Respond to Raiissah's post: mum - she hit me!!!

I like the point you make about it not always being just kids from broken homes who become bullies - it can sometimes be the case that bullies are spoilt people with problem-free lives who pick on others through boredom or just because they can. Interesting point also about the stereotype of what a bully looks like - perhaps some people find it comforting to imagine that bullies are easily identifiable whereas in real life it isn't so simple; bullies come in all varieties. And, sadly, I agree that bullying will always go on and nothing we can do will stop it - as long as there are people there will also be bullies. I do think that people should try to take action on individual cases of bullying asap (whatever form that action takes, removing the bully from the school or workplace for instance) and we should help victims of bullying in whatever ways possible.

Response to Cassie's Facebook Stalking Blog

It's an interesting issue - people upload personal info and pics etc with the intent for them to be seen by others, but for some it can be a source of obsession. If I used sites like facebook I'd definitely set my profile to private, but I think maybe people don't always do this because they don't feel the need to prepare for people becoming obsessed over them. Stalking has always been around, but with the invention of social networking it has made stalkers' jobs a lot easier as you have pointed out that they can now find out all kinds of information about someone online - from their name, age and where they live to getting some idea of what their personality is like.

Bad Music

Moral panics over music have been around since the '60s, with people claiming that certain music (particularly anything connected to the rock genre) is a bad influence on impressionable teenage fans. Some musicians embrace this bad image with pride and unashamedly engage in smoking, alcohol, drugs, vandalism (with hotel-rooms being a common target), promiscuity, violence to name just a few aspects of their bad behaviour.

However, to some they are modern folk heroes. I think that one of the things that people like is the anti-establishment attitude, the rejection of society's constraints and the exciting lifestyle of going on tour, doing a job you really like and making enough money to be able to act as mischievously as you want without there being many serious consequences. In the world of rock'n'roll, an arrest is like a badge of honour.

There are stereotypes of different genres of music being responsible for inciting particular bad behaviours in young people: punk is associated with anarchy and nihilism, metal with Satanism, for instance. Despite the controversy however, there is no evidence to suggest that such things would have any impact unless that person had serious problems to begin with (http://www.bbc.co.uk/suffolk/content/articles/2005/11/23/cradle_of_filth_this_world_feature.shtml). For the majority, it could be argued that listening to such music can be a healthy and natural way to channel teenage rebellion.

Whether bad behaviour amongst musicians is all part of the act or a genuine political statement, some people are extremely disappointed when musicians and bands start to appeal to the mainstream, whatever form this takes, and the label "sell-out" often pops up (http://www.theage.com.au/news/people/sex-pistols-sell-out/2006/03/10/1141701665565.html). Stories about musicians' bad behaviour often become modern legends and for many, the more outrageous the story, the more interesting it becomes
(http://www.nme.com/news/the-rolling-stones/30130nme.com/news/the-rolling-stones/30130).

Perhaps what attracts people to this sort of thing is the fact that it makes them feel as though they are rebelling but for most of the time it is in a harmless way. The behaviour discussed here is bad but generally in the mischievous sense rather than setting out to cause real harm. Some may be attracted to bands that make political statements, such as punk bands, others may just like the theatrical show of excess that comes with rock'n'roll.

An article about controversy surrounding Marilyn Manson: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/325957.stm

Pornography

Pornography can take the form of videos, erotic literature or pictures designed to aid sexual arousal. They are widely used, particularly as an aid to masturbation, and can be aimed at straight or gay people, men or women, although when most people think of porn they tend to think of straight men.

Pornography has come under attack, mainly from certain groups of feminists, who argue that it degrades and humiliates women, reducing them to objects with the sole purpose of giving sexual gratification to men. They see pornographic actresses not as consenting performers on an equal footing with their male counterparts, but as duped victims who have been brainwashed by patriarchy into sacrificing their dignity. They also claim that "pornography is the theory, rape is the practise" (Robin Morgan), i.e. there is an explicit link between porn and violent sex attacks on women.

However, on the other side of the coin, pro-sex feminists have provided support for the pornography industry and in particular highlighted the benefits it can have for women. For instance, porn allows women to see how it might "feel" to experiment with different things from the safety of their own homes and can be seen as a form of "solitary enlightenment": http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html.

