**FINAL EPISODE OF HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER SPOILERS!**
Personally, I wasn’t actually rooting for Ted to end up with Robin. I really liked Barney and Robin as a couple. I would have much rather seen Tracy pop her head round the corner at the end and reveal that they lived happily ever after, as cheesy and safe as that ending is. Ted and Robin’s reunion felt rather shoehorned in and forced, purely because they had filmed that scene with the kids so many years ago. I know that Ted’s time with Tracy was perfect and he’ll never stop loving her, but it doesn’t mean that Robin was what the fans wanted.
Barney’s end story also felt strangely depressing.I understand why Barney and Robin split up as their relationship never quite felt perfect, and you always worried that Barney might stray or miss being single, but this entire season made it seem that they would be happy. His womanising days appear to be over, as he loves his daughter so much that she is the only girl he cares about, and doesn’t want to disrespect women any more. But the show hints that he ends up alone forever, at least until 2030 anyway, which is quite a sad end to Barney’s story. It’s also a shame that the mother of his child is unknown and just some random woman. Although they are making How I Met Your Father, which could make Barney’s ending make more sense, but that’ll have to be a short lived but epic show to pull that off.
It might have been a better final season if they had spread out the events of the finale over 24 episodes. Instead they spread out the lead-up to the wedding, for a marriage that only lasted a couple of years. They got us settled with a different kind of ending. Had they spaced it out over a whole season, we could have seen more of Tracy and Ted together, Barney and Robin’s separation would make more sense, we could have felt more of a personal connection with Tracy’s passing, and we could begin rooting for Ted and Robin again, like we used to. Instead, it all felt rather rushed and was almost the opposite of how I wanted it to end. Bitter disappointment.
While walking round town, my mother and I got caught by some Christians preaching. They were chatting on how God is all loving blah blah blah. So I informed them that actually god is quite clearly not all loving. To which they asked the fatal question: “Why do you believe that, sir?”
Well, its easy. Let us take the scenario that a woman is being raped, and her young son forced to watch. After they will be murdered. Why does god allow that? Christian “Well god will not interfere with our free will.” The woman does not want to be raped, her child will not want watch and neither will want to be murdered. So their free will is being affected. Because he does not stop it, he is siding with the rapist and murderer. Christian: “God sends these trials and tribulations to test our faith and make us stronger.” So what about somebody with terminal cancer, maybe a child. That child has not had the chance to experience some of the magnificent things that life can offer. Will the cancer make that child stronger? No, that child will die a horrible agonising death while their family are forced to watch helpless. Christian: “Its a part of gods greater plan, he works in mysterious ways.” Well no, it isn’t mysterious at all. If he was all loving then he wouldn’t allow people to go through such barbaric ‘tests’ such as being raped. Diseases that kill would not exist. And you’re argument that god doesn’t get involved is untrue. After all, didn’t Jesus go round performing miracles to prove who he was. So from all of this, it is obvious that god is inconsistent with his own rules, values the free will of the evil over anybody else and from that we can conclude that god in fact is not all loving. Thank you for your time, I do hope you have learned a great deal from this conversation.
Then we walked away like absolute bosses. Well I felt like a boss, my mum called me a smart arse.
I would also like to mention I do not have a problem with somebody who is religious, I understand it can give a person great comfort. However what I do have is a problem with having ANY religion shoves down my throat, respect my views and I’ll respect yours, but try and convert me to your way of thinking and I will retaliate with my way of thinking.
A month ago, “Fat Shaming Week” was a thing, created by some blog purely to ridicule people they deem as fat. Supposedly in an effort to make them see the error of their ways and loose weight. Hurting people’s feelings is the quickest way to make them change is a direct quote from the website.
Anyway, the hashtag FatShamingWeek got pretty big on Twitter, and it gave arse holes the chance to tweet horrible shit for a week. So not much difference to any other week of the year.
Now as anybody who has been shamed, having your feelings hurt doesn’t exactly do much to motivate you, especially if you’re insecure about the thing you’re being shamed for. Instead it will probably make you feel more depressed and worthless, thus making it even more likely that you’ll indulge in the very thing they’re shaming you for as a coping mechanism. I suspect most participants in fat shaming week know this, or at least don’t give a shit. And really it was used as an excuse to be a arsehole to people. But hey, that’s what happens on the internet.
I’d now like to share my views on the subject. Really, its a bunch of people being cruel to other people. That’s really nothing new. And fuck them. Arseholes don’t get to start conversations. It isn’t really worth a real response, let them get on with it while the more intelligent people have a conversation, because the debate between fat Shaming and fat acceptance is an interesting one. So lets talk about it.
