February 03, 2006

One World Week and Biasness of the Boar

It seems to me that the Boar (my favorite source of inspiration) has made a complete mess of the idea of one world week. So far in its features or sketches or opinions I have not seen any praises for one world week, instead only criticisms on it being created by the upper middle class for the upper middle class and being a waste of time.

That annoys me because not only does it take away all the credit the organisers deserve but it also destroys the spirit and the intent of the week. In my opinion one world week is an event to make us students much more aware of the problems faced in the world, while at the same time learning about and respecting other peoples' cultures. If anyone attended the talks they would have seen the diverse range of topics, and a lot of them focused on the problems faced by poorer regions, and the efforts or lack thereof to rectify them. Now you may argue that knowing all of this is not sufficient, it does not help change anything, but that is the wrong attitude. It is only when people become aware of human trafficking or of the speed of development of China or the negative side of globalization can they form a knowledgable opinion on the issue as well as take action to rectify the wrongdoings upon graduating. University is a place of learning, one world week is just another way of learning

Apart from talks, the days for the different regions of the world and the themed cinemas were absolutelyt brilliant. I saw Control Room in the arts centre and it is truly a great documentary, and I would not have known of the middle-eastern perspective on the Iraq war had I not seen the movie. I also got to see dances, eat great food and meet amazing people! Is there really anything wrong in that? Should I be feeling ashamed that I interacted with "middle class" students along the way? Have I done a great wrong by enjoying myself?

The Boar, as well as a lot of students talk of integration between British and international students, but this will never happen if there are no opportunities for them to integrate. I saw a lot of British students at One World Week, and as far as i could see they enjoyed themselves as much as i did. All of the events were sold out, most recieved great responses and everyone involved had a nice time.
It is not just to enhance CVs that the event is created, nor is it to satisfy a desire to show that students are capable of it. It is to inform, to make people aware and to influence them to make right decisions or atleast informed ones in the future.


- 53 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

[Skip to the latest comment]
  1. Could not agree more. OWW was awesome this year, and the organising team deserve immense credit for the work they put in.

    03 Feb 2006, 14:19

  2. That article in the Boar was without a doubt the best thing I've ever read in it. Spot on it was. I alternated between laughing and nodding my agreement.
    One World Week is a way of learning? Hey, new name for your blog:
    "Udayan's outlet of Comedy Genius

    03 Feb 2006, 14:51

  3. That article in the Boar was without a doubt the most appalling thing I've ever read in it [apart from maybe the one in the same Boar about homophobia in sports]. It was trying to slay an elephant with a twig completely missing the point of OWW.

    On the other hand, I believe the previous Boar did spend a lot of paper on OWW, in a positive light, too.

    03 Feb 2006, 15:58

  4. Vincent seriously?? You honestly believe we should not have one world week because it is all filled with snobbish people with no real care about this world? Wow man you are not helping international students feel any better

    04 Feb 2006, 15:38

  5. i dont care whether there is one world week or not, but dont pass it off as anyhting its not.

    04 Feb 2006, 20:24

  6. Ok then why dont you tell me what it is

    04 Feb 2006, 20:44

  7. "So far in its features or sketches or articles I have not seen any praises for one world week, instead only criticisms on it being created by the upper middle class for the upper middle class and being a waste of time."

    This might well be because you haven't bothered to look for any—I assume this is because you don't have time to research your blog posts, so I did it for you:

    link
    link
    link
    link
    link
    link

    I don't mind real criticism, but it's a bit galling to be told that your newspaper isn't being fair to One World Week when you've bent over backwards to cover the event for the last few weeks. What more did you expect, a front page with the headline "Best thing ever happens on campus right now" and a short personal vignette about the week on every page of the paper?