The catharsis theory also claims that porn can help to channel sexual urges and therefore reduces real life sexual attacks on women. Theorists often point to the fact that countries such as Japan which have very liberal laws surrounding porn also have low rates of sex crimes.

As much as I hate the idea of someone being forced into doing something like porn, I think that if they are consenting adults then it is their decision and they shouldn't be condemned for it. There is also porn available to women as well as men, which often features men performing sex acts which are mainly geared towards giving pleasure to the woman.

The debate surrounding porn: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1986869.stm

Backbiting

It's something that most people do at some point, yet no one likes to think that other people are doing it to them. Backbiting can be defined as speaking maliciously or slanderously about someone else behind his or her back.

Imagine (or remember) how backbiting feels when you suspect or discover that someone has done it about you and it seems quite clear why it is bad. For the person on the receiving end, it is hurtful, offensive, unfair and leaves them feeling betrayed and powerless. However, it could be argued that for the people doing it, it serves a purpose. Sometimes it is just to let off steam if you are annoyed with someone but not annoyed enough to have an argument or want to keep the peace. For others, it seems to be seen as "fun" - usually done when they don't like someone and just want to bitch about them. Or it can be a deliberate attempt to turn people against the person in question.

The thing about backbiting is that it is so widespread and used for entertainment purposes that we've probably become desensitised to it. Politicians backbite (particularly in the run-up to the elections), as do celebrities and the media in general, whilst backbiting is a major theme in soaps and reality TV. Gossip magazines and tabloids thrive because people are willing to buy them to see what famous people are saying about each other. In this sense, backbiting can be seen as a perfectly normal part of everyday life, but it can still be considered "bad" not only in itself but because it involves disloyalty and also, sometimes, jealousy and lies.

There's not much that can be done about backbiting - it will always go on and is a part of free speech, but that doesn't mean that there won't be consequences from it, mainly if it gets back to the person you are discussing. Recent examples of this include employees being fired for posting facebook statuses in which they complain about their employers.

Backbiting is often seen as a sin in religion and Islam views it as particularly bad, although it does allow some exceptions: http://blogs.muxlim.com/truelover_4ever/six-exceptions-to-backbiting/

An example of backbiting in the media: http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/8021121.html

Violence

In the majority of cases, I think it's very clear that violence is just bad - I can't think of anything to say in defence of domestic abuse, happy slapping or unprovoked attacks. However, the question is whether violence is justifiable in a minority of situations.

The most obvious is self-defence. Personally I think that everyone has the right to defend themselves or someone they care about and if the only way to do this effectively is through violence, then I think that this is justified. Apart from anything, this is often a natural instinct if someone attacks you, rather than making a moral choice to assault someone.

Another issue is whether or not it is still bad to use physical violence on someone if you have experienced extreme provocation but the person has not physically attacked you. I do understand that, whilst I think that every effort should be made to resolve the situation in a non-violent way, everyone has their breaking points and I can see that sometimes people can be pushed too far. I suppose that each situation must be judged by its own merits as it's all relative and depends on the circumstances.

An article relating to the recent incident where a teacher attacked a pupil: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/apr/28/peter-harvey-teacher-pupil-violence

At the extreme end of the scale, info about a film based on the true story of a battered wife who killed her husband after years of abuse: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/bollywood-tells-true-story-of-the-wife-who-fought-back-441586.html

Prejudice and Discrimination

Some people feel that they have the right to judge, reject and persecute others on the grounds of age, gender, disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation or social class. This is known as prejudice (literally pre-judging; e.g. forming an opinion of what someone is like on the basis of one of these attributes) and discrimination (the way in which you treat that person as a result of your prejudice).


I really hate this kind of thing, whatever form it takes, but unfortunately it probably goes on a lot more than some people might think. Some might argue that everyone is prejudiced to an extent, even if this prejudice is based on something like what someone wears, rather than any of the points mentioned earlier. However, even if this is the case for some people, they should at least be open to changing their opinions once they get to know the person in question and shouldn't treat them any differently or discriminate against them.

