Bowling For Soup video

Bowling For Soup Video!!

Comment on Violent Video Games by Kate

http://katenicola89-kate.blogspot.com/

Although I think that video games can be impressionable on young people I think that the majority of people who play them understand that they are just games and shouldn’t be carried out in real life. I think that blaming video games when people carry out violent attacks is just an easy way of putting the blame on something when society should be examined. I have played video games such as Grand Theft Auto since I was about twelve but I have never considered having a police chase or running down pedestrians in a car and I doubt that many other players have too.

Littering

Littering is really easy, it's actually throwing away things in a bin that's hard, first you have to carry the litter with you until you find a bin, then throw it inside, sounds easy but there are so many people that just drop litter without thinking of others.

I remember in junior school we would have constant assemblies on the issue of litter, the headmaster would yell at everyone to "throw their crisp packets in the bin" and maybe for that reason I hate littering, in fact I find it hard to make myself litter, it just doesn't come naturally at all, even today I carried an empty sandwich wrapper for ages until I found a bin.

I think that littering is what lazy people do, they just can't be bothered to wait a couple of minutes to find a bin. I remember being shocked that one of my friends dropped a sweet wrapper on the floor when she was stood right next to a bin, at the time I didn't know how to react, I didn't want to say anything and risk looking pathetic, but then again leaving it on the floor seemed to go against everything I believe. In the end I think I just called her a litterbug and this made her feel guilty enough to pick it up. I think that's probably the answer, guilttripping people into picking up litter, they know it's wrong, everyone does.

Although sometimes it is easier just to throw something on the ground, I mean they pay people to clean things up, right? Also it's not really a crime, more of a minor bad deed, and why not do it? It's the equivalent of speeding, not too much of a big thing.

And then it's how you define littering, is it dropping the plastic cup on the floor at a gig? Or what if a straw wrapper flies from your hands and falls on the floor. Would you walk back to pick something so insignificant up off of the floor? I don't think that I would. But now there are fines if you are caught littering, maybe a fine would make you change your mind.



References
http://www.redcar-cleveland.gov.uk/Recyclin.nsf/WebFullList/6C69D3C81CF266B080256ECF003465D3?OpenDocument

http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/core.nsf/a/litteringhttp:/

www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/skegness/news/75-fine-smokers-don-t-bin-cigarette-butts/article-964776-detail/article.html

Comment on MPS' Should they have expenses?

http://being-naughty.blogspot.com/

I totally agree with this, I think that there are so many overworked and underpaid people and children who are living in poverty who could do with the money way more than the MP’s who probably earn enough in the first place. The Politian’s are just following the rules yet they knew that they could be exploited and didn’t say anything. These are the people who we are supposed to look up to and respect, yet they have been taking taxpayers money for years.

Comment on Equal pay for women by Lynz

http://lynz2704.blogspot.com/2009/04/equal-pay-for-women.html

I totally agree with everything said, women should be paid equally to men, especially if they are doing the same job. We live in a society where we are all tolerant of peoples differences but we still can’t give total equality to women? It’s stupid that there is such a big difference, it’s as though we are saying women aren’t as of equal value. They are apparently going to publish the pay gap soon but companies are saying that making sure men and women are paid equally might stop the economy becoming stable quicker. In my opinion I think that the new economy should be built on fairness and equality not on treating women as lower beings.

Comment on Blog on G20 summit by Daryl

http://bom-bom12.blogspot.com/

I know that the police have a job to do and can’t be expected not to use force when combating criminals, but in the case of the G20 protests I think that there were various occasions where the police used excess force without and provocation. I get that people would be mad if the police wasn’t allowed to use physical force but they should be there to serve the people not to harm them.

Bad Comedians

I think the thing with comedy is that it can divide opinions so much, something which is funny now might not be in five or ten years time.. It reflects social situations and observations, some things will always be true but others only for a short time, society moves on so quickly and comedy has to keep up

I think the thing with comedy and jokes is that people feel that they can allow things such as sexism and racism to be acceptable without any feel of reprieve. There are so many “blonde” jokes that actually are offensive to women but because they are supposed to be funny people can get away with. The thing with jokes is that they a way of making you feel superior to others. There are millions of Irish man jokes, Blonde jokes, and various ones about other stereotypes. All a way of letting the joke tellers/listeners look down on the person in the joke, in a way it’s making yourself feel superior to them, who wouldn’t enjoy that?

I think that the thing with jokes is knowing how far to go. Although playing on stereotypes can be funny they can also be deeply offensive to people and can cause a lot pain and hurt, especially as it enforces usually negative stereotypes. Most of the time people don’t take them too seriously and a joke is just a joke, but they can extend the longitude of social prejudices. If people think it’s funny to insult women and talk about them as inferior then that view will stick longer.

In the end there will always be jokes which play on stereotypes and that will offend some people, but to be honest there isn’t anything that won’t offend at least one person. Jokes can be funny but sometimes when they show out of date reflections of society they usually fall flat.

Reference
http://www.bananasinpyjamas.com/news/stories/2008/07/31/2319872.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3454319/Dead-Parrot-sketch-is-1600-years-old.html

Alcohol

Alcohol is one of those things which divides people, some people think that it's great to go out every weekend and get totally paralytically drunk, others think that the people who do are binge drinkers and are irresponsible.

Obviously people dislike the effects of alcohol. Getting drunk can be really fun, I don't think that anyone disagrees that it makes you more confident and suddenly everything is a lot more fun. But I suppose people have issue when people drink too much and then get ill or violent. I don't think that necessarily alcohol is the bad thing, more the person who drinks.

Some people think that getting drunk itself is a bad thing, but I differ. It can be really fun. It's almost as though it takes you away from the real world. Maybe the world is so crushing that you need to escape. It's the same as with drugs, they take you away from the real world, from your life, suddenly your life feels better, you aren't worrying about the "real world" you're having fun.

It's not all good though, alcohol can make you really ill. Which I think most people realise at some point in their life. There is also issues with young people causing crime, but I think that the majority of teenagers drinking White Lightening in the park are just hanging out, as with most things the minority spoil it for the majority.

