if you get more than 30, I strongly recommend some counseling.
if you get more than 20, you’re paranoid.
if you get 11-20, you are normal.
if you get 10 or less, you’re fearless.
people who don’t have any are full of crap.
I fear ...
[ ] the dark
[ ] staying single forever
[ ] being a parent
[ ] being myself in front of others
[ ] open spaces
[ ] closed spaces
[ ] heights
[ ] dogs
[ ] birds
[ ] fish
[x] spiders
[ ] flowers or other plants
total so far: 1
[x] being touched (well, not reli a fear, but im generally averse to it)
[ ] fire
[ ] deep water
[ ] snakes
[ ] silk
[ ] the ocean
[x] failure
[ ] success
[ ] thunder/lightning
[ ] frogs/toads
[ ] my boyfriends/girlfriends dad
[ ] my boyfriends/girlfriends mom
[ ] rats (LOL 1984)
[x] jumping from high places
[ ] snow
total so far: 4
[ ] rain
[ ] wind
[ ] crossing hanging bridges
[ ] death
[ ] heaven
[ ] being robbed/mugged
[ ] falling
[ ] clowns
[ ] dolls
[ ] large crowds of people
[ ] men
[ ] women
[ ] having great responsibilities
[ ] doctors
[ ] tornadoes
total so far: still 4
[ ] hurricanes
[ ] incurable diseases
[ ] sharks
[ ] Friday the 13th
[ ] ghosts
[x] poverty (though ive never thought of it before.. thanks, stupid quiz!)
[ ] Halloween
[ ] school
[ ] trains
[ ] odd numbers (i dont trust them, to be honest)
[ ] even numbers
[ ] being alone
[ ] becoming blind
[ ] becoming deaf
[ ] growing up, old
total so far: 5
[x] creepy noises in the night
[x] not accomplishing my dreams/goals
[x] needles
[ ] blood
total: 8
for the record, i have a few additional fears that are, i suppose, "uncommon", since they're not on this list:
[x] ants (swarms of, especially the flying ones), and
[x] speed/going fast/fast-moving objects
so, i see i have 8 common fears and 2 uncommon fears. haha i hope that doesn't make me sound like too much of a freak! xP
3/19/2009
Fascism?
so what if im a fascist? honestly, democracy makes me sick sometimes; all the lethargy, ineptitude, coddling. wonder why our democratic participation as a country - heck, as democracies in general - is at paltry levels? ill tell you why: because in their heart of hearts, people crave leadership. people are sheep. they want decisions. they want to be told what to do. and there are people ready to lead them! i think we should give everyone what they want - nay, what they deserve!
not that ull likely ever see me leading that way. =P thats just my honest opinion. of course, it has its glaring flaws - no denying.
neway, on to the real reason for this post. one of my profs yesterday was talking about human rights. he critiqued the group of students that had just presented on the subject by saying that wanting to "universalize" or "enforce" human rights is an extremely imperialist thing to desire. he claimed that perhaps the focus should be on formulating a procedure through which people/societies can generate their own conception of rights. where's the harm in letting people have a voice? in allowing them to decide things for themselves? in the West, he criticized [and he may well be right], we're afraid to let the ignorant, the barbarians, the children decide things for themselves.
although i agree with his cynicism [i love cynicism], i think there may be a flaw in this argument if we want to continue to talk about HUMAN rights. if every society is given free reign to develop their personal interpretation of what rights they will grant their members, then can we really claim to call these human rights? as in, rights that apply to all simply by virtue of their humanity? he asked whether we can actually claim that they will come up with the wrong things unless we're willing to make unfair assumptions about them, but i say that we already know that this will be the case by virtue of the fact that not everyone in the world was willing to jump on them at their moment of codification. this may simply be splitting hairs over terminology, we simply can't call human rights what isn't true for all humans everywhere. now, he may say that perhaps these societies will come up with the same right definition of rights when freed from oppressive governments, but i doubt that will be the case because otherwise they wouldn't be a different culture from the West. you may then protest by saying that they're not all that different from us; they're still human. which is my point exactly. if we want to call them human rights, they have to be something that all humans everywhere would naturally create or envision. so while i agree that enforcing them may not be the right way to go about it, human rights, whatever they may be, need to be defended regardless of the legality of the intervention, political opinion, or international consent. simply because of the role they play in defining our very humanity.
----------
'Cause ever since I tried
Trying not to find
Every little meaning in my life
It's been fine
I've been cool
With my new golden rule
Numb is the new deep
Done with the old me
And talk is the same cheap it's been
I'm over the analyzing tonight
Stop trying to figure it out
It will only bring you down
You know, I used to be the back
porch poet with my book of rhymes
Always open knowing all the time I'm problably
Never gonna find the perfect rhyme
For 'heavier things'
not that ull likely ever see me leading that way. =P thats just my honest opinion. of course, it has its glaring flaws - no denying.
neway, on to the real reason for this post. one of my profs yesterday was talking about human rights. he critiqued the group of students that had just presented on the subject by saying that wanting to "universalize" or "enforce" human rights is an extremely imperialist thing to desire. he claimed that perhaps the focus should be on formulating a procedure through which people/societies can generate their own conception of rights. where's the harm in letting people have a voice? in allowing them to decide things for themselves? in the West, he criticized [and he may well be right], we're afraid to let the ignorant, the barbarians, the children decide things for themselves.
although i agree with his cynicism [i love cynicism], i think there may be a flaw in this argument if we want to continue to talk about HUMAN rights. if every society is given free reign to develop their personal interpretation of what rights they will grant their members, then can we really claim to call these human rights? as in, rights that apply to all simply by virtue of their humanity? he asked whether we can actually claim that they will come up with the wrong things unless we're willing to make unfair assumptions about them, but i say that we already know that this will be the case by virtue of the fact that not everyone in the world was willing to jump on them at their moment of codification. this may simply be splitting hairs over terminology, we simply can't call human rights what isn't true for all humans everywhere. now, he may say that perhaps these societies will come up with the same right definition of rights when freed from oppressive governments, but i doubt that will be the case because otherwise they wouldn't be a different culture from the West. you may then protest by saying that they're not all that different from us; they're still human. which is my point exactly. if we want to call them human rights, they have to be something that all humans everywhere would naturally create or envision. so while i agree that enforcing them may not be the right way to go about it, human rights, whatever they may be, need to be defended regardless of the legality of the intervention, political opinion, or international consent. simply because of the role they play in defining our very humanity.
----------
'Cause ever since I tried
Trying not to find
Every little meaning in my life
It's been fine
I've been cool
With my new golden rule
Numb is the new deep
Done with the old me
And talk is the same cheap it's been
I'm over the analyzing tonight
Stop trying to figure it out
It will only bring you down
You know, I used to be the back
porch poet with my book of rhymes
Always open knowing all the time I'm problably
Never gonna find the perfect rhyme
For 'heavier things'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