Above left: Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church

Above centre: Bill O'Reilly

I can't think of any excuse for things such as racism or homophobia, although I tend to think that discrimination can take more subtle forms than some people might think. For instance, I don't think that it makes it ok if you buy into certain stereotypes (e.g. "Jews are canny", "disabled people aren't intellegent"), reject, gossip or spread rumours about someone, although some people seem to justify doing this by saying that it's not as bad as being overtly abusive through calling someone offensive names etc.

An article relating to Mel Gibson's anti-semitic tirade in 2006:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-398527/Mel-Gibsons-meltdown.html


Info relating to some of the effects of those who experience homophobia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4055801.stm

An article about the use of stereotypes in political cartoons and how they can be interpreted in different ways: http://racism-politics.suite101.com/article.cfm/stereotypes_in_political_cartoons_have_meaning

Sexual Fetishism

A sexual fetish is when someone is aroused by an inanimate object which is not generally considered to be sexual in nature. Fetishists (more often men than women) range in degree from those who use the desired items as props during normal sex to those who are completely fixated on the object and sometimes are unable to become aroused by anything else.

There is a wide range of fetishes. Some are completely harmless (if slightly unusual) such as fetishes for body parts, clothing, certain materials etc. At the extreme end, there is paedophilia, rape fetish, necrophilia and beastiality. These fetishes are harmful to others, so I really think they are beyond "bad" when they are forced onto someone else (admittedly, not all of them act on it and seek professional help).

Consensual fetishes are fine, although I do think that they should be kept private because as much as people have every right to practise them, there are just some that I don't think I could stomach hearing about in any kind of detail (for a list of unusual fetishes click this link: http://www.listaholic.com/9-sex-acts-you-probably-didn%E2%80%99t-know-existed.html). Sadism involves enjoyment derived from inflicting pain or humiliation on others, but as long as this is practised consensually with a masochist (someone who enjoys being hurt and humiliated) then, again, this is fine because it isn't inflicting anything onto someone who is unwilling to participate.

The majority of fetishists are harmless and either find compatible partners or masturbate to gain satisfaction; they are advised by professionals to seek help if they feel that their fixation is becoming a problem for them or someone else, but if this is not the case then it is not considered a disorder.

Fetishes are seen as a taboo subject - not something that many people would feel comfortable in discussing, although a possible reason for this could be the wide range of fetishes that people have and the fact that what one person may find arousing their friends or acquaintances may just find bizarre.

An article relating to the Max Mosley scandal: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article3649197.ece

An article about professional femdom (female domination): http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03/dominatrix_175x125.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.metro.co.uk/lifestyle/41071-take-the-whip-hand&usg=__6Wg8Bf6z4B7tT52Ot1KoFLn5UDg=&h=125&w=175&sz=8&hl=en&start=2&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=iCybU8415OA4qM:&tbnh=71&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddominatrix%2Bwhip%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4ADFA_enGB357GB357%26tbs%3Disch:1

Bad Manners

Compared to many of the topics on the course, bad manners or rudeness seem fairly trivial. Yet, it's something that a lot of people don't like (to varying degrees) and can sometimes find quite offensive.

Personally, there are a lot of supposed "bad manners" that really don't bother me (and most of which I do myself). I don't care whether someone rests their elbows on the table, eats off their knife or wears a hat indoors. The things that bother me are things like not saying please or thank you, walking into someone and then not apologising, letting the door slam on the person behind or not offering seats to pregnant, disabled or elderly people. What I don't like about these things is that they are all very inconsiderate and sometimes selfish.

It could be argued that many people display bad manners unintentionally if they are in a rush. Another issue that could lead to accidental social faux pas is how familiar someone is with a particular culture as the concept of "good" or "bad" manners is very subjective (e.g. in many countries it is perfectly acceptable not to queue): http://people.howstuffworks.com/13-examples-of-good-and-bad-manners-around-the-world.htm

An article relating to a survey and programme on the decline of manners in Britian: http://www.itv.com/News/tonight/episodes/Badmanners/default.html

Info about what is (supposedly) considered good or bad manners in British culture: http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/behaviour.html

Response to Raissah's Swearing Blog

I think it's true what you say about it being the way in which words are used which people find offensive, rather than the actual meaning, which as you have pointed out, can change over time anyway. Sometimes people (you use the example of rock stars or hip hop artists) do use the words because it is a symbol of rebellion in some people's eyes and does fit in with a "bad" image. And I agree also that swearing will never go away, mainly because it's very easy to do and very hard to prevent people from doing! Besides, what constitutes swearing anyway? Your examples of phrases such as "bloody hell" and "Jesus" illustrate how subjective the whole thing is and that what someone sees to be bad language, another person may see as nothing out of the ordinary.