There was a debate recently whether children under the age of eighteen should be able to drink, the guardian recently reported that 80% of people aged 15-17 had drank alcohol at a friends house. The fact was treated with outrage, but really is it that bad, I mean what does a drink of alcohol mean? I would bet that they probably didn't down an entire keg of beer or several bottles of absinthe, most probably a Barcardi Breezer or two. To be honest I drank at a friends house when I was about fifteen, just a couple of WKD's, is that so terrible? Did it make me a terrible person? No. I think that if children were introduced to alcohol at a younger age then they would be less likely to abuse it, if you are allowed to drink it at home you wouldn't be trying to buy cheap cider to pass around in the park.

Maybe if the government feels that young people are drinking too much then they should think about the reasons why. Kids are put under so much pressure, there are constant exams, the expectation to fit in, the fragility of the future, the government should try to make the lives of young people better and then maybe they wouldn't turn to alcohol as a form of escapism.



References
http://www.guardian.co.uk/alcoholandyoungpeople/alcohol-culture
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/29/alcohol-young-people-drinkaware

Comment on Blog on G20 summit by Daryl

http://bom-bom12.blogspot.com/

I know that the police have a job to do and can’t be expected not to use force when combating criminals, but in the case of the G20 protests I think that there were various occasions where the police used excess force without and provocation. I get that people would be mad if the police wasn’t allowed to use physical force but they should be there to serve the people not to harm them.

Drink Driving

There are some things which I think are really bad and drink driving is one of them. I have a friend who said to me the other week that there’s nothing wrong with drink driving as long as you concentrate more, but my opinion differs. It’s probably because I’m still learning how to drive, but it’s hard enough the way it is, there’s so much to concentrate on, so much you have to do, and it’s not just you you have to pay attention to it’s other people. So I imagine that it must be very difficult trying to do all these things after drinking.

I think that drink driving is very irresponsible, if you’re old enough to be able to drive then surely you are old enough to know the dangers that drink driving can cause. There are loads of adverts on TV about it, but I think that they you can become desensitised to them if they are on all the time. The reality is that if you drive drunk you are more likely to be a danger on the roads and actually kill someone. Before anyone even thinks about drink driving then they should think about the consequences it might cause, they themselves could die, and if they don’t care about themselves then maybe they might kill a child.

I think that sometimes the confusion about drink driving can lie with the amount you are actually allowed to drink and still drive. And the amount differs from person to person depending on their height, weight etc. I think that they should have a blanket ban on drinking alcohol and driving, but then there’s people who drink the night before and then drive the next morning. How can you really tell whether who are still okay to drive? Maybe the government should give out breath-testers to every motorist so that they can see themselves whether they are over the limit, I suppose that that would cost more than the government would like to spend. Perhaps the people who drink drive will do it anyway no matter how much money is spent on trying to prevent it.

References
http://www.thesite.org/drinkanddrugs/askthesiteqandas/drinkanddrugsqands/onetoomany

Comment on Blog on Prostitution by Adam Windmill

http://kwalatwa.blogspot.com/2009/02/blog-on-prostitution.html

The views in this blog are very similar to my own, if someone gives someone money for sex then it should be classed as prostitution. Prostitution itself is pretty much a business transaction where money is exchanged for a service, if money is given but no service is received then it is classed as stealing, only if the person given the money knows what it’s for. It’s when things which aren’t money are given is when the confusion occurs, such as if a man buys a girl drinks at a bar, expecting sex, and doesn’t get it, is that classed as stealing too?

Duvet Days

I think that there have been times when everyone just wanted to go back to sleep and not get up for another day of working or school, but some companies have a thing called a “Duvet Day.”
From what I’ve heard everyone gets one day a year and they can phone in and say “I don’t wanna get out of bed” or something and that’s fine.

To be honest I think that it seems like a great idea, at the time I first heard about this I was on the bus to work, I had been up from six and waited about half an hour in the rain for the bus to turn up, I could’ve really done with a “duvet day.” Although it’s not really feasible for every kind of job, for example at the place I was working it was so understaffed that if even one person hadn’t come in it would’ve thrown the whole place into turmoil. And also there are a lot of other people who have very important jobs like teachers, what would happen if they just decided not to come in? They would be jeopardising the child’s education, I guess that’s why duvet days are only allowed to office workers who’s jobs aren’t of critical importance.

I think that maybe they are a good thing, it raises moral and gives the employee some choice. They can choose not to come in, it’s like a way to rebel against authority without getting in trouble, you can watch “This Morning” and “Diagnosis Murder” without the pressure of getting a sick note, what could be better?

References
http://www.duvetday.org/

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/career_and_jobs/article2041469.ece

Comment on Euthanasia- Whose Desicion Should It Be?

http://dantesinferno64.blogspot.com/2009/04/euthanasia-whose-decision-should-it-be.html

I agree with the points made. Although I’m not particularly religious like most people I don’t believe in killings but I think that when a patient is terminally ill and wishes for their suffering to be ended exceptions should be made. I know that if euthanasia was legalised their would be issues about whether people would take advantage of it, such as people convincing their elderly parents that they should have euthanasia in order to get their inheritance. In the end though I think that if euthanasia was legalised there would be a lot less needless suffering in the world.

Procrastination

I think that this is one being bad thing that we all do. I mean I did it when beginning this blog, I thought I’ll make an entry tomorrow, I’ll make an entry tomorrow and then I figured that I’d better start now or never. I tend to do this about a lot of things, studying, assignments, getting ready to go out, I always seem to wait until the last minute and then have to do a whole load of work all in one day, I think that everyone’s pulled an all nighter studying at some point.

There are some people who say that the ability to procrastinate is what makes us human, animals don’t seem to do it, if they need something doing that just go ahead and do it straight away. And maybe it is a human trait, I guess if we have mental superiority to other animals then was also have the ability to chose not to use them, even though we know we need to. It’s similar to most people in the mornings, they hit the snooze button several times before actually getting out of bed, then just wait around waiting to press it again, knowing that they will be in a massive rush the more they press it, but maybe staying in bed is always more attractive than actually getting up. Maybe procrastination is better than actually doing stuff.

There are many websites on procrastination, most claim how to cure it, and offer really expensive self-help books, which probably aren’t all that helpful. I find that the most effective way of avoiding procrastinating is to make a “to-do list”. Okay, it won’t make you actually do whatever, but it will give you a sense of what actually needs doing. Everything I procrastinate on always seems to get done in the end, maybe your body has some kind of anti-procrastination thing which activates when you seriously need to do something, especially if there is a time constraint.

