He was born and died within days...

He was born and died within days...Mr. Kanthapuram...
.
.

He has been on earth for 76 years with his ideologies or principles... No one cared him; his opinion, what he had to comment on certain events...
.
He has his own wiki since 2007 and several webpage writings; implying anyone could've found him and his point of views from anywhere on earth.
eg:http://www.jihadwatch.org/…/india-muslim-cleric-says-women-… ---------- in 2013
in which he states,

"Islam has not changed its decrees regarding the life of women. Among them are these: The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will” (2:223)."

http://hdvideospk.com/-…/kanthapuram-usthad-in-kashmeer.html ------------ in 2010
___________________

Why do the medias (or/and the society) give so much projection to his comments/ opinions 'NOW'?

within days it's been covered with Chennai flood...

Are we extremely ignorant to the trick of the media that how they creates illusory riots in society; which would've died along with Mr. Kanthapuram... his opinions and ideologies...

Instead media and the society -including us- repeats his ideologies without realizing the Goebbelsian Propaganda that if you repeat a lie thousand times, it will become the truth....

with which Goebbels hypnotized whole Germany that Hitler's regime was best for Germany

If you happen to criticize the upcoming generation for their culture/morality or whatever, you must recall that you've created such a society by repeating something that may or may not be the truth!

Blue for Girls and Pink for Boys

Is there anything wrong with the heading?
Nope! why do you think so?
It's the other way; isn't it?
Really? who told you that?
I do see by myself.
How?




a google search would give you enough data...see the following!

Oh! I should've mentioned the era. It's during 1920's.

-For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”- [1] [4]

 so, google tells you that there is a gender biasing in choice... If it is a property of males and females, it should've been there all the time; don't you think so?

I don't know

Well, how about the following? there is no color specification. Not even gender specification in costume. It's from 1980's

I know this; it's a unisex fashion!

Not really, you may call it as uniformity with a masculine inclination... and man never wore any feminine garments; what the market says feminine.

What do you mean by 'what the market says feminine'? What does the market has to do with it?

Well, let me ask you then; why don't men wear high heels?

It's been made only for women and not for men.

But no one is restricting them from wearing it.

People will call him insane then!

Why would they call so?

Because it's not socially accepted...

Where did the society get such an idea that men must not wear such chappals or shoes?

look at the followings... it's Louis XIV from 1700's

and, this is from 1980's.

They are not women certainly, are they? Moreover Louis XIV was a king of France. And they were very well accepted in the society; disproving your claim that 'it's not socially accepted' ! Let's modify your claim including the fact, 'It's dependent on the era they lived in'.

Also, high heels were considered as a symbol of status as well as masculinity . Women adopted heels to masculinise themselves. Until the end of 17th century European Upper class men followed this fashion. [2] [3]

So?

So, who made us think that it is not socially accepted?

From where do we get ideas of what a girl/ boy must wear?

Why don't boys wear necklaces as that of girls do, or as the given below old man from Kenya does ?

Why do girls tend to wear similar stuffs?

Why does movies make the girls' room pink in color; did they forgot the older analogy that pink is stronger color. Or was it a fallacy?

Moreover,

Provided there exists a gender biased fashion in all disciplines how are we supposed to think that we could build gender equality in society?

Or on what basis we criticize the new generation? when, they are being biased from their early age itself!

They don't even get a gender independent toy to play with...

We really need to think how to control the influence of market and trend in daily life, or else we don't even have the right to speak against gender discrimination.

Ref:

1. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/?no-ist

2. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21151350

3. http://qz.com/409254/why-did-men-stop-wearing-high-heels-anyway/

4.http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/04/when-unisex-was-the-new-black/390168/

'I'm Gonna Tell God Everything...'

The last thing a 3 year old Syrian said before he died;

"I'm gonna tell god everything"

It has been a very sensational news again on social media; projecting the dreadfulness of terrorism...

Various personalities around the world had marked their condolence for being killed at this small age, their solace that 'every child go to God's kingdom', some are angry such that they want to kill the terrorists who kill such 'cute', 'innocent' 'children' !!

One of the comment goes as follows [1].

" I CANNOT get my head around the fact that this is the world we live in. Where CHILDREN AND BABIES are abused and/or killed. I WOULD KILL EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS WORLD THAT HAS MALICIOUS INTENT TOWARD CHILDREN IF I COULD. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. GLADLY!!!!! I DON'T CARE IF THOSE NUMBERS WERE IN THE MILLIONS!!!! There is NOTHING worse than hurting a child. NOTHING. I am very forgiving - but for that I will show you no mercy."
-and it has got 1029 likes-

why don't we call him a terrorist; the one who commented as above?! why does he get thousands of likes?

Some have said that 'god will punish the terrorists'

Assuming their feeling is intense,

Would they be saying the same if they are provided with a powerful gun and they happen to meet terrorists with bare hands? or will they kill the terrorists?

Will the 3 years old child be saying the same if he is self sufficient to 'fight against' the terrorists; who is not matured to think 'rationally' as the adults claim that they do...

By saying such a statement, the 3 year old child expressed his disagreement and rage towards the act/event that happened to 'HIM'. Of course a child wouldn't be able to think further that terrorism is not good for a world to sustain...

We had fights as children... whenever we failed in it we would say 'I'll tell this to mother/father'.

When a child say that he will tell this to god what I see is the depth of his belief in God and nothing else.

I wouldn't wonder if such a child, in future, fight against the world for 'his' God, the God who saved him throughout his life.

I wouldn't wonder if he kills everyone who stand against his God, as the person who wanted to kill the terrorists for killing 'children' in the above mentioned comment.

and I wouldn't wonder if he gets thousands of followers as the 1029 likes

Everyone would fight against them, who stand against their rights, their beliefs, their needs; IF they think, things are to be done 'right' or 'morally'.

Unfortunately there is no ultimate 'right' or 'morality'. For some, fighting for god is moral. For some, fighting against them who kill children is moral. 

No one would say Bhagat Singh was a bad person since he was a terrorist!

When atom bombs hit Japan we never considered America to be terrorist!

Who decides and how decides what is moral and hence terrorism?

Whenever we fight against terrorism we never consider the root causes of terrorism. (Or should I presume we are not mature enough to identify it; like the terrorists or the person who wanted to kill the terrorists???). What is/are the root cause/s of it?
Or
What are the backgrounds that make one terrorist?

As 'they' are being eliminated and isolated from the society in terms of infrastructures and rights no one can expect the terrorism to vanish at anytime. (Or are we eliminating a few from the society and label them as terrorists???)

Have you ever seen any terrorist who do not belong to any minority group of a society??? (or is majority the real terrorist and they assign the minority to be terrorists... as happened in Gujarat; the Islams were proclaimed to be the terrorist whereas Hindus lead the riots everywhere in 2002)

Ref:

1)..https://www.facebook.com/tyrese/photos/a.210952398932364.60528.199633956730875/877522965608634/

Plague, Noble Gases and Religious Riots

Plague:

We all know what Plague is; a deadly disease! Which once struck in Europe and took one third of the population. We know that the bacteria named Yersinia Pestis is the one behind it. Once it enter into your body, regardless the age, gender, education or economic status you would die; if you are not taking antibiotics. By taking precautions say quarantining the infected individuals, hygiene etc you could prevent it to an extend.


Noble Gases:

We have studied in school that Noble gases do not react. Well, until 1933 scientists believed so. Then, in 1933 Linus Pauling predicted the reaction of heavier noble gases with elements like Oxygen and Fluorine. Yet it took almost 30 years to experimentally establish it; in 1962.
Now we say that Noble gases react under extreme conditions like very high pressure and very low temperature. On changing the condition you can make your noble gas to be reactive or unreactive.


Religious Riots:

Nowadays everyone is screaming about 'religious issues' that we witness in India. 'Secularism', 'Intolerance', and 'Hindutva' etc can be found in everyday newspapers and other social medias; whenever some discussion starts on 'religious riot'.

If the problem was 'religious belief' we must find the same problem everywhere and in all disciplines in India; as in the case of plague -regardless the landscape, weather, age, education and economic status-.

But in fact we don't find such religious riots everywhere. We don't find writers being involved in such riots and killing each other. None of the scientists quarreled to death on their beliefs, while they launch rocket to space. None of the film stars said s/he will not do a role that is not of her/his religious belief. No businessman ever screamed his/her religious belief asks him/her to be satisfied with what they have.
So, its not like Plague!

We do find such riots in a very specific group, a group of deprived- who are suffering from the lack of basic facilities like food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, and money etc

Very strictly we do not find such riots among individuals with good standard of living, including economy; even though they also possess the very same beliefs...

Doesn't it dependent on the socio-economic background of an individual then? like the reaction of noble gas under certain conditions...

Should we narrow the problem of Secularism, and Intolerance of religion to merely religious beliefs???
Shouldn't it be treated as a social issue that arises from the socio-economic background of an individual or society???

Helping the POOR 2

It's been a trend recently; 'helping the poor'. People do start organizations, post or share videos on the same in social networks, thousands like them praise those 'god sent kind people', who help them. And both parties, who help and whom are being helped are happy; the spectators too!

Are we happy because we make the poor’s life a better one?

- It can't be! because food for a day or 10,000 rupee doesn't make their  life a better one.

Or if money was the only problem why don't we steal money making machine from reserve bank of India and just print as much as we want. Will it solve the problem?

-Nope! Because if everyone has enough money; they will try to achieve more and more facilities. This high demand can shift the price of those facilities a bit up, ultimately causing inflation and recession!

Apart from the mentioned two approaches we do have several charity organizations working for them providing shelters, economic and educational support and healthcare etc. The number of such organization never decline...

Still we have 295,873,856 individuals in absolute poverty (whereas China has 84,971,992 in number though it is populated than us).^[1]

If it was the problem of isolated individuals, it could’ve been solved by the initiation of a few people (say blood donation -which can be solved completely if we get a single individual to donate blood -), and we wouldn’t have had ~24% (~6% in china) absolute poor people!

If it is not a problem of individual and there are crores suffer from this particular condition –namely ‘poverty’- why don’t we -the citizen- call it as a social issue?

No individual or organization is responsible to look after them. Still we volunteer to help them and nothing changes in the end… Still we are happy!!!

Why are we happy on helping 'the poor’? May be it make us feel good, providing an impression ‘kind man!’ in the society.

(On the other hand it is a social issue, Govt are responsible to take policy for their betterment. For my wonder our Govt ask us to help them say via 'give it up'!)

Ref:
1. http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/world-poverty/ 

          http://thusharaav.blogspot.in/2015/06/helping-poor.html

Undercover marketing and Exposure

Recently I was talking to a ten year old child. We started with a game in which he was amused by the 'inertia of object'. But when I failed to repeat it (due to some technical reason) he laughed at me. Well, as he got bored we changed the topic. He became talkative; movies- that was the topic-. He was enthusiastic about several Malayalam,Tamil movies. He asked me if I have watched so and so movies... for most of them the answer was 'no'.

Then after a little pause he exclaimed -as if he forgot something that must have mentioned earlier- "Have you seen 'Premam' ?" -a Malayalam movie released in 2015-
I asked 'what's about it?'
'It's a fantastic one. You should see it if you haven't. I saw it 5 times.'
'Oh! really? I'll watch it. What is the story?'
'....mmm...mmm... First he will fall in love with Malar'
Then he jumped to some other topics -video games-.

Those who have seen the movie, you know what the story really is...

will a 10 years old child be able to understand the 'emotions' of the hero? The child doesn't even recall 'Mary'. Without understanding/feeling the mentioned facts/emotions how did he enjoy the film?

He said the movie was fantastic. What made him say so? what made him to watch the movie 5 times without understanding the story? (In fact children are excellent observers that they do explain the story-including pin point details- of a cartoon that they see!).

Have you heard of a term 'Undercover Marketing' ?
It's a strategy used to advertise products. In which the consumers do not realize that they are being marketed to. The campaign employ actors to interact with the public, who uses tricks that will convey the consumers how impressive and useful the product is.
For example Sony T68i.
In which around 60 actors were sent to major cities as tourists. They asked strangers (the learners) to help them take a photo. They handed them camera-phone (Sony Ericsson) and talked enthusiastically about it's features and taught those strangers how to use it. And it was one of the best selling phone of the year!

We must have been come across such situations... A labeling 'best seller' is more than enough to make the item a demanded one. ^{[1] [2]}

Several factors play role in it. The risk taking nature, following the mob, learning behavior etc.

But a wide exposure could alter the situation.

Assume what would've happen if the 'learners' were exposed not only to Sony T68i but to some other brands too, in the same manner. They get more options now... Probabilistically, Sony will not get as much consumer as in the experimented case.

A few lines on learning behavior;
It's an experiment by Cook and Mineka- 'whether the fear could be socially learned'.
They had lab-reared monkeys that weren't afraid of snakes . Then they were exposed to the response of wild-reared monkeys to snakes. After this exposure, they exhibited fear response. "The lab-reared monkey socially learned to be afraid of snakes"!!! ^[3]

Let us go back to the 10 years old child. A thought experiment, what would've been the response of the child to the same movie, if he wasn't exposed to the media/youth who celebrated the movie? What could've been the measures that he will use to evaluate the movie? Will he be saying the same dialogue 'It's a fantastic movie!'? What the word 'fantastic' would mean to the child?


Ref:
1.  http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1028069195715597440
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGMUs97VZV4
3. https://animalcogblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/29/the-monkey-and-the-snake/

Who is the villain - part 2

We do have romantic movies quite a lot. More precisely most of the movies contain a ‘love story’ as mainstream or as a parallel story (I have considered Indian movies), in which we have seen different features of love!

Sometime the story will be aggressive; the couple will always be threatened by their parents or some other society members or else the so called ‘villains’, and then he will argue with them expressing his ‘true love’ for her or despite every protest he will ‘forcefully’ take her with him.

Sometimes hero will fight against the ‘villain’, who chase and ‘disturb’ her for her love and will rescue her later will become her the one with open hands and mind just for her.

On the contrary

Sometimes our hero will be chasing ‘the heroine’ for days, years… and in the end heroine will fall for him.

Sometime there will be innumerable nights awaiting the beloved one.

Sometimes they will risk their life to death; suicidal attempt of either hero or heroine to force the other party to love him/her.

Sometimes hero and his friends will roam about ‘her’ house just to see ‘her’.

Sometimes hero exchanges different signs of love… may be a romantic glance, a letter, or a wink regardless of the fact that whether she likes him or not.

Sometimes hero will stand with his friends on the way heroine used to travel and will comment on her.

Sometimes just a flower or a confession would make her fall in love with him

We enjoy the movies; we always support the hero; we pray for them to get together lifelong. We never like the ‘villain’, who tries to split them apart standing against the couples or who try to annoy the heroine by chasing her for her love… When hero does tricks to please her laugh at it and say ‘that’s funny!’.

Now,

Why do we –the same ‘we’ who enjoyed all these movies- have laws to punish those people who do the same that our heroes do in movies? Is it because the Govt. doesn’t want us to be heroes?

Is it because ‘what one does’ doesn’t make him a hero but something else is being added to make him a hero??? What is that ‘something’? Why it influences us a lot such that the movies becomes ‘box office hits’?????

http://thusharaav.blogspot.in/2015/06/who-is-villain-part-1.html