Bad Comedy

There are two types of comedy (aside from the obvious categories of "funny" and "not funny") - reactionary and subversive. Reactionary comedy essentially reinforces the status quo of social power relationships and hierarchies, using jokes regarding ethnicity, gender and sexuality with the insults having no hint of irony. Reactionary comedians include Bernard Manning (right) and Roy Chubby Brown (a review of whom can be found here: http://www.theartsdesk.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=792:roy-chubby-brown-fairfield-comedy-review&Itemid=26). Subversive comedy (article on 28 most subversive comedians: http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20232388,00.html) challenges mainstream assumptions and can take the form of satirising reactionary views in order to make fun of them.

I personally hate the kind of comedy (reactionary) where the goal seems to be to express very narrow-minded views and contribute to negative stereotypes under the guise of "it's only a joke", in cases where it clearly isn't. However, with regards to the issue of whether or not such comedy should be banned, I personally think that's one of the worst things that could happen. Driving things underground only makes people want to be a part of them even more because doing something "forbidden" can be a thrill. Also, if someone has those views anyway, I would prefer them to have the freedom to express these opinions so that I and everyone else will know what that person is really like.

I think subversive comedy can be good and that, whilst the observations on and challenge to mainstream assumptions may not necessarily bring about change on a large scale, I do think that it can make small groups and individuals feel better about situations if they are able to find humour they can identify with. The only problem with subversive comedy when it satirises reactionary views is that some people don't seem to realise the intentions behind it and therefore take it as reactionary comedy (e.g. people who laugh with Alf Garnett of Till Death do us Part, instead of at him). Comedy, it can be argued, is largely down to interpretation and so sometimes it is difficult to accurately work out the comedian's perspective and aims (an article discussing critics' differing viewpoints on the Team America film: http://www.villagevoice.com/2004-10-19/news/attack-of-the-puppet-people/1).

There are a number of reasons as to why people find things funny (even if, perhaps, they shouldn't). Comedy typically deals with a lot of taboo subjects, which maybe makes them easier for people to talk about if it makes them laugh. There is the argument that jokes are not proclaiming any opinion or truth, but surely there must be an element of opinion in them in order to find them funny (a discussion on why people find racist jokes funny: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1972565.stm).

Response to Blossom's drugs post

I like the way you've drawn comparisons between illegal drugs and alcohol because some people don't seem to realise that just because a drug is legal, that doesn't necessarily make it different from illegal drugs in terms of the reasons why people enjoy it as well as the distinction between a user and an addict. I also completely agree with the point you make about it being the people who take the drugs, rather than the substances themselves, being the biggest factor in drug abuse and the argument that if it wasn't drugs or alcohol that they became fixated on, it would be something else. For some people, a substance is just an easy tool to use in order to achieve escapism from whatever problems someone already has in their life.

Response to Tracey's Post: phone sex internet cheating

This is an interesting subject - I've heard about people getting involved with stuff such as phone sexting and internet cheating, often neglecting their partner/ kids as a result. Personally I would class this as infidelity because, as you say, it's the emotional side of having an affair. In my eyes, an affair does not just have to be about sex. It may be fun for the person doing it, but if I was the partner of that person I'd probably feel as strongly as if it was physical cheating.

Vandalism

Vandalism is deliberate damage to someone else's or public property. The word "vandal" comes from the name of the Germanic tribe best known for their sacking of Rome in 455, which caused their name to be associated with senseless destruction. Examples of vandalism include scratching someone's car, damaging their house, arson and graffiti to name a few.

Typical reasons for people committing acts of vandalism include boredom, being dared to do it, revenge, seeking a "buzz" and being drunk. Another possible factor in someone's decision to vandalise something is that they don't expect to be caught or for there to be any repercussions.