There are probably many other factors which cause procrastination, maybe you don’t want to get ready because you can’t face seeing someone, or don’t do work because you have no idea what you’re doing. I guess that mostly people worry so much about actually doing something that by putting it off it actually makes it a lot worse. In the end the way to stop worrying is just to motivate yourself into doing it, besides you always feel better after it’s over.



References
http://www.paulgraham.com/procrastination.html
http://sas.calpoly.edu/asc/ssl/procrastination.html
http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/procrastination.html

Comment on Body Modification by Sabrina

http://sabrina-chander.blogspot.com/

I don’t agree with all of the things but some of them. I don’t have that many piercings myself or tattoos but I don’t think that body modification is harming the body that much. For many years people from all different cultures have been modifying their body in some ways and it seems to be normal in every culture throughout the world. I suppose it depends on whether you see body modification as a way of expressing yourself or a way of hurting yourself.

My Super Sweet Sixteen

The thing that annoys me most about this show is not that the kids want an amazing birthday party (who wouldn’t?) it’s that they are so spoiled and don’t even know the true value of things. They spend the time demanding things, going into a store like Louis Vuitton and pointing out items that they want and then insisting that they get them NOW, and the strange thing is that the parents don’t see anything wrong in their child’s behaviour, my parents would have issue if I went into Poundland and began demanding things let alone a designer store.
I suppose that I’m probably jealous in some ways that these rich kids have more than me, they will have an amazing birthday party with everything that they ever wanted and all I had was a trip to the cinema with a couple of friends. I think that maybe if my parents had had the money I might’ve been like those kids and had the best, but I didn’t and I’m not sure whether that’s made me a better person, and more appreciative or bitter and twisted towards those kids who do, all I know that it’s my mission in life to make sure my children don’t end up a tiny bit like those on TV.



References
http://www.mtv.com/ontv/dyn/sweet_16/series.jhtml

Comment on Alcohol- Best Friend or Silent Killer by Magda

http://magda-overthehillsandfaraway.blogspot.com/

Although I do agree with some of the things in the blog I think that sometimes alcohol in moderation can be okay and keep you relaxed and more socialable. It’s only when people can’t control themselves and get really drunk or violent when problems arise. Most people can handle a drink and enjoy it, it’s just a few people who give it a bad name.

File Sharing

File Sharing
I probably covered some of this in my “shoplifting” blog but anyway. The other day some people who ran a big file sharing site were put in jail for a year
and probably technically what they were doing was illegal, but is morally wrong?
Okay, however rich you are no one likes to be robbed, and in theory file sharing is stealing money from the artists and movie stars; whenever you download something for free someone doesn’t get an extra pound or whatever, I don’t know. As the advert on video piracy says “you wouldn’t steal a car,” which is probably true, I wouldn’t steal a car, but it’s a totally different thing, and in a way by overcharging consumers for years the music/movie industry has been stealing from us.
I think that everyone would be a lot more sympathetic if the people who are allegedly being “stolen from” were a lot less rich already. I’ve lost count of the amount of mansions on the MTV show “Cribs” that pop stars have, they show everyone around their “collection of classic cars” or their wardrobe full of designer clothes which is bigger than my house. I think if they didn’t have so much money then we would feel better about giving them out hard earned cash. Why should we give our money which we have actually worked for, to a millionaire who doesn’t need it?
I think that really what the music industry is scared of is that their artists will have to actually work on tours and decent songs before people will buy them. They know that they have been churning out commercial songs which pretty much all sound the same for years and now maybe people want things with more substance before they will purchase them. Although I think there’s a difference between downloading songs for free from some major label band and taking for free from a smaller band who are still trying to make their way.
Despite saying this I actually don’t use file sharing sites because of viruses and that, I pay for the music/movies that I get from iTunes, although recently iTunes have increased the prices of one of their tracks from 79p to 99p, and even though it’s not actually that much of an increase I doubt that it’s doing anything to convince people not to use file sharing sites.

Mariah Carey on Cribs


A Song about file sharing


References
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2009/04/090417_pirate_bay_nh_sl.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/08/amazon-itunes-music-downlads-mp3

Being tight...

Everyone knows someone who is mean with money and nowadays everyone is more careful when spending, but there are some people who will do this to the extreme, and not just with money.
I sometimes feel like this, like when I walk past a homeless person in the street and don’t give any money or refuse to sign up to one of those charity things when someone stops me in the street. I probably could afford to give some money, but don’t. Probably because I don’t feel like I have enough money to be able to give any to someone who I don’t know. May be that’s the feelings of everyone else too. And there are situations when you can’t help but take advantage of people, like when someone insists on buying you a drink, you try to say no but they want to and then you have to accept to be nice, but that’s different, right?
There’s this guy I know who charges his girlfriend when he gives her a lift places in his car, even if it’s to his house, in my opinion that’s pretty mean, if I were her I’d probably just get the bus, it’s much cheaper. But that’s an extreme, there are some people who always seem not to have any money and expect someone to be there to buy things for them, like drinks or taxis or food, they are the kind of people that when you buy them a massive box of chocolates only offer them round once or not at all.
But then there is a certain satisfaction you must get from knowing that you managed to have a night out for no money at all; you must be able to look at your bank balance going up happy that you have taken so much for free. There is something nice about getting something for free, although I hate taking advantage of people, especially when they have less money than I do. It always seems to be the people who are the most well off that hate spending their money, I guess that they have just mastered the art of taking off of everyone else.

References
http://beingfrugal.net/2008/04/03/frugal-tips-to-survive-a-recession/

Comment on Jade Goody’s Death Circus by missdemeanor69

http://missdemeanor69.blogspot.com/2009/03/jade-goodys-death-circus.html

It’s true that the papers have totally done a U-turn when it comes to their coverage of Jade Goody. I remember studying for Media in school and we looked at newspapers which called her a “vile bigot.” Pretty much everyone had a low opinion of her and then just because she got ill she was regarded as a hero. Although I don’t think that the magazines such as OK are that much at fault, even though the whole thing is a little sick, they want to make a profit and she was willing to sell photos of her wedding, Christening etc. to look after he children, they were just supplying for the demand. I think it’s the people who brought the magazines who need to look at themselves and ask why they need to intrude on the last days of a woman’s life.