    05 Feb 2006, 11:17

  8. Ok Matt as the deputy editor of Boar I can understand you don't like being told that the paper does not cover the news properly but I shall prove my point using the "research" you provided. By the way I do write for the Boar and I truly think it is nice to have a student newspaper such as the Boar and was deeply offended by your remarks. I did do my research , as in i did read the Boar, hard to imagine I know but I don't just spew out bollocks all the time.

    Link 1, link 5 and link 6 – Are not a report on the OWW it is an information article on what is happening, what will be happening, not a report in any sense – I suggest you understand better what i am trying to say.
    Link2 and link 3 lead to The core's coverage of certain events of one world week. These events are the big ones – concerts, fashion shows and one or two nights out along with some fils. As in most articles in the core, these are well written. BUT these are not what I was criticising – I am talking of articles concerning the idea of OWW. I never said the boar can't send jounralists to OWW, but I did say that your opinions on the ideas of OWW is that it is all about snobs.
    link 4 was a good article – but again talks about a lecture in OWW about happiness.

    I was referring in particular to the articles below

    link
    link
    link

    These are articles analyzing the concept of OWW itself and they are not nice. While you may think it is funny to take the piss out of OWW, it just shows the closed-mindedness and the huge difference in cultures between the British and international students. Here the international students want to bring their home to UK, and this is how the Boar responds? making fun, saying its all about middle class snobs, wow that just makes us feel so much more integrated. As an editor you have a responsibility to show balanced opinions, and talking about how worthless OWW is is not the way forward.

    I did find the following article a lot more positive and it also made a lot more sense than to just criticize international students for trying to make Warwick more exciting.

    link

    But even this article talks more about the problems of integration faced rather than dedicating it all to OWW.

    I did not expect the headline "Best thing ever happens on campus right now" and a short personal vignette about the week on every page of the paper…....But I did expect a balanced coverage of the event, because I see it as a vital instrument for integration, something the Boar has gone on and on about but then criticised the very tools that can help us integrate, and understand different cultures better.

    05 Feb 2006, 12:24

  9. Hi Udayan,

    I'm not on here in Boar-capacity, just in a personal one—I'd have said if it were otherwise.

    The first article was a leading article, which typically takes a single stance and argues it in a less balanced way than a normal News piece. As such, it would have been far less effective if it were balanced, and that would even frankly be undesireable.

    The fact is that we did not print a glowing article about OWW in the Opinion section because we did not receive any well-written, publishable submissions to the paper arguing as such. If we had received a well-writted argument supporting the aims of one world week, it would have been printed.

    The second article you cite is a satirical sketch. It exists to take the piss out of things. This also applies to third article, which was clearly intended as a joke—I'd have hoped the masthead with a drunken Boar and the word "Satire" at the top of the page would have made that obvious. Since when is balance a requirement of satire? There are times when satirical work should back away from an issue and say "oh, dear, this is a bit much." but those are few and far-between. One World Week is not one of them.

    Your last statement confuses me. You admint that all the Boar's factual coverage of the events—in News, Arts, and Lifestyle—has been positive or neutral—so I can only assume that by the statement "I did expect a balanced coverage of the event" you mean that you expected the Boar's satire section to present a positive and negative side of it and for a single Boar leading article (by definition highly focused on a single opinion) to present a "balanced" view. Am I misunderstanding you here?

    05 Feb 2006, 15:28

  10. And just to add to that: since when does a failure in "covering the News" occur when the News, Arts, and Science sections of a newspaper are balanced, factual, and positive, but the Opinion and Satire sections contain (oh the shock!) opinionated pieces?

    05 Feb 2006, 15:30

  11. chapman's right. It's total bollocks to be berating people for opinion articles. They are marked as such. Unless someone is passing off something as a fact which plainly is not a fact, then there is no problem.