A lot of vandalism I think is both spiteful and pointless (such as keying cars as you walk past them, damaging someone's house etc). It's also annoying as hell when it happens to you. At the more serious end of the spectrum, arson is, needless to say, dangerous and could end up badly injuring or even killing someone and interfering with important road signs could have equally severe outcomes.

However, some vandalism such as graffiti and billboard liberation (where a few words on a sign are altered so that the meaning is changed completely) qualify as culture jamming and are seen as artistic (see http://sniggle.net/vandalism.php). Banksy's street art (http://www.banksy.co.uk/index.html.co.uk/index.html), for instance, is considered by many to be creative pieces illustrating political and cultural satire, rather than vandalism. Personally, I actually like well-done graffiti and the more creative it is, the better.

Some information and statistics on vandalism: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/criminaldamage/cd%20facts%20and%20figures.htm

Bad Driving

There are several types of driving offences, the main ones being legally defined as "careless driving", "inconsiderate driving" and "dangerous driving". Careless driving is also known as driving without due care or attention, examples of this being reading a map, smoking or eating whilst driving. Inconsiderate driving entails actions which inconvenience others, such as tailgating. Dangerous driving encompasses speeding, driving under the influence, deliberately ignoring road signs or markings, going the wrong way round a roundabout etc.

For me, it isn't the principle of breaking driving laws that bothers me, it's when people drive so dangerously that it puts other people at risk. No driver is perfect and I'm sure everyone stretches the rules from time to time (such as going faster than the speed limit, getting briefly distracted etc), but there's stretching the limits and then there's being selfish by doing something that will quite probably end up hurting someone else, such as driving when drunk or speeding excessively to show off: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1260082/Wedding-guest-Christopher-Badgery-kills-vicar-injures-bridesmaid-showing-sports-car.html

However, there are many reasons why people do commit driving offences other than to show off. Some might find speeding exciting and others may feel good about rebelling against the law. It may simply be for convenience issues that speeding occurs or someone may end up drink driving if they have gone out and got separated from their designated driver (or didn't arrange to have one).

Info and statistics on dangerous driving: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5341720.stm

Some mugshots of famous bad drivers: (l-r) Lindsay Lohan, Mel Gibson, Paris Hilton, Chris Tucker

Swearing

For a lot of people, swearing is natural response when they are angry, stub their toe or realise they've done their homework wrong (to name a few). In fact, some research has shown that swearing can relieve physical pain as it increases aggression, which in turn helps to block out pain: http://gnews.com/science/Swearing-Relieves-Your-%E2%80%98Effing-Pain-871332738424.html

Yet swearing is still frowned upon, by some people at least. Personally, swearing in itself doesn't bother me at all (and as I do it myself, I'd be a hypocrite if I said it did) although I do find it a bit tedious trying to have a conversation with someone who swears literally every other word or obviously swears to try and show off. Apart from anything, if overused swearing loses its novelty - I think that if it's used to express certain emotions or used just sometimes in an informal way, then this stops the words from losing their meaning, as they do if you use them excessively. This said, I wouldn't swear in front of someone if I knew they didn't like it.

I think that with swearing, whether or not someone is offended depends at least partly on the context. If you swear at someone, they will probably be offended by the way in which you are using the words, not by the words in themselves. Normal words can be used in this way too and I think that sometimes these can actually be more offensive (e.g. calling someone stupid, ugly, useless etc) as these are more personal, compared to swear words which are essentially generic insults used to signify aggression.

Swearing seems to be one of those things that the majority of people do, but which is not approved of in certain situations. It shocks most people to hear children swear, for instance (perhaps because in this case it is something that the child must have heard from adults and are innocently repeating without any understanding of what the word means) and this is the main reason nowadays for censorship of swearing. However, attitudes to swearing have softened considerably over the years; comedian George Carlin faced a court case in 1978 for his "seven dirty words routine", a transcript of which can be found here: http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml

Response to Kavy's Blog: speed dope weed paracetamol and drugs in general

You raise an interesting point about different social attitudes to cannabis and paracetamol (both drugs, both can be used as pain killers). I think this is more to do with stereotypes than logic - some people automatically assume that if someone is smoking weed they are doing it illegally and for pleasure and therefore in their eyes it is "bad" but if they are taking an over-the-counter drug to treat pain it is both legal and safe. In actual fact, even relatively safe drugs like paracetamol have risks - there are about 130 deaths per year from paracetamol overdose and many more non-fatal overdoses (most deliberate, some accidental).

http://www.pharmweb.net/pwmirror/pwy/paracetamol/pharmwebpic9.html

Body Modification

Even in this day and age, there are still people who freak out over tattoos and piercings. I wonder what their reaction would be to Thursday's lecture on body modification which included tongue splitting, nullification, neck rings and suspension.