Abortion

With “pregnancy advisory services” soon to be allowed to advertise on TV the issue of abortion and its morality has once been raised. It is feared by some that by advertising on TV abortions will look more like a method of birth control rather than a massive decision.
In a perfect world all pregnancy’s would be planned and all children would be born into happy families who would love and care for them. Sadly this is not the case and women do become pregnant who do not want to keep the child. If abortions were banned then mothers who didn’t want a child would be forced to give birth to and raise an unwanted child; is this fair for the child?
I can see why people disagree with abortions, it’s like you’ve created a life and then can casually get rid of it, this couldn’t be done as soon as the child is born because then it’s murder; it’s strange. I suppose it depends on how we view “human life,” and whether you believe it begins at conception, at birth or somewhere in between. Religions have many different views on this, some Roman Catholics think that ensoulment, when a foetus becomes a “person,” happens at conception, Pope John Paul 2 wrote a letter named “Evangelium Vitae” where he discussed the “scared value of human life from its very beginning.” Some Muslims believe that ensoulment occurs at conception whereas others believe that it takes anywhere from 40 to 120 days.
Although there is something that is often neglected when people talk about abortion, the fathers view. It is often accepted that it’s totally the mothers choice of whether to have an abortion or not, after all it is her body. Armin A. Brott said “A woman can legally deprive a man of his right to become a parent or force him to become one against his will.” And I guess that it’s true, no one seems to care about any issues that the father will have after the child is aborted, will he be scarred mentally after his child is aborted? I guess that the main worry of allowing men to have a say about abortions is that some would force women into having an abortion or would be allowed to force the woman into keeping the child. With this issue there is no straight forward answer.
Personally I agree that women should have the choice of having an abortion if they wish. This is probably because I don’t follow a religion and so am not influenced by religious views. I think that as long as it’s done within a certain amount of time during the pregnancy so that the foetus is not adequately formed it is okay. I think that many of the people who oppose abortions have never been in the situation where they have considered having one. In most cases the decision to have an abortion is not taken lightly and is done for reasons in the best interests of the child as well as the mother.

References
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7992482.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
http://www.epigee.org/guide/islamic.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/legal/fathers.shtml

Comment on Cosmetic Surgery, Body Modification by Marjebb

http://margjebb.blogspot.com/2009/04/cosmetic-surgery-body-modification.html

I agree with some of the points in this blog; I think that it would probably be better if we did have a society where people weren’t as obsessed with looks as we are now but personally I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with people having surgery if they will feel “better” if they have it done. To be honest I would like to have a few things fixed with plastic surgery but sadly I don’t have the money and I think that once I’d had it done I would focus on my other imperfections. I guess the thing about plastic surgery is that it’s addictive and you have to know where to stop.

Bad Behaviour In Kids

I went to an all-girls school in a not particularly bad area of Birmingham, but the behaviour of some of the pupils was very bad, not just very bad, extremely bad, the police were called to the school pretty much every day, there were fights, bullying, drug taking, an instance when a pupil stabbed a dinner lady and more; this wasn’t actually the worst school in the area, my friend attended one where there were two police officers dedicated just to tackling crime in the one school!
Although the behaviour was bad, so was the teaching, okay there was the odd teacher who was passionate about the subject but the majority seemed to hate their job, which made the pupils hate the subject. The teachers would leave the class waiting in the corridor for around half an hour, eventually turn up and then tell us to copy out of textbooks for the majority of the time. There were pathetic rules, such as doors you could go out of but not come in or that only teachers could use, you could only use the toilets for half an hour of lunchtime, which seems okay, but there were around two thousand girls and only around two toilets worked, you had to eat in the rain and snow, the uniform was terrible, in a way I could understand why uniform is necessary if it’s smart etc. ours wasn’t at all and cost so much a jumper was about fifty pounds, this isn’t everything that was wrong with my school and when you look at it you can tell why pupils behave badly, not to the extreme as some of them did, but I think that people seriously need to take a look at what is going on inside schools, and not just from the teachers point of view.
I know that the things in this blog probably sound petty and as pupils we should have put up with them without complaint and be lucky that we even have an education but I think that the media are very quick to criminalise children and never look at the other issues. Usually if you are treated like an adult you will behave like one and I think that this is where a lot of schools go wrong.

References
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6083162.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6005346.ece

Education News

Comment on Children’s TV Adverts by TinkerBelle88

http://tinkerbelle88.blogspot.com/

I agree totally with this blog, there are too many adverts using children and “pester power” to make parents buy their products. The TV companies know what they are doing by placing them there, and what they neglect to mention is usually several other toys need to be purchased to make the product as fun as it looks on TV. Usually the toy is linked to a TV show, expensive and doesn’t work very well the second it comes out of the box. I know that adverts are necessary to fund the channels but I think that there needs to be some regulation to stop companies using children as unknowing pawns in there bid to make massive profits.

Jade Goody

It’s a few weeks now since Jade Goody’s death and the media coverage is pretty much nonexistent; it’s as though she has been forgotten as quickly as she gained fame, which is strange as just a couple of months ago she was all over the news, you couldn’t go turn on any channel without a story about her being on the air. It was as though the media were waiting anxiously for her death, “OK magazine” bringing out a “tribute edition” before she had even died. The way that her death was being publicised as some kind of great event just shows us the voyeuristic attitude of newspapers and their readers today. Do people really want to see pictures of a dying woman in their newspapers everyday?
I know that a lot of people hated Jade Goody, they thought of her as an unnecessary celebrity, and her “racist” behaviour to Shilpa Shetty in Celebrity Big Brother didn’t help her image; but she was still a young woman who died leaving behind two young sons who will have to grow up without their mom. I think that the main reason why people disliked her is because they thought that they were somehow better than her; she was poor, came from an estate and lacked a great education. This was the view of her seen by Michael Parkinson
, he said after her death “Jade Goody…is…a woman who came to represent all that's paltry and wretched about Britain today. She was brought up on a sink estate, as a child came to know both drugs and crime, was barely educated, ignorant and puerile.” (Source )
I guess this annoys me as he seems to be looking down on the lower class people; since when did wealth and education equal worth? So I guess what he’s saying is that if you don’t come from great beginnings and don’t get the best education you are “wretched”. Is being a good person and caring for your family not worth anything if you aren’t educated?
The issue of “being bad” here lies mostly with the press, not just as she was dying but throughout her entire career in the media. Almost every aspect of her life has been publicised, beginning with Big Brother, “Jade’s Salon,” “Just Jade” and probably a whole lot more which I don’t know about, and people have watched her rises and falls, and enjoyed seeing it. Even though she and her family have made an incredible amount of money from her exploits and then her death I think the voyeurism and money-making in the media went too far and even the most watched people in the world deserve privacy and dignity at some points in their life.

