibility that it is benefiting the movie.  For example, if the movie is available to be seen for free then there are going to be more people willing to give it a shot, i know i would.  After watching this movie you now have an opinion on it, which you would most likely share with someone.  It could be as simple as telling someone you live with, writing a blog/review about it or even putting a post on facebook/twitter. Whether your opinion was good or bad is irrelevant, there is no such thing as bad publicity and one mans trash is another mans treasure.  And that is what this is about, publicity.  Therefore the goal of the B Movie is achieved and the more publicity that a movie receives is going to make it money one way or another.
     
    The alternative is that we pay for every movie watch.  Under these circumstances i know i would be far more discriminating about what i’m watching, sticking to the big budget movies where im like to get a better bang for buck ratio. Not to say that there hasn’t been some great B Movies but there have also been the bad ones.
     
    Note: This is just a theory, let me know what you think..
      Uncategorized

  • Kirk Cameron vs Charles Darwin

      8 comments
      25th Sep 09
      David
    Most people today will not be familiar with kirk cameron, he is a small time actor that enjoyed the majority of his success during his role on hit 80′s tv show "Growing Pains", that co-starred Leonardo DiCaprio for a short period. Since then he’s maintained a steady stream of roles in small time movies and tv shows, but more to the point he also co-hosts a web show called "The Way of the Master", with Christian Author and spokesperson Ray Comfort. The site consists primarily for the promotion of Christianity through various video interviews. Their latest stunt is the slander of Charles Darwin and his Theory Of Evolution. Their plan for doing this is to give away 100,000 copies of the revolutionary text, on its 150th anniversary, accompanied with their own introduction written by Comfort. This introduction is aimed at contradicting Darwin’s writings and freedom to express an opinion is a valuable thing.
     
    However the way in which they aim to do this is not by providing an alternative explanation as to the origin of life and the universe but by attempting to directly discredit Darwin’s work and by directly attacking Darwin himself. The latest web video release has K. Cameron briefly outlining the book which depicts Darwin as being a misogynist, a racist and is if that wasn’t enough, his evolution theories having ties to Adolf Hitler. Considering Hitler was less 10 years old when Darwin died i fail to see how they draw this comparison. aka Comparison Fail.
     
    The following is a direct extract form Camerons latest web video
     
    Kirk Cameron: "He (talking about Ray Comfort) has written a 50 page introduction for Darwin’s book, which gives the history of evolution, a time line of Darwin’s Life, Adolph Hitler’s undeniable connection with the theory, Darwin’s racism, his disdain for women and Darwin’s thoughts on the existence of God. It also lists the theories many hoaxes and exposes the unscientific belief that nothing created everything. It then points to the balanced view of creationism…
     
    Admittedly, the Theory of Evolution is still just that, an unproven theory, however there have been countless scientific discoveries that point toward the truth of this theory. Which is certainly more than can be said for creationism. In spite of my animosity toward evangelists like Cameron and Comfort who aim to generate publicity and propaganda, i consider myself an agnostic and would be willing to consider the existence of god/s were there more proof toward the idea. The acknowledging of another’s opinion is the foundation of society.
    However this blatant attempt on character assassination by Cameron, Comfort and Co. makes them seem ignorant, desperate and pathetic. It doesn’t take long to see through this shameless attempt at the creation of a controversial topic in order to promote Creationism and Christianity, weak kirk, you should be ashamed. By the time i had finished watching his 6mins of defamation and preaching, i was left angry that these fools are wasting this planets resources and hoping they would discover the truth of the existence of an afterlife sooner rather than later.
     
    Let me know what you think, leave a comment…
      Uncategorized