Now obviously fat shaming and being a dick to people is not something I support at all, but personally I am ambivalent to the whole fat acceptance movement. I don’t like the term fat anyway, because that implies that there is a cosmic mandate to maintain some kind of constant weight. Which is absurd. But if we’re talking about things such as being unhealthy, lazy or being irresponsible; Then that’s something society shouldn’t be expected to accept. But, if we’re trying to pressure people into looking a certain way, weighing a specific number of pounds then that’s arbitrary and ridiculous. Telling somebody they look ugly or nasty, that’s not a fact based observation. That’s just being a douche. It is a tricky subject, because being overweight is not always based on lifestyle choices. Yes, sometimes it is, but not always. And that’s what makes it tricky. And, because of this the fat acceptance movement is very fragmented, different people with different ideas as to what constitutes fat acceptance. Some ignore the correlation between weight and health, which is both dishonest and dangerous. Some ignore the importance of eating disorders, which is an entirely new issue. But that’s also dangerous. A lot of people who are apart of this movement are obsessed with convincing the world that they don’t need to be cured. The fact of the matter is, some people are sick and do need help, and they should be able to seek that help without being marginalised. Many members of the movement use the term “Thin Privilege” and that in itself is reverse bigotry.
Look, people and especially women have to deal with others policing and criticising their bodies everyday. This is not a problem that is unique to fat people, and its a bit disingenuous to claim that it is. But at the end of the day bigger people deserve the same respect as a smaller person. Being an arsehole should be the thing we’re shaming, not being fat.
Two men and a woman (a “mystery blonde” no less …) stretch out their arms, a mobile phone clasped in their hands, and smile as they take a picture.
Oh come on … you must have done it … especially when you have been lucky enough to attend a special event?
The Olympics? The Queen’s jubilee concert? The X Factor tour?
So surely we can handle Barack Obama, David Cameron and that woman (Helle Thorning-Schmidt - the Danish Prime Minister - for crying out loud!) taking a snap of themselves at the Nelson Mandela memorial?Barack Obama with the ‘mystery blonde’ aka the Danish Prime Minister
Ermm no, apparently we can’t.
"IDIOTIC!" screamed one front page, warning that the image had sparked a "firestorm of criticism". (@toxicsayonara told her 54 followers that the world leaders had shown "zero class or decorum". Another zoomed in on a Michelle Obama looking "VERY unamused".)
Eh? What? You cannot be serious.
The only thing that picture made me feel was that for a moment they did not look like the THREE world leaders (did I mention, she is the Danish Prime Minister?) that they are. They looked human; excited; in awe of their surroundings.
And who wouldn’t be? It was a memorial for the world’s most loved and respected statesman. A political giant - who might himself have been amused to watch the US President and two prime ministers smile for the camera.
Having worked in mental health setting before, I know there are good days and bad days in the job. Monday wasn’t a good one for those still working within the mental health sector, nor those suffering with mental health conditions; with the Sun’s headline claiming 1200 people had been killed by ‘mental patients’ in the last ten years.
After so much improvement in the way the media reports mental illness in recent years, it felt like a huge step back to the bad old days of headlines like ‘Bonkers Bruno locked up’. In this world of sensationalist reporting, violence is the only prism through which mental illness is viewed.
This is not in any way, to downplay the terrible tragedy of a young life lost. Or indeed the urgent need to address failings in the system which so often play a part in incidents of this nature. And I’m not saying that murders involving people with mental illness should not be reported, of course they should. What I am saying is that they should be reported responsibly and in a way which does not reinforce the stereotype that equates mental illness with violence.
While of course there are cases where people with mental illness commit serious acts of violence, we must keep the real risk in perspective. Ninety-five per cent of murders are committed by people who do not have a mental illness. In the vast majority of those 5 per cent of cases, there are other factors at play such as alcohol or drug misuse.
When the coverage of an issue is as crude and sensationalist as it was on Monday, everyone with a mental health diagnosis suffers. It has been moving to see the reaction from people with mental illness themselves. Many have taken to social media to explain how this kind of reporting compounds the social isolation which mental illness can cause.
As a suffer with mental health problems put it: “Feeling exposed, vulnerable, persecuted, threatened and fearful, thinking that everyone knows you are evil, is a common part of the paranoid symptoms I and others experience. Having it shouted in the headlines that all this is really true, that you really are dangerous to others, and everyone knows, is a sick joke.”
The Sun may argue that they are only highlighting this issue because services are failing and something needs to be done. While I agree that mental health services badly need to improve, I would argue that coverage of this kind is not the place to start the argument.
We need to start with the enormous human suffering which can be caused by mental illness when decent treatment isn’t available. We should be talking about how people with serious mental illness are being let down by the NHS and social care system. We should be talking about the many thousands of lives lost every year to suicide.
I’d like to see the Sun run a headline highlighting the 30,000 people with mental health problems who are dying needlessly every year from preventable physical health problems. Or a front page splash about the excellent report produced this week by Victim Support and Mind which shows that people with mental illness are three times more likely to be the victims of crime.
Last year our Schizophrenia Commission highlighted the way in which we are systematically letting down the 300,000 people in England who have schizophrenia or psychosis and their families.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. We can do so much more to improve the lives of people with severe mental illness. Schizophrenia and other conditions do not need to be diagnoses of despair and fear.
A constant focus on a small number of cases involving violence reinforce fear and despair. Instead we need to see a wider debate about the individual and societal costs of mental illness and what can be done about it. A debate prompted by compassion, not fear.