References
http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/celebrity/PhotoGalleries/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=15897099&imageindex=1

http://parkinson.itv.com/

Swearing

People seem to make a big deal of people swearing, but I think how can something which is just a word be so bad? Sometimes it’s very necessary to swear, I think that most people have, even if it’s just in your mind when put in a terrible situation, or if you stub your toe.

References
http://www.sindhtoday.net/world/82982.htm
11 Year Olds get Swearing lesson

Jeremy Kyle Show, Trisha, etc

Another "bad" tv show is "The Jeremy Kyle Show", it's a talk show which many people are familiar with, basically people humiliate themselves on a stage for about fifteen minutes, then are sent away to get "help", get a lie detector test or more popularly a DNA test.
It's not that I don't enjoy watching the show, I mean to be honest I've watched a lot more of the episodes than anyone I know, there's something strangely addicting about watching pregnant teenagers not knowing who the father of their child is whilst yelled at by a middle class, middle aged man to "get a job" or "stop having unprotected sex" or whatever, but the whole premise of the show is...seedy? I don't know, it was described as a judge as "human bear baiting" and I agree to an extent. Of course getting people who are drug addicts and alcoholics to come on to a stage and confront people they hate will result in violence, everybody knows it, but that's the appeal of the show. Although in the end it exploits the poorest members of society, teenagers who can't afford a DNA test are paraded in front of an audience and ridiculed as entertainment. Is this the kind of television that we should encourage? It's bad but I would miss it if it were gone.






References
The Jeremy Kyle Show
Trisha Goddard
Judge condemning Jeremy Kyle
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/sep/24/television

Quiz Call

There's this show on "Channel 5" at about midnight which I think is an example of "bad behaviour." Okay, it's not like anyone is physically getting hurt, but still vulnerable people can be exploited. It's called "Quiz Call". Basically the aim is for people to come up with seemingly straight forward answers to questions and phone in to win a cash prize. All sounds quite easy and okay, until you realise that the calls are over a pound a minute and they probably take like one call every five minutes. It says in the corner who many people have attempted to enter in the last minute, sometimes it's around 250, that's £250 that they've made from not connecting any calls. Even if you are one of the lucky ones who get through the answers are usually so ridiculous and obscure no one would ever think of them such as the answers in this video
The show itself is quite addicting to watch and I guess it's not the producers fault if people waste a lot of money phoning in, but the way the presenters talk to the viewers it's as though no one is trying to call, there are constant countdowns to put pressure on people to phone and the obscurity of the answers can be quite funny to watch if you stay up until 4 am, but in the end the show is exploiting vulnerable people and is just a cash cow for Channel 5.

References
http://www.quizcall.co.uk/
http://www.quizcall.co.uk/">Quiz call

Tattoos

I don’t understand why tattoos are really considered “being bad” just a form of expressing yourself, if tattoos are considered “bad” why not a t-shirt or coat? Tattoos can be covered up easier than a coat anyway.
A couple of days ago I went with one of my friends when she had her tattoo done, it took a couple of hours and I had to stand for ages as there were no spare chairs but in the end it looked amazing. All of the tattoo artists all had lots of tattoos, and I felt kind of inadequate with none, I was thinking that I should get one whilst I was there as it all seemed so normal, I felt as though I was missing out on something, I was so plain compared to their art. Maybe that’s the reason why people get them done, to turn their body into a work of art. It’s a few days later now and the rational part of my brain is saying that I should think a lot before I actually decide to get a tattoo done. Just as we were leaving a girl I vaguely knew from school came in and showed the tattoo artist a tattoo she had had done somewhere else a week previously, it was only small but had become infected. She said that she had had it done whilst drunk, but the tattoo artist had been drunk and stoned also. If anything the bad behaviour in this case is from the actual person doing the tattoos.
I think that once in the past maybe tattoos were a working class thing which maybe was vilified because of that, but now even the most famous film stars have them and show them off. I think that they have gone from being “bad” to being desirable. As long as they are done by someone reputable.

References
http://www.tattoos-by-design.co.uk/

Lying

Everybody lies. I know that it’s a massive generalisation but I think that it’s true. Even a “white lie” is still a lie despite the fact that it might be for good rather than evil.
There is a lot to be said about lying from philosophers. Kant argued that lying is never acceptable and that you should always tell the truth or the world would descend into chaos. He said that if a murderer came to your door asking the whereabouts of your husband or child, as he wanted to kill them, and you knew where they were you shouldn’t lie to save their lives you should tell the truth. Kant said that you shouldn’t allow someone else to make you lie.
The “murderer at the door” dilemma is one that most people probably will never face, but it does show us that even if we say we would never lie, we most probably would when put in the situation.

References
http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/immanuel-kant-and-the-supposed-right-to-lie-to-murderers-from-benevolence/

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21110828/

Arguing

I don't know how it even started but I just had an argument . Right now I feel kinda bad and annoyed because their points were flawed and wrong, but the most annoying thing was that they thought that they were right. I guess arguing has its advantages, you can say mean things that you actually mean in the heat of the moment, but can say that you don't really mean them, you can totally change the argument so it's about something else entirely which you want to bring up, erm , can't really think of anything else which is good, in the end they make you angry and frustrated, especially if it keeps going round and round and the person you've been arguing with forgets that you actually resolved the previous point, or if they're drunk.