    05 Feb 2006, 18:07

  12. People seem to be boar bashing just for the hell of it these days. The boar has given plenty of coverage of OWW so I can't see what's so wrong for someone to express an opinon which questions the essence of OWW. It's not degrading the effort put in but rather asking what the end result is. If no-one questions the root of why an event is there then it just becomes an event rather than something which has a larger goal. I can't see why that's not healthy. As for the satire, sometimes in the past the Boar has missed the target when trying to be funny about events that people have put effort into. However re-reading the satire regarding OWW it's not insulting peoples efforts or even the events themselves. Again it's raising a question and they're poking fun at all sorts from, cultures to institutions such as the EU. So long as it's not attacking someone just for the sake of it or trying to be offensive I think this is one of the best things that the media in this country have.

    it just shows the closed-mindedness and the huge difference in cultures between the British and international students

    Aren't you the one that's closed to people's opinions?

    05 Feb 2006, 19:48

  13. You know its easy to dismiss my arguments saying that the articles were in the opinion section and there were no other good quality arguments to counter the one presented. But a newspaper can just as easily commission another article with a positive outlook to have a balanced viewpoint if it so wanted. I am not berating anyone on having a negative view of OWW, that is quite possible and I understand it, but I am angry that there is no space given to the positive aspects of one world week in the opinions section, afterall it should be balanced, or am I mistaken in assuming so?

    Satire, I understand deals with humor, but I don't believe that it is in good taste to make fun of OWW to such an extent, makes OWW sound like a farce.
    Take for example the following quotations

    “One World Week is just not representative of university life. What we’re thinking of is a kind of competition between peoples. The Chinese or maybe all of the Orientals justifying their culture in a showdown against maybe some Arabs. I’d pay to see that. Hopefully we can get different sets of fans with different interests or prejudices to pay to watch too.”
    OR

    "(The union plans to) pit religions and races head to head in sporting, cultural and general knowledge challenges plus an epic ‘my God or your God showdown.’ "

    Wow, what tasteful humor! I am sure no one will be offended by that! I don't see how that is not insulting to people, and why it is alright to write all of this during OWW itself.

    05 Feb 2006, 20:17

  14. there was some hot tail at OWW…mm, tasty

    05 Feb 2006, 20:59

  15. Satire, I understand deals with humor, but I don't believe that it is in good taste to make fun of OWW to such an extent, makes OWW sound like a farce.

    Ignore humour that's not to your taste. As OWW uses so many of the union facilities it's fair game for satire. For the Boar to allow writers to pen satire is risky but it should be commended for doing so as it provides such people an opportunity they wouldn't have otherwise, which I don't think is a bad thing. As for it making OWW sound like a farce, well, I think you're belittling the size of OWW if you truely believe that a few paragraphs burried inside the Boar can make it into a farce in peoples opinions. I would however suggest that the following do more to that aim, but as they are peoples experiences you can't exactly criticise them:

    "After waiting for about half an hour in the cold … I was rushed on a whirlwind tour past the food stalls"

    "We arrived at 7.30pm hoping not to have to hang around too long, but instead we were subjected to a scrum of impatient people trying to get throught the door, and more security questions that US customs

    05 Feb 2006, 21:30

  16. Udayan, the purpose of "opinion" articles in papers is not to provide "a balanced argument" or anything.
    None of the stuff you mentioned is offensive.
    Your losing the plot, buddy.

    05 Feb 2006, 23:55

  17. A OWW 'virgin', I was particularly impressed at both professionalism and popularity of the event. As a student run festival I can't say I've come across many better. However, my criticism, in line with commentary seen in the boar, is not so much levelled at the organisation of the event, but rather its content. I was particularly concerned at the lack of ‘outside the mainstream’ content in many of the forums I attended. Perhaps someone can explain to me how speakers are selected? While I accept that due to time restraints talks were designed to be introductory, surely a bit of controversy wouldn’t be such a bad thing? Surely the fundamental flaw in OWW’s ‘ideology’ is that there are ‘many worlds’ waiting to be heard (often through violence or radicalism if necessary!)