Personally, I think it's up to the individual what they do to their body - that's not to say that I like some of the things people do to themselves (I can't say I care for extreme body modification or badly done tattoos) but it's their choice and isn't hurting anyone, so it's not my place to judge.

However, if there is no consent involved (such as with foot-binding) then I think it's terrible and people should be stopped from doing it. I also think that if someone has a psychiatric problem, such as an addiction to cosmetic surgery, then it isn't ethical for professionals to just do everything the person wants because they're being paid for it (although the professionals saying no doesn't always stop people: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3439638/Cosmetic-surgery-addict-injected-cooking-oil-into-her-own-face.html).

Body modification, although mainly done for fashion or to signify subculture (e.g. punks, goths, emos) in the West, is closely linked to tribes. The Maoris, for instance, are well-known for their facial tattoos (ta mokos). There is also the issue that tribal body modifications are sometimes adopted by Westerners for fashion purposes (Robbie Williams and Mike Tyson have Maori tattoos) which, unsurprisingly, tribespeople often find insulting. I can understand that because of the way in which the West have often trampled over people in other cultures in the past (such as the practise of collecting severed Maori heads).

People may object to body modification for religious reasons - the argument being that you are altering the body that God gave you, when we are created in God's image. But then, how far does that argument stretch? Does that mean that children born with cleft palates shouldn't have corrective surgery? Or is it more to do with people doing these things for vanity rather than for medical purposes? For the latter argument, I can see where people are coming from in a way - some people have to undergo countless procedures and endure a lot of pain for medical reasons, other people freely choose to do it. But then again, it's their choice to make.

Top 10 physically modified people: http://damncoolpics.blogspot.com/2007/08/top-10-physically-modified-people-in.html

Response to Debbie's Smoking Blog

It's actually refreshing to hear someone admit that they enjoy smoking! I often find that even regular smokers say that they are ashamed of their habit and would like to quit. As a non-smoker I often wonder why people smoke if they don't like it... Perhaps it's the disapproving attitudes of some non-smokers that make them feel they can't admit that they enjoy it, or maybe after they become addicted it's not so much fun any more. Who knows? Either way, it seems a shame - if you're going to smoke, you may as well enjoy it!

Alcohol

Alcohol is the most widely used drug in the world and, when drunk in moderation, can have health benefits such as reducing the risk of heart disease. Drinking responsibly is generally accepted by most people and most concerns over alcohol are connected with problem drinking.

The first type of problem drinking is binge drinking - when someone consumes over half of their recommended units in one session, with the intention of getting drunk. Britain has a reputation for its binge drinking culture, partly because of the behaviour which often comes with it (this includes drink driving, fights, vomiting, one night stands, public urination, etc).

Another type of problem drinking is alcoholism, where someone develops a physical and psychological addiction to alcohol and therefore become dependent on it. Apart from the obvious effects on a person's life, such as problems with work, relationships and potentially developing conditions such as cirrhosis of the liver, it is possible to die from alcohol withdrawal.

Alcohol can have some enjoyable effects, such as making someone feel less inhibited socially, and although some believe it to be more harmful than cannabis and ecstasy, it is one of few legal drugs. However, if used to excess, it quickly becomes unpleasant and dangerous. People should make their own minds up about their alcohol use, but if it gets to the stage where other people start to be affected, then I think this can be considered "bad".

Health info about drinking sensibly: http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/alcohol_abuse.html

Info about health benefits and risks of alcohol: http://www.keepthedoctoraway.co.uk/Articles/Drinking:TheHealthBenefits_391.html

An article about "ladette" binge drinking culture: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039963/Menace-violent-girls-Binge-drinking-culture-fuels-surge-attacks-women.html

Gambling

"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned" - from The Color of Money (1986)

Most people will gamble in some form from time to time, whether they buy a lottery ticket, bet on a horse race or place money on a card game. For the majority of the time it is just taking a small risk with a little bit of extra money that you can afford to lose if things don't go your way - venturing something in the hope of gaining something.