References
http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/couples/comm_arguingabout.shtml

Bandits

It’s kind of strange how people latch on to people who are breaking the law and hail them as heroes, whereas other law breakers are condemned. Obvious examples talked about in the lecture were Robin Hood and Jesse James, but they are very old examples now, I got thinking whether there were any modern day “bandits” and I could only think of one. There was a 69 year old woman who refused to pay council tax as her area hadn’t been cleaned up by the council.
In a way she was robbing from the council, but it was to make a point and I guess that that made her a hero for the normal person. She actually ended up going to prison for refusing to pay, and in the end probably cost the council more than the £800 that they wanted from her.
References
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/5115104.stm

Bad Cinema

I’ve read a lot of the other blogs people have written on the film“Kids” and I think that people need to understand that it’s only a movie. I know it’s showing children behaving badly, doing stuff that people their age shouldn’t be doing, and although nowadays there is an issue with alcohol I doubt that anyone goes to the extremities that they do in the film.
I think that the most shocking part was their age, they were supposed to be around thirteen, fourteen, maybe, I’m not sure of their exact age, but too young to be drinking and having sex. The thing is with age it’s very easy to look down on teenagers and say that they are too young, but to be honest at that age personally I didn’t feel young, just as right now at twenty I don’t feel young, but I guess in ten years time I will look back on myself now and marvel at my naiveties. I guess that at that age you’re young but without realising it.
You must also look at the context of the film. It was in the 90’s and the AID’s issue was still quite prevalent. I guess that it highlights the issue in a very extreme way. I don’t know how many young teenagers have contracted AID’s from having unprotected sex but I guess it isn’t a major problem. In the end I think that it was saying that no matter who you are you should use protection or abstain entirely. The girl who contracted AID’s was the more “innocent” one and the one who you could relate to most. I suppose that it gives the message that no matter who you are you are not immune; it’s almost scary in a way.

References
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113540/

Masturbation

Masturbation is a taboo subject as sex in general was many years ago. Nowadays it seems that with men it’s still taboo, but with women it’s generally accepted that it’s normal, especially with the amount of sex toys for women available in shops such as, Ann Summers and how it is encouraged in womens magazines such as Cosmopolitan.

I think that a lot of people are embarrassed by it as it’s almost admitting that you cannot find a sexual partner, or that you need sex outside of normal intercourse. I suppose there is a fear of upsetting your partner or making them think that they aren’t good enough for you.

Masturbation has often been condemned religiously, some religions such as Catholicism, think that sex should only be for pro-creation, yet masturbation alone won’t result in pregnancy. Religious people also seem to condemn it as a lack of control and the best way to control it is to get married. Yet the bible itself doesn’t actually condemn masturbations itself. The religious view is that masturbation leads to impure thoughts, which leads to sex outside of marriage, which is not allowed in many religions such as Christianity and Islam.

As Daryl talked about in his blog masturbation isn’t exactly “bad”, just something normal that almost everyone does. Through out the years it has been looked upon as some kind of bad addiction, but now it seems to have changed into something accepted.


References
http://www.apocalipsis.org/masturbation.htm

Drugs

Drugs seem to get bad press a lot of the time, there’s hardly a time when drugs are mentioned negatively, whether it’s on TV or in the newspapers, drugs are bad. But if they are so bad why do people use them? Maybe it’s the being “cool” factor, which smoking has, or as Magda discusses well in her blog, a type of experimentation, just to see what they are like, or perhaps there are a variety of reasons, besides people don’t all start smoking for the same reasons.

There is an argument lately that the government should legalise drugs and then they can be properly regulated, and maybe that’s the right way. In the Netherlands they make the distinction between “hard drugs” which are cocaine, heroin etc, and “soft drugs” which are weed, mushrooms. Soft drugs can be purchased and used legally, but you are only allowed a certain amount. The Netherlands have the lowest amount of drug related deaths a year in Europe, maybe it’s time that the government changed their policy. I guess that also part of the fun of taking drugs is the fact that it’s exciting and illegal, perhaps if it were legalised this appeal would stop.

As with smoking there are a lot of famous people who take drugs, and nothing bad seems to happen to them. If the media are to be believed every drug addict is a terrible person, who turns to crime to fund their addictions. But then they praise The Beatles, yet fail to mention that they wrote most of their songs whilst under the influence of LSD. Such is the prevalence of taking drugs the BBC has a website with the best drug songs on it. Even in modern times when there is such a stigma about drugs, musicians have songs glorifying them such as “High all the time” by 50 Cent and “Special K” by Placebo. Is it okay for famous people to be able to take drugs because they can afford their addictions?

I guess that the government cannot condone drug taking as it would cause outcry from everyone whos lives have been ruined by drug taking. I mean there are always the horror stories from parents who’s child became a drug addict and took an overdose. There are countless people who are sleeping rough and stealing to fuel their addictions. Maybe the government needs to take more time with these people than it does on cracking down on drinking teenagers who, despite how drunk they get will most probably have a loving home to return to on the evening.

Personally I think that there needs to be some kind of review on the drugs policy. It seems as though there is a view that it was okay for people to take drugs in the past, like when a lot of Politian’s owned up to smoking weed at University, but now it’s not allowed. Maybe this is because drug taking used to be reserved to the middle classes, as the working classes were too poor to afford drugs, yet now they are more widely available they should be stopped. Besides a lot of drug taking in the working classes would stop people from doing their jobs and so cause a break down in the capitalist society. Is our stigma of drugs just a way of keeping the working class working and the upper classes richer?

References
http://magda-overthehillsandfaraway.blogspot.com/
http://www.world66.com/europe/netherlands/amsterdam/drugs
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67
http://www.minbuza.nl/en/welcome/Netherlands/general,health_care.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/totp2/features/top5/drug_songs.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/1557862/Jacqui-Smith-admits-to-smoking-cannabis.html

Infidelity

Infidelity can destroy relationships and break up marriages, but people still continue to have affairs despite this. Some say that affairs are necessary and can highlight problems in a relationship, but why can’t problems be talked through instead of one partner cheating on the other, often itself causing irreparable damage; maybe because affairs have some kind of sordid appeal?

I guess it depends on how you define infidelity. Can infidelity only happen in serious relationships where the couple is married? What if one of the partners gives the other permission to cheat or how about one of the partners falls in love with someone else, should they not follow their heart if they are already seeing someone? This shows that infidelity is not a black and white issue, there are many forms of this and people’s personal opinions are what make it cheating.