    I don’t see what this has necessarily to do with ‘class’, other than to highlight how this university is clearly obsessed by it. To me it seems to have highlighted the divide between those ‘inside’ and those who feel ‘outside’ the system/union and the violence exposed through this exclusion – vented in boar articles and blogs such as this. I hope next year the OWW organisers can take these frustrations into account by having a more democratic selection process, hopefully resulting in a more balanced perspective. I hope also a more radical one…

    06 Feb 2006, 00:39

  18. I used to thoroughly enjoy OWW. It was never going to cure cancer or end genocide, but it definately helps in fostering cultural interchange.

    06 Feb 2006, 00:45

  19. Liam I see what you mean, however I think the organizers tend to keep away from contreversy becaue as Hamid says it is about fostering cultural interchange, and it will discourage certain groups of students if we attacked their country's policies on issue.

    The speakers are selected by the OWW organizers, although I would agree that if they managed toget a wider student opinion on speakers it can be a lot more encompassing. You are very right to point out the issue of class – its hard for me to unserstand. Everyone seems to think international students are loaded a very very misleading opinion. Some are here on scholarships while for a lot of us our parents have saved up over their lifetime so that we could study here, its not all about rich kids.

    06 Feb 2006, 00:56

  20. In defense of satire and comedy: they're jokes, they may be in bad taste (I don't think they are) but they're still jokes, they're not to be taken seriously. If you get offended by jokes, get a spine. Comedy should surpass all barriers and ignore convention as long as it manages to be funny.

    06 Feb 2006, 05:34

  21. To add to that: you satirise something by projecting it in a direction it didn't really go in. That's the nature of satire. If OWW had been a complete disaster that ended with a race-riot at the One World Party, you could do a satirical piece on how wonderful OWW week was and how it truely bought people together in harmony…
    If OWW was truely a disaster you'd be unable to write a 'negative' satirical piece as the truth would always be worse, it's only the immense success of the event that provides any material to satirise!

    06 Feb 2006, 05:42

  22. Comedy should surpass barriers you say????? I don't agree with that, its not cool t mess about with peopl's beliefs such as in the Danish cartoon situation, there are limits to everything, after all we are human

    06 Feb 2006, 12:05

  23. Your not truely comparing the Boar's satire to those cartoons?! I can't see anywhere in the boar's satire where it "mess(es) about with peopl's beliefs" It may make reference to the fact that not everyone believes in the same god but that would be a fact. You now seem to be clutching at straws and just having a go at the Boar for the sake of it.

    06 Feb 2006, 12:16

  24. Ignoring the satirical articles from your Boar references, Udayan, you'll see that the top link was written by Adam Taylor. The rather bitter, anti-success content of this article is not a surprise if you've ever read his blog – happy reading…

    06 Feb 2006, 12:51

  25. To Colin Paterson – of course I am not comparing the Boar to the danish cartoons! I was replying to Dean love's statement –

    "Comedy should surpass all barriers and ignore convention as long as it manages to be funny

    06 Feb 2006, 13:05

  26. and Colin why are you so keen on protecting the Boar, it is anewspaper and people will criticize it more so because it has the monopoly on news in the campus. Everyone has the right to disagree with the boar, whether you think it is just for the sake of it or not is irrelevent. I like the Boar, but at times I don't agree with it, as do a lot of people, so stop annoying me with your claims that I am just going at it for the sake of it, I am not that desperate.

    06 Feb 2006, 13:12

  27. My big objection to OWW was the total lack of debate. OK it's good to avoid competing nationalists slagging each other off, but what about debates over the role of corporations, the mass media, climate change?

    E.g. link

    06 Feb 2006, 13:13

  28. My big objection to OWW was the total lack of debate. OK it's good to avoid competing nationalists slagging each other off

    It was always my understanding that OWW was designed to promot unity and (I like the phrase :P) cultural interchange as opposed to highlighting differences and divides.