There may be various reasons why people gamble, aside from the obvious desire to win something (and considering that your chances of winning the lottery, for instance, are slimmer than your chances of being in a car accident on your way to buying a ticket, people must gamble for other reasons besides really thinking they will win). A lot of people enjoy taking a risk and find it exciting. There may also be a social aspect involved, as going to a casino or betting on a card game may be an activity enjoyed with friends.

Like most things, however, for a minority of people gambling can develop into an unhealthy addiction which can seriously impact on a person and their family. Although problem gamblers suffer financially, this is not the only effect of the addiction as it can also be detrimental to their psychological wellbeing, relationships and ability to hold down a job. To these people, gambling may be a way of getting away from other problems but they rapidly stop enjoying the activity and do it compulsively. Some argue that in light of this, gambling should be made illegal. I disagree because for one thing, making something illegal doesn't mean that people won't do it, it just means that it will be driven underground. Secondly, many people see gambling as a recreational activity and as something which they can enjoy responsibly. For most, it is harmless fun.

Reasons why people gamble: http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/Top-Reasons-Why-People-are-Tempted-in-Gambling/1012424

Gambling facts, statistics, info on addiction etc: http://www.overcominggambling.com/facts.html

An article arguing for gambling to be made illegal: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/reasons-why-gambling-should-be-illegal.html

Bullying

According to the NSPCC, 31% of children experienced bullying by their peers during childhood, a further 7% were discriminated against and 14% were made to feel different or "like an outsider". 43% experienced at least one of these things during childhood. Bullying is known to have long-term effects on an individual, including putting them at greater risk for depression, low self esteem and social withdrawal. At least 16 children a year in the UK commit suicide because of bullying. There is workplace bullying, cyber bullying, racist bullying, homophobic bullying and various other types. But the real question is, why do so many people carry on doing it?

A common answer is that the bully is a victim themself and deals with it by taking on the role of the aggressor (although if you know how much something hurts when it's done to you, why choose to do that to someone else?!). Another explanation is that bullies pick on people who are different in some way, whether that be for appearance (e.g. weight), behaviour (e.g. shyness) or situation (e.g. coming from a poor family). Jealousy is also often a factor, with some people being targeted for being clever, pretty or successful. The most common theme, however, is that bullies are cowards and tend to victimise people who, for whatever reason, they don't believe will do anything to them in return.

Personally though, I think that a lot of bullies don't believe that they are doing anything wrong. In fact, they usually place the blame onto their victim, saying that they are being oversensitive, taking it too seriously or that it's their fault for being different. These things are all very easy to say when they are not the ones having the bullying done to them, but sadly I think that most perpetrators delude themselves into thinking that what they're doing isn't that bad and that they're just "having a laugh".

Some cases of young people who have taken their own lives because of bullying: http://www.jaredstory.com/bully.html

An article about successful people who were bullied at school: http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-10-celebrities-who-were-bullied/

NSPCC's statistics on bullying: http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/statistics/bullying_statistics_wda48744.html

Some information about workplace bullying: http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/workplace-bullying.html

Infidelity

"Physical infidelity is the signal, the notice given, that all fidelities are undermined" - Katherine Anne Porter

My biggest objection to infidelity isn't that I think we should be monogamous, necessarily, it's the fact that it can do so much harm to people. If both partners agree to an open relationship, all well and good - but if one person is faithful and expects the same from their partner, I feel it is wrong to hurt and humiliate them by cheating. There is also the fact to consider that it is often not just the partner who is hurt by infidelity, but also wider circles of family and friends, offspring and sometimes the "other" man or woman, if they have also been lied to.

It is debatable, it seems, as to what constitutes adultery. Personally, I think that cheating does not necessarily have to be physical. Although feeling attracted to other people whilst in a relationship can be innocent (such as crushes on celebrities, for instance), if it turns into love I think this is still being unfaithful, even if there is no physical cheating.