In recent years there has been a rise in the amount of internet dating websites, but not all are single people looking for love, sites such as iwantanaffair.net and secretaffair.co.uk are for people who are married or in long term relationships who are looking to cheat on their partner. These sites encourage people whose relationships have lost their “spark” to seek out others for a “no strings attached” relationship, rather than repair what’s missing in their own. Many people would condemn infidelity, but these sites wouldn’t exist if there was no demand for them, so there are obviously a lot of people who are seeking out an affair.

There is also a gender difference when thinking about infidelity, men seem to be the ones who are accepted in society as being the ones who cheat. Women’s magazines such as Cosmopolitan have articles with articles such as How to keep him from cheating and Is he cheating? whereas men’s magazines don’t seem to have the same emphasis on their girlfriends/wives fidelity, the articles on cheating are more about why women cheat rather than catching them. It seems as though men are looking to prevent infidelity, whereas women cannot and so must look to catching their man. Statistically men are more likely to cheat, one website said that 50% of married men had kissed another person whilst they were married, but only a third of women have; this is quite a big gap. Maybe this goes back to the issues of sexual inequality between men and women; it’s okay for men to sleep around with a lot of different women, but if a woman was to have sex with a lot of guys she would be labelled a slut. Perhaps this is the reason that it is deemed more socially acceptable for men to cheat rather than women.

References
www.iwantanaffair.net
www.secretaffair.co.uk
www.cosmopolitan.com
www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/relationships/How-to-Keep-Him-From-Cheating
www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/advice/guys/Is-he-cheating?
http://uk.askmen.com/top_10/dating_150/181_dating_list.html

Smoking

Recently the government has had a major crackdown on smoking cigarettes with the “smoking ban” in public places in 2006, and the raising of the legal age to buy tobacco from sixteen to eighteen in 2007. There are also many high profile campaigns on TV to persuade to quit, but are any of these moves actually successful?

The raising of the smoking age to eighteen has had a lot of critics. This makes the age of smoking higher than the age that you can willingly join the army. It is as though the government doesn’t want children to die of lung cancer but doesn’t mind them being shot at in Iraq.

Smoking in pubs being band in 2006 as well as supermarkets selling alcohol a lot cheaper than in pubs has been accused of causing a decline in the amount of people going, and causing many pubs and clubs to be shut down. There seems to be little advantage in going to a pub when you can bring friends over to your home, spend maybe even less than half the money and smoke inside rather than having to stand out in the rain. In fact there are some pubs which are charging 50p to smokers who go outside for a cigarette.

There are many reasons why people smoke, whilst researching this I found many patronising articles about peer pressure and wanting to look grown up, but this doesn’t include people over the age of nineteen or twenty who take up smoking. There is also the reason which many of the websites fail to acknowledge, the fact that smoking is kinda “cool.” I mean there’s something admirable about smoking, you’re doing something that might make you die and you don’t care.

Also however much we hate to admit it people are influenced by famous people, further making smoking “fashionable.” The alleged list of famous smokers includes Christina Aguilera and Brad Pitt, people are told every day by magazines to aspire to be like them, but for some reason this can’t include smoking. Maybe magazines who sell their lifestyles should stop selling other aspects, such as their penchant for designer clothes or their hair to impressionable people.

But tobacco has its good points, for example with taxes, the large amount of tax that smokers have to pay on cigarettes would have to be found from elsewhere if everybody stopped smoking. Also in a more morbid way smoking is said to cause premature death which would be good for the companies who employ the people as they would have to pay them less pension, something which has been quite prevalent in the news after pension funds cannot cope with people’s high life expectancy.

In the end smoking in a way has its good and bad points and whether it will be eradicated totally is something for debate, people will always be the ones who ultimately choose whether they smoke or not. The public will have the final say.


References

British Ban Indoor Smoking
Cowell, A. (2006). British Ban Indoor Smoking. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/international/europe/15britain.html?_r=2. Last accessed 2 March 2009.

Smoking Age Increased
. (2007). Smoking age increased . Available: http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/property/health/smoking-age-increased-$1141909.htm. Last accessed 2 March 2009.

Cigarette-buying age rise backed
. (2007). Cigarette-buying age rise backed. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6222785.stm. Last accessed 2 March 2009.

Why do people smoke?
. (2004). Smoking and Cancer: Why do people smoke?. Available: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/whydopeoplesmoke/. Last accessed 2 March 2009.

Worlds most famous smokers
. (2007). The worlds most famous smokers. Available: http://worldrec.info/2007/09/27/the-worlds-most-famous-smokers. Last accessed 2 March 2009.

Charging to smoke outside
Coyle, M. (2009). Time in Bangor charges 50p to smoke. Available: http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2009/03/02/time-in-bangor-charge-50p-to-smoke-55578-23039976/. Last accessed 2 March 2009.

Good Points of Smoking
. ( ). Good Points of Smoking. Available: http://muscul.az.free.fr/uk/lexic/fumer2.htm. Last accessed 2 March 2009.

Prostitution

Prostitution is a subject which sparks a lot of debate; after a series of murders in Ipswitch in 2006 where five women who were working as prostitutes were killed , people have been wondering whether it should actually be illegal. Selling things is legal, having sex is legal, so why shouldn’t selling sex be legal?

Maybe the social status of women who work as prostitutes is the reason for the publics lack of caring. These women are often drug addicts who sell sex to fund their habit. The public like to forget that they exist and rather than acknowledge that there is a demand for prostitutes and set up a brothel where they can work in relative safety they would rather they wander the streets.

The moral implications of prostitution are also a factor in its legality. Britain is mainly a Christian country and if selling sex was legalised it would be going against the Christian views of no sex outside of marriage.

Despite the arguments to legalise prostitution the government is looking to make it practically illegal. The new law states that a customer that pays for a prostitute who is being “controlled” by a pimp etc. they can face charges; although there is no way for the customer to tell whether the prostitute is being controlled or not. This makes it just a question of time until people who continually use prostitutes are caught with someone who is being “controlled.”

But it’s not just the act of selling sex that is called prostitution; in the book “The Catcher in The Rye” the protagonist Holden Caulfield says he feels his brother who is a screenplay writer is “prostituting” himself as he is doing it only for the money, although if this is the case a lot of people who work jobs they are impassionate about would also be regarded as prostitutes.

References

The Catcher In The Rye
. (). The Catcher In The Rye. Available: http://www.bellmore-merrick.k12.ny.us/catcher.html. Last accessed 24th February 2009.

