The prototype Ducati Streetfighter is the ugliest motorcycle it has ever been my horror to perceive. It look as though a hurricane swept through a junkyard and managed to assemble a motorcycle. It looks as though Ducati had a think, and thought "Well, the Benelli TNT is the maddest naked bike on the market, so not only will we have to build a bike more powerful than that, but uglier as well!" And, damn them, they succeeded. There are more jagged edges and conflicting shapes on that bike than on Honda's entire catalogue.
So please, for the sake of my sanity, explain to me how it managed to win 'Most Beautiful Bike Of The Show" in Milan?
Beautiful? Oh, please gods, no. How do you justify calling that "beautiful"? There's one beautiful angle on the entire bike - rear three-quarters.
What is this new standard of "beauty" that focuses more on eye-watering visual impact than upon, well, beauty?
I despair of humanity, I really do.
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
No, your irrational and childish beliefs are NOT special
I've already commented on my attitudes towards defamation and religion, here.
(Anybody who feels, at any point while reading this, that I'm a tool of Satan and have it all wrong and are being offensive, really should go and read that first, and then wonder if it's really worth your effort venting at me.)
Now, thanks to the Bronze Dog, I have been made aware that the world is imploding into a B-grade anti-utopian movie plot. The United Nations is condemning defamation of religion.
Okay, maybe you should go and read that earlier post of mine anyway, to get some idea of how complex the whole mess of "defamation law" is.
To start with, is it defamatory to speak the truth? The traditional judicial defence is that if a statement is proven true, it's not defamatory because it's not injuring your reputation, merely lowering it to the status it should have had already. Although in some jurisdictions you still have to argue that you were justified in speaking the truth.
So, if I were to say that the Christian church is basing its teachings (sorry, brainwashings) upon a book which has been translated numerous times, mistranslated, had sections excised and other sections added, and can not accurately be said to represent the teachings as delivered through Jesus: Is that defamatory?
If I were to say that Islam as traditionally and, in many cases, continuously, practiced is, by the standards of my culture, inextricably tied with pederasty, a justice system which has gross human rights violations built in not to mention a complete lack of understanding of human behaviour, and has been responsible for ongoing violatiosn of basic human rights (including hte one about being able to stay alive) world-wide: Is that defamatory?
Of course, I could add that Mormonism violates several basic precepts of my society to do with marriage and basic freedoms as well as having a belief system which moves me to laughter; I could add that Scientology was founded upon works of fiction written by a failed fiction author who is reported to have once stated "If you really want to make money, start a religion", that it has medically unsupported and medically contra-indicated practices, that it shows a complete lack of understanding of psychophysiology and is, in addition, rather silly and uses a basic voltmeter to try and analyse your soul. Besides which, Tom Cruise is a dickwad.
I could also add that the Moonies have given us an invaluable new term of away-with-the-fairiedom and that Sihks have one of the most absurd dress codes I have ever seen.
But what's the point? The world is so addicted to Arab oil that they have a political force over and above all rationality.
So here's what I would like to see: If the UN really upholds defamation of religion as being, like, wrong, let's see the Vatican sue the nearest large Islamic body for defamation. After all, you can't defend the truth-and-the-sole-truth of your religion without saying that others are wrong, can you? And hell, isn't calling a belief system which claims ultimate authority over truth, wrong, defamatory?
Pass the popcorn and, in case this gets completely out of hand, pass the Kool-Aid as well.
(Anybody who feels, at any point while reading this, that I'm a tool of Satan and have it all wrong and are being offensive, really should go and read that first, and then wonder if it's really worth your effort venting at me.)
Now, thanks to the Bronze Dog, I have been made aware that the world is imploding into a B-grade anti-utopian movie plot. The United Nations is condemning defamation of religion.
Okay, maybe you should go and read that earlier post of mine anyway, to get some idea of how complex the whole mess of "defamation law" is.
To start with, is it defamatory to speak the truth? The traditional judicial defence is that if a statement is proven true, it's not defamatory because it's not injuring your reputation, merely lowering it to the status it should have had already. Although in some jurisdictions you still have to argue that you were justified in speaking the truth.
So, if I were to say that the Christian church is basing its teachings (sorry, brainwashings) upon a book which has been translated numerous times, mistranslated, had sections excised and other sections added, and can not accurately be said to represent the teachings as delivered through Jesus: Is that defamatory?
If I were to say that Islam as traditionally and, in many cases, continuously, practiced is, by the standards of my culture, inextricably tied with pederasty, a justice system which has gross human rights violations built in not to mention a complete lack of understanding of human behaviour, and has been responsible for ongoing violatiosn of basic human rights (including hte one about being able to stay alive) world-wide: Is that defamatory?
Of course, I could add that Mormonism violates several basic precepts of my society to do with marriage and basic freedoms as well as having a belief system which moves me to laughter; I could add that Scientology was founded upon works of fiction written by a failed fiction author who is reported to have once stated "If you really want to make money, start a religion", that it has medically unsupported and medically contra-indicated practices, that it shows a complete lack of understanding of psychophysiology and is, in addition, rather silly and uses a basic voltmeter to try and analyse your soul. Besides which, Tom Cruise is a dickwad.
I could also add that the Moonies have given us an invaluable new term of away-with-the-fairiedom and that Sihks have one of the most absurd dress codes I have ever seen.
But what's the point? The world is so addicted to Arab oil that they have a political force over and above all rationality.
So here's what I would like to see: If the UN really upholds defamation of religion as being, like, wrong, let's see the Vatican sue the nearest large Islamic body for defamation. After all, you can't defend the truth-and-the-sole-truth of your religion without saying that others are wrong, can you? And hell, isn't calling a belief system which claims ultimate authority over truth, wrong, defamatory?
Pass the popcorn and, in case this gets completely out of hand, pass the Kool-Aid as well.
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)