CameraDave.co.uk

I do have photos to put up, it’s just a case of currently I am unable to get them put up as I either have access to Internet but not my photos (i.e. at work when I shouldn’t even technically be on here) or I have access to photos but no Internet I am hoping I should be able to start getting photos back up on here from Thursday.

In my wonderings across the net I have recently noticed various people taking part on a site called Love To Lead, where each week a different question is posed and people get to post their response to it (and possibly win a laptop.)

The question this week is Are People Born Evil? and below is the response I posted to the question and if you like it click on the link at the bottom and help me win a laptop: 

A lot of people would say that before asking if people are born Evil, one would have to define ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ and the positions they occupy (although some might just point to original sin and just say of course.) I am not going to attempt to give a strict definition of Good and Evil, but I will try and explain why I believe that people are not born ‘Evil’ .

Also as a finally disclaimer that although agnostic, I have been raised in a  largely Christian country, went to a Church of England school and so when I talk of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ I suspect my responses will reflect this.

First of all let me say that I subscribe to the belief people are animals, highly evolved animals perhaps - But animals nonetheless as our behavior often shows.

Now the concept of Good and Evil, a proscriptive morality is something we have as reasoning creatures, whilst we are capable of acting on impulse and out of need like animals it is the ability to reason through our actions that I feel sets us apart from most (but possibly not all animals.)

It is this ability to reason when combined with out animal tendancies I feel that gives rise to morals - Humans, like many primates are social animals and our morals reflect an emphasis towards sociable behaviors, as many moral and ‘Good’ standpoints emphasise the importance of the many over the few. Often with discipline apparent in the denial of desires. Morality tells us that to give without expectation of reciprocation is ‘good’ and nobel, but to expect something in return is ‘not good’.

Not frankly I consider such selflessness to be foolish and against nature, after all in nature gifts are rarely given without expectation, males common present females with gifts in the hopes of being rewarded by the female with (the gift of) sex.  This behaviour is seen within humans, although of course very few men would admit when they give presents they are expecting sex in return.  Yet the natural conclusion of this and turning sex into a transaction whilst honest is stigmatised and seen as immoral and ‘not good’.

Almost anything to do with sex is seen as ‘not good’ despite it being natural, again many moral codes teach that it should be for procreation and that “every sperm is sacred”, although I am aware some religions do take an opposite stance and teach that during orgasm is one of the times that we come closest to Nirvana/God(s)/etc.

Survival of the fittest is something that we see in nature, but as reasoning beings we see the injustice that it has upon the individual and fight against it with medicine and social policies - The idea that only the strong survive is now seen as wrong, those that step on others to advance themselves are seen as ‘not good’.  Personally I do not consider Hitler; a classic example of someone who often characterised as ‘evil’, to actually be evil.  I may not agree with his actions and ideas, but I don’t see it as evil just an expression of evolution - Which as it didn’t survive at least at the present time edvidently isn’t the fittest.

To be good requires choice and effort and whilst I do not believe in original sin, I do believe that in this world it is hard to stay ‘innocent’ for long, as we are naturally selfish and focused towards our own gratification. As children we want and as we get older we learn to distinguish between what we want and what we need, as well as learning the techniques to try and get what we want as well as what we need.

I mentioned earlier that being ‘Good’ requires effort and discipline, but I should also add that to be truely ‘Evil’ requires just as much focus as both are things that require making a choice and sticking to the convictions of it.

Killing someone in a fit of passion is rarely seen as ‘Evil’ although it is certainly ‘not good’ and by definition discipline is absent, but systematic going around and killing people for whatever reason requires effort and discipline - Particularly if you want to get away with it. I mentioned Hitler earlier, he didn’t get to where he was without discipline and effort.

I do believe however that although it may take real effort to be a Hitler or a Ghandi (even on a smaller scales) that people do have a tendancy towards being one or the other, thanks to a combination of genetics and conditioning by society as certain tendancies may make it easy to consider acting in a certain manner or affect how much one enjoys behaving in a certain way.

For example I am quite aggressive and I choose to exercise control over it as much is as possible and that is why at the moment I am nursing sore knuckles as I chose to be “Good” and take it out on a wall, whereas if I enjoyed being aggressive and choose to attack people regularly without provocation that would be “Evil”.

So in conclusion, whilst one may be born with a chance of being ‘Good’ or ‘Evil’, like being born with a talent for languages, music or maths without effort your far more likely to just end up ‘not very good’.

Unlike the callers seem to think I am not psychic and if I were do they seriously think that I’d be wasting my talents answering the phone to them* rather than picking lottery numbers or horses?

For example with a call earlier this morning the caller asked me if they had had an advertisement through the post with the number on.  I had to fight the urge to point out to them that I’d have to be psychic or stalking them to be able to answer that.

The next caller at least gave me the benefit of the doubt when it came to stalking them as when I asked them where they had got the number from they just replied saying, “The newspaper.”  They haven’t been the only caller to do this to me today the current count is 3, make that 5.

Now I may not be psychic, but even Dr Watson could deduce from that answer that means only one thing - It’s a sun reader, of course I have to check this just in case I am being monitored as a defence of, “But, it was obviously a Sun reader” isn’t acceptable apparently.

Anyway to conclude here is my prediction for what the week has in store for me - Lots of phone calls from people I’d sooner not speak to and the chance of me finally going crazy and going on a killing spree is about 5%.

*After all, I know it’s idiots phoning up and it’s experience not being psychic that tells me that.

Last night saw Capt Pantera drop in for the Pirate Party at Climax and I was fortunate enough to get a chance to interview him, so here is the world exclusive interview I managed to grab with him before he sailed off at the end of the night.

Me: So Captain Pantera, I hear that you have only recently been promoted from First Mate after the previous Captain had a fatal encounter with some bees.

The Capt’: That be right, they swARRRRRmed him.

Me: Now I see that you have a minor disablity and have lost an eye in these days of discrimination legislation are pirates compliant?  For where could I pirate with two wooden legs expect to go?

The Capt’: Not very fARRRR.

Me: Captain Pantera, I see your glass is running dry. Allow me to get you another, what will you have?

The Capt’: Rum, of course! Have you got my favourite, BacARRRRdi?

Me: No problem, Captain. Now I know you’ve seen a lot of the world. Where would you say is your favourite place to visit?

The Capt’: ARRRRRgentina, I be setting sail for there next.

Me: Well Captain, it’s been a pleasure chatting with you. I’d just like to ask before you go although piracy is a serious business, do you know any pirate jokes?

The Capt’: ARRRR you kidding me? There’s no time for high jinks on the high seas!

Anyways I know you aren’t hear for the interview you are here for the photos and what can I say except that X marks the spot.

I was reading The Register today when I came across an article  under the heading of “Great Moments in Human Research” a selection of them are just stating the obvious such as:

• A November 1984 article in the Journal of Trauma concluding, among other things, that serious head injuries can occur as the result of falling coconuts.  
• A May-June 1990 article in the Journal of Emergency Medicine concluding, among other things, that “[a] zipper-entrapped penis is a painful predicament that can be made worse by overzealous intervention”.
• A June 1990 article in the British Journal of Dermatology concluding, among other things, that people who think they have foot odour usually do have foot odour and people who do not think they have food odour usually do not have foot odour.

But not all such research they mentioned is as not as obvious and  leaves questions. Questions like, where did they get the idea for this research? For example:

• An August 1988 article in the Annals of Emergency Medicine concluding, among other things, that there can be a “[T]ermination of intractable hiccups with digital rectal massage”. 

I can only think that they came up with that piece of research as an extention of the age old idea of surprising a person who is suffering from hiccoughs.