Suffolk Killings
. (2006). Suffolk killings: Inquiry so far. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6193243.stm. Last accessed 24th February 2009.

Q&A UK Prostitution Laws
Casciani, D. (2008). Q&A: UK Prostitution Laws. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7736436.stm. Last accessed 24th February 2009.

Salinger, J.D. (1951). The Catcher In The Rye. United States: Little, Brown & Company.

Cyber-Stalking

With the growing popularity of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace stalking someone has become a whole lot easier. At one time the stalker would have to physically follow their victims every move to find out where they are going, who they are going with etc. Whereas if they have them added on Facebook they can access their lives from the comfort of their own homes.

I guess that cyber-stalking is somewhat of a lesser "big-deal," because the majority of people who use social networking sites have at some point looked at someones profile just to "see". I mean a lot of people would be embarrassed if the people who's profiles they have been looking at actually found out. I know people who on MySpace have actually been able to hack into other people comments even when they have them hidden. And a recent survey suggests that half of Britons have used social networking sites to stalk their exes.

A lot of cyber stalking is in fact curiosity, I mean if you came across the page of a person you knew along time ago you would probably check to see how they are getting along, what they're up to, are they more successful than you etc. But does that count as stalking? If a person has posted personal information about themselves online and not set their page to "Private" aren't they inviting people to look?

The main problem with social networking sites is that they, in a way, make cyber-stalking very easy. Facebook tells everyone added on someones friends list everything they do known as a "live feed;" this includes when their relationship status changes, what they write on someones "wall" or when they comment someones picture. And on the site Twitter members actually have to "follow" other members to find out what they are doing. With Twitter you can change what you are doing from your mobile phone, so a potential stalker wouldn't even need to leave their home to know what you are doing every second of the day.

Although if someone was to hack in to your page this would be a totally different thing. They would have access to your private messages and might even be able to gather enough information about you to commit identity fraud, or to know enough about your personal habits to find out when you're alone or vulnerable. A study in American gathered that 7 in every 500 people over the age of eighteen had been stalked in a 12 month period.

It's not just social networking sites a study suggests that 83% of all cyber stalking cases involve email, and 35% used Instant Messages. At one time stalkers used letters and phone calls to harrass their victims now they use emails and instant messages to creep into every part of their lives. Stalkers have even used listening devices and digital cameras to keep tabs on their victims, although this is very extreme.

People don't just cyber-stalk because they have sinister motives. It can be useful; especially when dating someone new. You can find out a lot of information about a person by searching their name on Google or stalking their MySpace profile for a few days; but this takes the "mystery" out of meeting someone new. Has our addiction to cyber-stalking ruined romance?
In the end cyber-stalking is a habit which will most likely be here to stay. With so many social networking sites it is hard for a normal person not to feel tempted to check on their ex and easy for someone with more sinister motives to gather information. If you don't want someone to know your details don't post them online.

References

Over Half of Britons Stalk Their Exes
Hardwidge, B. (2009). Over half of Britons stalk their exes online. Available: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2009/02/19/half-of-britons-stalk-exes/1. Last accessed 23rd February 2009.


Updated stalking law awaits gov.'s signature
Morton, R. (2009). Updated stalking law awaits gov.'s signature . Available: http://newstranscript.gmnews.com/news/2009/0218/front_page/005.html. Last accessed 23rd February 2009.

Stalking & Fear
Harris, L. (2009). Stalking and Fear. Available: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/lynscircle/archives/162192.asp?from=blog_last3. Last accessed 23rd February 2009.


Love In Your Twenties
Gordon, B. (2009). Love In Your Twenties. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/4592742/Love-in-your-twenties.html. Last accessed 23rd February 2009.

Shoplifting

Shoplifting

Shoplifting is seen almost as a "victimless crime;" the big retail stores are owned by multi-millionaires who don't need the money anyway, and in a way I guess that it's true. Yet, stealing from people homes isn't as acceptable as shoplifting despite it being pretty much the same thing. Maybe this is because the stores all seem to be faceless corporations, whereas people's property is theirs, it has more of a physical owner, the loss is more personal.

I think that people can have some sympathy for shoplifters, depending on the situation. The image of a person stealing bread for their hungry family is hard to condemn, as it is necessary for survival. Maybe stealing is okay is it's a life or death situation? I suppose it comes down to the moral development of an individual, a persons reactions to "The Heinz Dilemma" is evidence of the "doublethink" attitude people have to shoplifting. Psychologist Kohlberg used "The Heniz Dilemma" to measure children's moral development. The dilemma is basically questioning whether you would steal an expensive, life saving drug for a loved one if, despite your best efforts the druggist refused to sell it to you at a lower price. Many people would say that they would steal it, even though the act of stealing is illegal. If anything it shows that generally the majority of people think that the motive is more important than the action itself.

But when it comes down to people shoplifting unnecessary things or for profit, such as the man who was convicted of running a shoplifting gang and selling the goods on eBay, people have little tolerance. Is it okay to shoplift as long as you are not making any profit from it?

Philosopher Kant's "Categorical Imperatives" state that we should only do acts which can be universalised, which means that we should only do things which are acceptable for everyone else in the world to do. In relation to shoplifting if it was universalised it would be acceptable for everyone to steal, causing society to collapse.

Despite the consequences shoplifting could have if everyone decided to do it, it is still a "minor crime" of which humour can be derived. For example Bart in "The Simpson's" steals a video game which his parents won't buy him. Despite him not needing the video game to live I don't think that the majority of people would condemn his actions in any serious way. In the same episode Nelson and Jimbo are also shoplifting, portraying it as being a "normal" activity which children of a certain age do. Even though a lot of people wouldn't support shoplifting, they may illegally download music, how different is it really from going into a store a shoplifting the CD?

References

Kohlbergs "Heinz Dilemma" Wagner, K. (). Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. Available: http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm. Last accessed 18 February 2009.

Man shoplifting for profit (2009). Shoplifters sentenced after eBay sales. Available: http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/homepagenews/Shoplifters-sentenced-eBay-sales/article-703712-detail/article.html/. Last accessed 18 February 2009.

Kant's Moral Philosophy . (2004/2008). Kant's Moral Philosophy. Available: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/. Last accessed 18 February 2009.