Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Winnie the pooh characters as mental disorders.
What is Disney thinking? First the seven dwarfs, now this! Why play into such unfortunate stereotypes?
Starting with Tigger. Obvious case of ADHD. Pigglet is an anxiety poster pig. Rabbit is a closeted homosexual and loner. Owl is OCD. E-ore is depressive and potentially suicidal. Christopher Robin is schizophrenic and living in an illusion half the time. And poor poor Pooh, I pray he can overcome his addiction... but his mind is lost forever.
What is the disney agenda? And more importantly, what does it say about our culture, and human psychology, that the flawed are praised so?
Note: This isn't as unique as I hoped, here is another similar and interesting take on it by the Canadian Medical Journal.
Starting with Tigger. Obvious case of ADHD. Pigglet is an anxiety poster pig. Rabbit is a closeted homosexual and loner. Owl is OCD. E-ore is depressive and potentially suicidal. Christopher Robin is schizophrenic and living in an illusion half the time. And poor poor Pooh, I pray he can overcome his addiction... but his mind is lost forever.
What is the disney agenda? And more importantly, what does it say about our culture, and human psychology, that the flawed are praised so?
Note: This isn't as unique as I hoped, here is another similar and interesting take on it by the Canadian Medical Journal.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Equilibrated Internation Bloques - An ethical solution to human capital
I'm starting up this blog just to keep some ideas of mine coherent. Feel free to comment.
This first post is about an idea I came up with in a discussion about the problems and merits of race mixing on biodiversityforum, where I am Riser.
======================================
http://www.biodiversityforum.com/showthread.php5?t=32813&page=4
"AMAR420: I think we should move colonies of nordics to south america and let 'em mix with the locals for instance. And some groups of asians and europeans to africa and let it all mix and create hot babes? lol"
"Riser: No, no forceful relocation or anything unethical. Just open borders for immigration across the whole world. Not one country allowed to restrict immigrants, not even poor ones or overpopulated ones. The people would move around and mingle a lot more than they do today, where only western nations allow immigration.
Any nation that restricts immigrants should be cut off from humanity in every way, every embargo possible, not people allowed to leave or enter, build walls and blockades etc. This is a free and harmonious world, where nature can take it's course and strengthen humanity.
Westerners would move to poor countries all the time if it wasn't restricted, cheap real estate, low taxes, cheap goods and labour, it's a great deal. And the poor would move to western countries even more, for higher wages. Very quickly, every country would become the same, and every population would be come diversified. And this would raise the standard of living in those places like nothing else can."
"AMAR420: It's not that easy though and the west would get overcrowded for sure causing it to lose their wealth which causes more problems..
I think borders between Europe and Asia should be open..."
"Riser: A start is a start."
"Grenzer: Well unless you can convince the Chinese, Indians, Russians, and other large nations to have open immigration policies, then your idea is pointless and harmful for the developed nations. I'm taking the bet that their nationalism and xenophobia will continue to trump you and your "Globalist Elites" desire to turn the World into a free range for humans. Utopian ideals like yours rarely work out well, if at all. Besides that, what you advocate is essentially cultural genocide for all peoples, even if it is done with with the sincerest intentions of improving living standards for the poor."
"Riser: You fail to interpret my message properly. It would be like an expanding bloque of countries that are unified. Only those who are fully open can join. And those who are not joined receive a foreign policy of strict 100% embargo and sanctions, of all goods, and all humans, in both directions. The bloque would be isolationist, or else it cannot work and would be exploited.
And as for harm to developed nations, I fail to see it. The migrants would surely move in both directions if the shared 'openness policy' was well constructed. It would be symbiotic, with low cost land and goods in the poor countries, and developed economy in the rich countries. Right now developed countries take in immigrants in a unilateral way and a very high rate, I fail to see how an [b]equilibrated[/b] solution can be worse. If the people from one country flood into another, the vacuum created by this in the country of departure would create ideal conditions to entice entrepreneurs, intrepids, and frontiersmen from another country to move into the vacancies and prosper. The peoples of both sides win, and that's what it's all about, helping real living people at the expense of abstract and corporatized nation-state entities. The nations will compete for patrons, rather than having a captive farm of subjects, you have it all wrong!"
This first post is about an idea I came up with in a discussion about the problems and merits of race mixing on biodiversityforum, where I am Riser.
======================================
http://www.biodiversityforum.com/showthread.php5?t=32813&page=4
"AMAR420: I think we should move colonies of nordics to south america and let 'em mix with the locals for instance. And some groups of asians and europeans to africa and let it all mix and create hot babes? lol"
"Riser: No, no forceful relocation or anything unethical. Just open borders for immigration across the whole world. Not one country allowed to restrict immigrants, not even poor ones or overpopulated ones. The people would move around and mingle a lot more than they do today, where only western nations allow immigration.
Any nation that restricts immigrants should be cut off from humanity in every way, every embargo possible, not people allowed to leave or enter, build walls and blockades etc. This is a free and harmonious world, where nature can take it's course and strengthen humanity.
Westerners would move to poor countries all the time if it wasn't restricted, cheap real estate, low taxes, cheap goods and labour, it's a great deal. And the poor would move to western countries even more, for higher wages. Very quickly, every country would become the same, and every population would be come diversified. And this would raise the standard of living in those places like nothing else can."
"AMAR420: It's not that easy though and the west would get overcrowded for sure causing it to lose their wealth which causes more problems..
I think borders between Europe and Asia should be open..."
"Riser: A start is a start."
"Grenzer: Well unless you can convince the Chinese, Indians, Russians, and other large nations to have open immigration policies, then your idea is pointless and harmful for the developed nations. I'm taking the bet that their nationalism and xenophobia will continue to trump you and your "Globalist Elites" desire to turn the World into a free range for humans. Utopian ideals like yours rarely work out well, if at all. Besides that, what you advocate is essentially cultural genocide for all peoples, even if it is done with with the sincerest intentions of improving living standards for the poor."
"Riser: You fail to interpret my message properly. It would be like an expanding bloque of countries that are unified. Only those who are fully open can join. And those who are not joined receive a foreign policy of strict 100% embargo and sanctions, of all goods, and all humans, in both directions. The bloque would be isolationist, or else it cannot work and would be exploited.
And as for harm to developed nations, I fail to see it. The migrants would surely move in both directions if the shared 'openness policy' was well constructed. It would be symbiotic, with low cost land and goods in the poor countries, and developed economy in the rich countries. Right now developed countries take in immigrants in a unilateral way and a very high rate, I fail to see how an [b]equilibrated[/b] solution can be worse. If the people from one country flood into another, the vacuum created by this in the country of departure would create ideal conditions to entice entrepreneurs, intrepids, and frontiersmen from another country to move into the vacancies and prosper. The peoples of both sides win, and that's what it's all about, helping real living people at the expense of abstract and corporatized nation-state entities. The nations will compete for patrons, rather than having a captive farm of subjects, you have it all wrong!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