    For example, in OWW in both my first and second year, I took part in debates concerning Israel and Palestine. Neither debates were focusing on the historical roots of the conflict but upon potential solutions. They were designed to bring the two groups of students (ie Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians and Jews/Israelis) closer together and to, perhaps, greater understand the steps the other party would like to take.

    In other words they were designed to be constructive, rather than conflictive, debates.

    With regards to corporations and the like there are already events which take place on campus to cater for these needs. If you go to the Economics Summit you'll hear various economic debates. With regards to climate change: although it's an important issue it is more environmental than about cultural intercourse.

    06 Feb 2006, 16:18

  29. and Colin why are you so keen on protecting the Boar, it is anewspaper and people will criticize it more so because it has the monopoly on news in the campus. Everyone has the right to disagree with the boar, whether you think it is just for the sake of it or not is irrelevent. I like the Boar, but at times I don't agree with it, as do a lot of people, so stop annoying me with your claims that I am just going at it for the sake of it, I am not that desperate.

    If you don't agree with the article. fine—you're not the only person. I think the point is that you're criticizing the Opinion and Satire sections of the Boar for doing . . . exactly what they're supposed to be doing.

    06 Feb 2006, 17:17

  30. The issue of barriers for comedy is an interesting one, but I am off the belief that it's the one place where we should be able to break away from political correctness, and not impose barriers on free speech, when that speech does not even have the intention of hurting anyone, but is purely in jest. The Incitement To Religious Hatred bill would have put major restrictions on what stand-up comics could joke about on stage, but the majority of the government recognised that that sort of censorship was improper and voted against it.

    06 Feb 2006, 18:03

  31. To Matt – I am criticising the fact that the opinion section is not balanced. While some people may hate OWW there are others that love it and the Boar having a monopoly on news in campus should reflect that in its opinion sections.

    Dean – comedy also has its limits, I dont know many people who would enjoy jokes on the london bombings or on the holocaust, and rightly so. religion is about personal beliefs, If I believe in Allah or Jesus or Krishna, and you abuse my god for fun, it will hurt my feelings. I am not saying that it should be a one sided thing, the Arab newspapers also ridicule the holocaust and that is wrong, it must not happen, it is too real.

    06 Feb 2006, 21:42

  32. Udayan, if the Boar had printed 30 articles slagging off OWW and none supporting it, that'd be imbalanced. Printing one article that opposes it and nothing else isn't imbalanced—it's putting a rarely-heard argument forward to generate debate.

    Adam Taylor's piece reflected a minority view, and has since sparked discussion and disagreement, but also, I'm sure, caused many to rethink their views. That's what the Opinion section should be there for—to generate new thought, overturn old assumptions, and challenge established ways of thought.

    On the subject of humour: It's not appropriate to mock the genuine suffering of others, nor to use humour deliberately to hurt others. Satirical humour, however, should not shy away from religion: it's purpose is to mock the stupid and irrational in society, and unfortunately such behavior is often exhibited for religious reasons. If satire doesn't offend someone, it probably isn't very good.

    If we declare religion out of bounds, we're forced to declare anything any random nutter on the street believes in as out of bounds. We can no longer draw pictures of people with red hair, because a cult in New Mexico believes that's offensive; we can no longer write the English language, because an obscure religion from Botswana believes that to do so is sacreligious. An irrational belief can't be out of the bounds of Satire just because lots of people hold it, and that's as true for the Cult of the Ginger Haired as it is for Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

    06 Feb 2006, 22:47

  33. Dave

    it'd be nice if the satire section contained some satire actually

    06 Feb 2006, 23:06

  34. Hamid Sirhan wrote

    "It was always my understanding that OWW was designed to promote unity and cultural interchange as opposed to highlighting differences and divides."

    If it was all about culture why did it have discussions on

    • Who Watches the Watchmen? Knowledge, Power and the Media
    • Climate and Energy: Our Future at Stake?
    • Anti Terrorism: Freedom vs Security?
    • Is Foreign Aid Effective?
    • Business and Social Responsibility: Do Good Values Equal Good Business?
    • The Impact of Globalisation and its Discontents

    Why weren't the opportunity taken to turn the above into debates?