I have to agree.
As a child I was completely influenced by Tom and Jerry and now spend all of my spare time hitting cats in the face with frying pans while dogs chase me with baseball bats.
People of Britain, here are 7 things you should do during a heatwave:
1) Double up on deodorant.
2) Have at least one conversation on Global Warming.
3) Risk your life running after the ice cream van.
4) Get sun burnt - its traditional!
5) Tweet/Facebook a screenshot of your phones weather app, and instagram everything.
6) Wear sunglasses indoors.
7) Eventually just complain incessantly about the heat.
There is a concept in epidemiology (the study of epidemics and disease risk factors in populations) called “density of host interaction.” Basically, when you pack a large number of people (or animals) closely together, it increases the frequency and number of contact each has with any other, so that each individual is only one or very few contacts away from every other. So, if one person comes down with something, it has a potential for very rapid spread. Similarly, when technological systems become densely interconnected, such as we have now with the integration of telecommunications, the internet, computing, financial, business, military and infrastructure management systems, a serious failure of any one of them can create a cascade of failures which brings down the rest.
The civil order we take for granted, the rule of law, the loyalty of the army are all contingent on existing systems working as planned. If another world war were to break out, it could very quickly lead to a breakdown of civilization on the order of the Fall of Rome. The US has a six month strategic reserve of oil, so if supplies of imports should become disrupted, and that runs out, there will be less and less fuel for transportation, to operate farm machinery (and other petroleum inputs necessary for food production), plus the military will be claiming a larger and larger share of what is available. And people will begin to fight over it.
When civilian governments collapse, the military declares martial law and assumes control. The military then manages the society’s resources, and it does so in such a way that it keeps itself going. Its imperatives put it in direct competition with the civilian population, who, being powerless, tend to experience famine when push comes to shove. One sees this all over the undeveloped world, where local warlords have taken over and raid UN humanitarian relief trucks bound for starving villagers-only, in a worldwide breakdown, there will be no outside relief effort.
Also, as we see throughout history and in the underdeveloped world today, when economies are disrupted by war, populations tend to move toward where they think the food is, and they end up in refugee settlement camps. As they become weakened by hunger, they tend to become susceptible to infectious diseases, and once epidemics start, the spread very rapidly. People try to flee, spreading disease and death even further.
Consider how much social and economic disruption came about from just two jet liners crashing into the World Trade Center—the shock, the confusion, the scapegoating, and the economic recession that came after. Now multiply that 100,000 or a million times, and you begin to get a sense of what a nuclear exchange would be like. A well-placed series of electro-magnetic pulses over major banking centers could wipe out all bank records, all stock transactions, all records of who owns what and how much they need to pay in taxes. Even with backups shielded in deep vaults, there would still be serious gaps in the record—if indeed, there were still computers left to put them in. It would take months or even years to sort out. And, in the meantime, the chaos and uncertainty over trillions of dollars in assets would paralyze the economy, because nobody could be sure if they still had money in the bank or whether it was worth anything. The very young and the very old would be the first to go.
When you look at the range of species-threatening catastrophic events—volcanic eruption, climate change, large meteor impacts, or even nuclear reactor meltdowns, war is by far the much more frequent and therefore likely occurrence. And, as time goes on, the interdependence and vulnerability of human systems only increases. Unfortunately, war seems to be the only disaster that we are truly able to prevent, and yet we seem hardly capable of doing so. It would seem to be a design flaw in our species, if we can not overcome it.
This one is going to be extremely difficult to write, because I have a friend who is going through this situation right now - and what she has told me absolutely sickens me.
Everybody knows my view on the NHS, it may not be perfect but it’s a damn sight better than the alternative of: “Oh, I’m so sorry your loved one has a life threatening condition, but how are you going to pay us?”
But sometimes even I’ll have a damn good pop at it, and this is one of those cases.
Put yourself in the shoes of a young person, wishing to start a family with your long term partner. Only to find out you are unable to carry a child full term, but not being able to find out full reason. In this instance it could be the eggs, but hey if you want to check then you’ll have to go private, because it’s just not god damn procedure to find out for you.
So, you explore your options, surrogacy being one of them… Hopefully. However, you must wait until you’re 35, or pay out your arse to go private. You wait, then find out the problem lay with your eggs, and you can not have children of your own. Imagine all that time wasted, living with false hope; Because you can’t afford to pay to go private.
Here is the solution, be an absolute slag, sleep around and have your uterus scarred because of the countless Sexual Transmitted Diseases you have collected like pokemon cards, and they’ll do everything they can to help you have child, which inevitably will likely lead the same life as you, because we all know the daughter just loves to take after mummy.
As a decent, down to earth, tax paying human, guided by common sense, I can tell you that is fucking disgusting, and goes to show how these people who are supposed to run the NHS, so it has the service users needs looked after, are nothing more than suites with no common sense. I understand that these things cost money, but tell me this, in cases where it is essentially self inflicted (which this is):
why on earth should somebody who has always been monogamous, be treated worse than somebody who has been promiscuous?