Most people reading this journal will be a minority of some form.

I once heard the theory that minorities, where the difference is not obvious, have a responsibility to be open with people they meet. For example, if you are gay then you should mention it to workmates, family and friends. It's a theory with merit.

When you mention you are gay (or are transsexual, or have a terminal disease, or were adopted, or are vegetarian, or whatever it might be), you'll become a target for bigots and you risk making people uncomfortable around you. The positive benefit is less tangible.

It's because the most visible members of a minority are often the worst. For example:

On New Year's Day, I walked past a gay bar on my way home. It was 2pm and freezing cold. Coming out of the gay bar - next door to a busy train station - was a guy who had clearly been out all night. He had no shirt on, stumbled as he grabbed the crotch of the guy next to him, and made it blindly obvious to all and sundry that this guy has spent the last 12 hours or so on crystal meth, having sex with as many people as possible.

Unfortunately this idiot reinforces the opinion held by many people about gays. Other passers-by had no way of knowing that I, and probably one or two other people in the area, are also gay. Only those people who know non-idiotic gay people will know this guy isn't typical.

By being open, at some expense to yourself, you'll be doing every other member of your minority a favour.

I could make a bunch of resolutions for 2010, but most people who know me well would consider them to be very predictable. I'm really just looking to continue down the path i've started on during this year. Essentially, my goal is to achieve convergence between who I am (human) and how I see myself (inflatable dolphin), and there are dozens of ways to make headway on that; changing jobs, continuing to have an active social life, taking some leadership in the furry community, exploring my creative outlets, looking for love, etc etc etc.

In other news, some of you may have heard that I will be taking an active role in organising the Perthfur Gathering together with Sirukie, foxronyo and jack_wolf. I think that, between the four of us, we've got a good, solid team that's committed to getting the job done. I can't wait for the event itself in March when we can prove that to everyone else. I'm currently writing a new website for the PFG, which is going to include a live feed from twitter, an RSVP system and galleries for the art contest/photographs. It's coming together remarkably quickly and, pending edits, should be online quite soon.

Anyway, with only 4 days of holidays remaining, i'm gearing up for a return to a job I dislike. My way of coping with this, at least for the time being, is to pool my resources and attention into things outside of work. I hope I can follow through with that instead of just spending my free time slacking off.

See you all in 2010!

Just an idle thought after reading a friend's post - there is talk of bringing in full body scanners that effectively allow security staff to see you naked. This would have stopped the recent attempted bombing, but obviously there is an appropriate amount of moral outrage.

But it got me thinking: newborn babies can be naked and it isn't rude (Nirvana's Nevermind album cover for example.). And I can legally purchase pictures of naked bodies over the age of 18 (because everyone purchases pornography, what with it being impossible to find anywhere for free). They're a bit rude, but not so rude it's illegal.

Which means, as you get older, your naked body becomes ruder. But then it becomes less rude as you approach adulthood.

So, a naked 4 year old is ruder than a naked 1 year old. And a naked 16 year old is ruder than a naked 18 year old.

Which means there must be an Age Of Maximum Rudeness (AOMR). I wonder what it is?

There's been a bit of a hoohaa over the past couple of weeks in Britain due to the sentencing of Munir Hussain.

He's been sentenced to a couple of years in prison for attacking an armed burglar, who had broken into his house. Helped along by media coverage like this - Jail for ‘courageous’ Munir Hussain who beat intruder with cricket bat - there's been a lot of outrage. People are fired up because Hussain - the victim of the burglary - has gone to jail, while the burglar has not been found guilty of anything.

Nevermind that Hussain and a carful of friends and family pursued the burglar - who was running away - down the street, and beat him with a variety of weapons including a metal bar and a cricket bat (which was smashed to pieces in the assault). Nevermind that the burglar was not found guilty because he is unfit to be trialled, courtesy of the assault which left him brain damaged.

While this is all worthy of debate, the reasons for Hussain's jail sentence - and the reason for the burglar's lack of sentence - are being ignored. The general argument is that Hussain obviously acted in reasonable self-defence (as implied in that headline), and this is an argument from ignorance.

Unfortunately we live in a world where conversation is often dominated by the ignorant. (Arguments "against" evolution leap to mind.)

The antidote is, of course, education. Unfortunately when you have possession of the facts, you will often learn that the situation is more complicated - the ignorant argument is inevitably black-and-white*.

I have some rules of thumb:
- Be suspicious of anyone who is sure they are right. (You shouldn't have an opinion unless you understand both sides of the story.)
- Be suspicious of anyone who is anti-intellectual. (Moral arguments are important, but never to the exclusion of facts.)
- Be suspicious of any argument predicated on the decline of society. (This is probably a "good old days" argument, which is inevitably coloured by personal experience.)

One of the best things I've done over the past couple of years is spend time learning from people with a conflicting point of view**. It's made me more confident and less righteous. Which is better. I think.

* For example: conspiracy theories are always arguments from ignorance. But they are compelling in their simplicity, and difficult to argue against.
** For example: I understand the argument against allowing (civil) gay marriage. I disagree, but I won't damn someone who thinks Bastett and I shouldn't be a legal couple.