    06 Feb 2006, 23:06

  35. Matt, as i said before, there is nothing wrong in representing a minority (at least I think it is a minority) point of view. But to have a balanced opinion section it is only fair to give the majority viewpoint a chance to defend it. As I have stated before reporting on a particular event is not that same as opinion on the worth of an event.
    You say humor should not hurt others, but what if religious humor hurts me??? I never said don't make fun of some of my practices such as the hindu practice of astrology.. But people hold God or their version of God in the utmost regard, at least in Asian countries that is true. and attacking god is bound to hurt people. talking about pinning one god against another not only is it morally wrong, but shows a high disregard for people's values. The OWW may not in the Boar's opinion live up to anyone's expectations but at least in its heart it holds a high regard for diversity and respect for their cultures and values, something the Boar can learn from OWW. Satire need not offend people, if you need to offend people to get a laugh you are never going to get respect.

    To George – the talks I went to actually had a lot of debate in them (especially the India China one), not too sure what you were expecting.

    07 Feb 2006, 00:20

  36. But is the Boar there to be representative of peoples views or to stimulate and question them? The Boar may have a print monopoly but the Boar is not the arena of debate and never should be. It should not be biased but I don't want it to stem opinion just because a suitable contratry opinion has to be squeezed into a limited size of paper. People sitting in Rococco's at lunch chatting and commenting on blogs is the arena of debate, by expressing something we might not want to hear or haven't thought of before the Boar is stimulating that debate. Would we be here questioning what we think if there was a suitable contra-opinion last week? You say that coverage outside of the opinion pages can't be weighed against this negative but that coverage also adds to peoples knowledge of the event and again provides conversation.
    As for humour, it may be a touchy subject but it's not a form of expression which is telling people that what they believe is wrong, it is merely another way of questioning beliefs and opinions, even if it is sometimes contraversial. Of course at the same time the creators of it must take responsiblity for their words but I can't see how people making humour of the god I believe in is anymore hurtful than someone believing in a different god. True one is implicit and the other explicitly demeaning what my beliefs are but it's to the same end.

    Also, in danger of falling head first into a puddle of theology… You seem to have taken expetion to the God vs God 'competition' but thinking about it, if you believe in a god, and that that god is the true god, then the other god cannot exist, hence there is no competition therefore it's hard to find it offensive. Although that logic may be flawed, i'd be interested to know how.

    07 Feb 2006, 01:28

  37. Gregor Walz

    'talking about pinning one god against another not only is it morally wrong, but shows a high disregard for people's values' ??

    talkin about pinning one god against another in the context of satire is not morally wrong at all. the satirist quite clearly realises that the idea of such an event is utterly outrageous, and, if carried out, would be wrong. and he uses this shared understanding of moral wrongness to satirise oww. there is no attack on any religion in saying this and i am pretty convinced that no one, understanding what the writer is trying to say, will find their beliefs offended, unless these feature an extreme adoration of oww as a divine entity.

    07 Feb 2006, 02:09

  38. The debate in the four sessions I went to:

    • Who Watches the Watchmen? Knowledge, Power and the Media

    Two rather establishment speakers – more critical voices didn't turn up. Many in the audience were critical of the mass media portray of various groups, asylum seekers in particular. But there was no-one on the platform to voice these concerns. link

    • Climate and Energy: Our Future at Stake?

    The big issue is should the world significantly reduce its non-renewable energy consumption or just put up with the consequences of climate change. While the speakers did have different opinions, these were obscured by the consensus seeking format of the discussion

    • Anarchy: The Only True Freedom?

    The only session where clear differences of opinion were allowed expression. A pro-capitalist anarchist as the main speaker coming up against a lot of opposition from anti-capitalists on the floor. But the meeting was designated as a "Interactive Talk" rather than a "focus talk"

    • Business and Social Responsibility: Do Good Values Equal Good Business?