There also seems to be a gender debate, as to whether it is mainly men who cheat (or maybe it is just that more men are caught?). I see it as more a question of personality as to whether someone cheats or not, rather than gender.

Here is an article about female celebrities who have cheated on their partners: http://celebrity.aol.co.uk/2010/02/19/cheating-celeb-women/

And another discussing why women cheat: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-305635/Were-born-stray.html

Perhaps it is the fact that infidelity often entails many aspects of bad behaviour which makes some people so against it. To name a few, it can involve lying, greed, disloyalty, promiscuity and selfishness. However, clearly not everyone feels that it is "being bad" as some companies are prepared to give adulterers credible alibis to pacify their concerned partners: http://www.alibinetwork.com/index.jsp?kid=1d70116481faf00a9ee356752f0d9868baaa6435

Bandits and Outlaws

Perhaps the reason that a lot of people love outlaws is because they are exciting, because they are so adventurous and because people are fascinated by anyone who dares to live a life so different from the mundane norm.

Jesse James was a folk hero to many, despite the fact that he has been described by historians as a ruthless, cold-blooded killer and was undoubtedly a white supremacist with firm pro-slavery political views. Some might argue that James was a Robin Hood figure, someone who stood up for the poor against the rich, committing crimes according to his own political agenda. However, the particular beliefs he held I cannot empathise with at all.

With many outlaws, it is difficult to separate myth from fact. This is true even with one of the earliest and most famous outlaws, Robin Hood. There are various theories as to why he become an outlaw and whether or not he actually gave what he stole to the poor. Either way, it seems that the image people have of outlaws and bandits is more romanticised than the historical accuracy of their lives, maybe because people admire their exciting lifestyle but feel they can only identify with the actual person if they can see them in an honourable light.

The public reaction to the government's initial reluctance to release the now elderly and terminally ill Ronnie Biggs (infamous for the Great Train Robbery of 1963) shows that the public are still intrigued by outlaws. In actual fact, Biggs' crime seems pretty tame in comparison to other criminals such as John Dillinger, Ned Kelly and others who thought little of killing people who got in their way (one man was injured by one of Biggs' party and later died, apart from that the crime was financial and Biggs was not the perpetrator of the violence).

I'll admit that I'm fascinated by the subject of outlaws and bandits. If an outlaw commits purely financial crimes, I can understand the argument that they are standing up to the powerful in society, what bothers me is when they ruthlessly take human life for the sake of gaining money.

An article about Ronnie Biggs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/07/ronnie-biggs-profile

Some lesser-known outlaws: http://www.oddee.com/item_96687.aspx

Info about Jesse James: http://www.legendsofamerica.com/WE-JesseJames.html

Drugs

The term I use in the title is a loose one. What exactly is meant by drugs? Most people take drugs of some sort - painkillers, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine... but for the purposes of this entry, "drugs" can be taken to mean illegal substances.

There are a number of reasons why people take drugs, the most frequently cited one being for pleasure, to experiment and gain new experiences or to rebel against the system for making the substances illegal in the first place. Other reasons may include searching for mystical experiences (many hallucinogens such as LSD, magic mushrooms and DMT have been known to produce such effects) or to ease pain with, for instance, medical cannabis.

Either way, there is a strong case for the legalisation of drugs. Apart from the fact that there are no real differences between illegal and legal intoxicants, except that the government make money from the latter but not the former, making something illegal isn't going to stop people from doing it. In fact, it might be one of the reasons some people do want to do it. If drugs were legal, this would also reduce the risk of people being harmed by impurities in the drugs and by unscrupulous dealers because they would be produced free from contamination and the sale of drugs would no longer be "underground".

It also seems that people have a tendency to ignore any possible benefits of substances purely on the grounds that they are illegal - cannabis is often used to reduce pain in conditions such as MS and can ease the effects of chemotherapy. Some people also assume that prescription medication, alcohol and cigarettes must be safer than illegal drugs, whereas this might not necessarily be true...

An article suggesting that ecstasy is safer than alcohol and cigarettes: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1555582.ece

A report on magic mushrooms and mystical experiences: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/magic-mushrooms-can-induce-mystical-effects-study-finds-407475.html

The debate about medical cannabis: http://www.release.org.uk/campaigns/current-campaigns/medical-cannabis