    All the platform speakers were at pains to given examples where Good Values were Good Business. The alternative view, that corporate responsibility is a publicity stunt was not given an airing. See link

    The organisers are to be congratulated on the week's smooth running and in avoiding conflict along national or religious lines. But nation and religion are not the only issues in the world. A person's opinion on the issues mentioned above has little or nothing to do with their ethnicity – perhaps some think that's taking international understanding too far?

    07 Feb 2006, 13:50

  39. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of satire. As has been pointed out in other discussons, humor should not surpass certain boundaries and I believe that, at the same tme you are entitled to believe that it can be insulting and should be insulting. I believe it is morally wrong to talk about religious beliefs in a disrespectful manner, and this point can be debated endlessly, but I still insist that if you want t repsect other cultures and want them to respect you in return, this is certainly not the way to go about it.

    George – I think I agree with you,I was there in the media one and was disappointed with the speakers, they were not addressing the question at all. May be that is something to think about for next year.

    07 Feb 2006, 15:47

  40. I believe it is morally wrong to talk about religious beliefs in a disrespectful manner, and this point can be debated endlessly, but I still insist that if you want t repsect other cultures and want them to respect you in return, this is certainly not the way to go about it.

    This is rubbish. If your beliefs are so fragile that you can't bear to have someone attack them, then there's clearly something wrong with them. Disrespect is a part of life—everyone experiences it, and everyone lives with it. I don't know where you get this idea that irrationality is immune from criticism just because you believe it on a religious basis, but it's wrong.

    07 Feb 2006, 16:05

  41. Its not about beliefs being fragile, its about respecting each others beliefs. As i said this point will be debated, but that is my view. People always use the fragility argument, but thats not what its about. If you tell me I am stupid to believe in Hinduism or in Jesus i will not stop believing in it, but it certainly won't help me feel any more welcome to be open about my belief. In fact it has come to the point that a lot of people just don't want to say they are religious in order to avoid being typecast.

    07 Feb 2006, 21:29

  42. "Dean – comedy also has its limits, I dont know many people who would enjoy jokes on the london bombings or on the holocaust"
    Then we move in different circles – I know loads. I went up to Edinburgh in the summer for the fringe festival like a million or so other people. I saw around 20–30 stand-up comedy shows. Over 50% of them had at least one joke about the london bombings in them. Some were very funny.

    "and rightly so. religion is about personal beliefs, If I believe in Allah or Jesus or Krishna, and you abuse my god for fun, it will hurt my feelings."
    As someone that believes in one of those gods, and the religious beliefs that accompany it, you, by definition, also have to believe that my beliefs are wrong and that my god does not exist as you are right and yours is the only god. That offends me and hurts my feelings but: shock news- I don't have a right not to be offended, there's no law that prevents my feelings being hurt, and if you think that the union should have a rule to stop peoples feelings being hurt then they can start with my ex-girlfriend!
    There's a lot of occasions in your life where you'll get hurt, or people will tell you something you hold in high regard is wrong or stupid, you need to learn to live with. The University should not be protecting you from the realities of life, it has a duty not to, so as to help you prepare for the rest of your life.

    The article in question isn't even abusing your god, it's making a little joke about it, and all other gods. Infact, the nature of the article is even acknowledging that your god exists which is more than I'd give you. If it ended with "and of course, Allah wins, because as we all know, he's the one true god" then maybe you'd have a point – but that article didn't say anything bad about your god or your beliefs. It made a joke about them, but that joke wasn't even made at thier expense.
    Besides, your god is all-powerful being, he won't care, why get offended on his behalf?

    08 Feb 2006, 02:01

  43. "As someone that believes in one of those gods, and the religious beliefs that accompany it, you, by definition, also have to believe that my beliefs are wrong and that my god does not exist as you are right and yours is the only god."

    Not true – At least as a hindu I don't think it is – I mean we have 5,000 gods, so we would have killed each other a long time ago if it were so.

    08 Feb 2006, 12:35

  44. Hi again,

    Not much point continuing this, but I think it's rather sad that people have become so defensive of their religious beliefs that they can't take it when someone criticizes them. Religions have always been criticized and have always changed in response, and to think that belief is somehow an immutable cultural tradition that should be protected from criticism and debate at all costs is frankly ridiculous.

    Do you seriously think that ideas should be immune from criticism just because someone believes strongly in them? And you're at a university?

    08 Feb 2006, 17:43

  45. Nope and i did say that in the begining – in your opinion section you are most welcome to have the article by adam taylor but you should have had another one reflecting the other side of the argument, otherwise its just not a fair argument

    08 Feb 2006, 19:47

  46. that's not the way newspapers work. Did ye delete the "no wussy" comment? it was quite funny at least.

    Udayan, as I understand it, though you have many gods, they are not on equal footing. Is this how it is?

    08 Feb 2006, 22:31

  47. ok.
    Just realised that's on a different entry. sorry bruv, these entries get so long it's hard to keep up.

    08 Feb 2006, 22:32

  48. No I did not delete it coz its way too funny.

    I don't really know if gods are on equal footing – i do know that they have a lot of fights.

    08 Feb 2006, 23:04

  49. "Not true – At least as a hindu I don't think it is – I mean we have 5,000 gods, so we would have killed each other a long time ago if it were so."

    Well I have to plead mostly ignorence on the issue of Hinduism (I think Jesus crops up as one of the lesser gods in Pantheon, as do other gods from different religions, which causes problems itself due to hinduism holding thier key group of three in higher regard…)

    But the point is it's a tenent of most religions that it is the right one and solely the right one, and everyone else is wrong. Which is a shame really, because if religion left that out, the world would be a lot nicer.

    09 Feb 2006, 00:19

  50. Not true – At least as a hindu I don't think it is – I mean we have 5,000 gods, so we would have killed each other a long time ago if it were so.

    Aren't they all reincarnations of the same god?

    09 Feb 2006, 03:59

  51. Dean I am going to agree with you there , a world without religion might have posed lesser problems. But on the other hand I hink it is inherent in human nature to belive in a power greater than us. But again maybe that is because everyone in my family does. Its all so confusing.

    09 Feb 2006, 11:29

  52. It's a shame that 'a power greater than us' generally is done via religion though. I have faith in a greater being but don't feel compelled to join a religion. The problem is that if parents believe a religion to be absolutely right they will likely bring that child up within that religion as the idea of letting them choose thier faith makes no sense, since there's only one correct one, in thier eyes, and they'd be negligent not to.

    I really think religion is more a result of the inherant human desire to belong to something greater.

    09 Feb 2006, 23:41

  53. hi guys

    I read with awe this lengthy discussion about One World Week. There will shortly be a new blog about One World Week where you can give constructive criticism and general feedback about this year's event, and about what you would like to see happen at next year's event.

    I welcome your posts.

    Paul Edkins
    OWW Coordinator 2007

    15 Mar 2006, 23:12


Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

February 2006

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Jan |  Today  | Mar
      1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28               

Search this blog

Tags

Most recent comments

  • I heartily agree with your sentiment, and i think it is the sentement of the well adjusted. I wish i… by nat on this entry
  • I'm starting a Ph. D. in Bristol this October, but as a non EU student I was surprised by how few fu… by S. Murthy on this entry
  • I thought you were little bit upset by the universities of UK. But I think Education in UK is not th… by John Hooker on this entry
  • Business Internships and Hospitality Internships in China available in China in various cities. Cost… by china Mbbs on this entry
  • well , i agree to everything that youhave written, but forget the 8.2 % growth , look at how the 'ot… by on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXX