Reality Check: No idealists here?

Is hate a stronger emotion than love?

Yes.

Everyone wants to believe in their heart that love can conquer all and that love will win out in the end but if I wrote that article arguing for love, I fear I would be ignoring the reality of the world in which we as humans live.

So this is the reality check that doesn't wax lyrical about how love is great and all conquering but considers both sides of the coin.

In considering the world in which we live I have considered which emotion has the largest, longer lasting effect not on the individual but on humanity as a whole. This is what I have defined as the strength of the emotion.

Hate will consume an individual, group or nations and will last for generations until people can no longer remember the original reason for hating but will continue to do so because it is easier than to try to understand.

We hate people for all kinds of reasons including those originally borne out of love. Love can turn to hate which can lead to death and destruction. How many times have you seen on the news stories about jealous lovers going on killing sprees.

Hate has lead to war, genocide, racism and ethnic cleansing, it has divided families, countries and the world. The acts of terrorism by small groups fuelled by hate have changed the world for ever as the effects of such atrocious acts ripple around the world changing society beyond all recognition.

Love can change an individuals life but can only last as long as they live. Love is an individual selfless act where as hate is almost always a selfish act. It is this that gives hate its strength, it requires less energy and is all about what you as an individual want.

I want love to be the stronger emotion and on an individual level it can be, we can all learn to love rather than hate but love needs to work twice as hard to overcome hate.

In arguing that hate is stronger I recognise the sadness of that argument, humanity who has the power and ability to create such beauty turns so easily to hate to cause so much destruction. We all need the dreamers in the world who state that love is stronger because we should all strive for that ideal in order to make a better world for everyone.

Are computer games a waste of time?

Playing computer games are just another form of recreation. No better or worse than any other.

Why participate in any form of recreational activity?

To relax, to switch off, to join in with other like minded people and to have fun.

Gaming fulfils every one of those criteria especially if you play in a group such as in games like World of Warcraft where you play in a virtually society or in one of the military shooters such as Battlefield 2 or Call of Duty where you can play in a clan. In a clan or team it even becomes a team sport with strategies, playing to the individual and teams strengths and weaknesses.

Online gaming expands your virtual social networks, you make friends, find that you can share in other areas of interest and expertise. There are even instant messenger programs like Xfire to keep in touch with gaming friends. When I was looking to upgrade my computer I was able to turn to my clan mates for good advice and tips all because of playing games.

For young people or for socially awkward people it can be an ice breaker and help them feel part of a group. Often shy people who would find it difficult to relate to people face to face participate in gaming social environments and you would not even know they were shy in real life. The detachment and gaming environment allows people to be who they really want to be without worrying about what other people think.

Computer games also improve hand eye / co-ordination and reaction times in a similar way to other sports such as tennis.

Yes, computer games can be violent but so can sports and provided we regulate and treat games in the same way as sports there should be no problems.

Yes, computer games can be addictive and possibly cause psychological problems but again so can some sports. No one is calling them a waste of time and calling for them to be banned.

Different people like different things, there are large numbers of us that play computer games, there are large numbers of people that play golf. If you don't play one of them you might thing them a waste of time but they are not, different games for different people.

So although it may seem like computer games are a waste of time, in reality its all media hype and provided as with all things they are played in moderation they are a perfectly normal way to have fun and relax.

Should prospective parents be able to determine their child’s gender?

A love to lead weekly discussion topic

No.

The beauty and intrinsic value of nature is in its random chance. To allow one set of parents to determine a child's gender is to start to define society along populist lines. Do we really want to create a fashion trend or a society where we can no longer celebrate our own individuality because we are all the same, predetermined at birth.

Can you imagine trend spotters on the news coming on saying this years must have baby is a boy with blue eyes and blonde hair. If we allow interference with natural selection of gender it will not stop at gender, it will be hair, height, mental abilities and other common variable.

It will become like a role playing computer games where you set up your characters starting characteristics such as charm and intelligence.

It will create armies of David Beckham's or Harry Potter's. Everyone will be the same just as today children have the same names, as they go in and out of fashion.

Children instead of a blessing will become a fashion accessory to show off to your friends.

The uniqueness that makes a person them can be based on their gender. Although there is equality of the sexes there will always be different ways of looking at things based on gender.

Take some historical figures, a female Einstein may well have been a great scientist in maybe a different field but they would not have been Einstein.

Take Margaret Thatcher, as a man he would have been a different leader with different views, would he have become the leader of the Tory party?

A person's opinions and actions are directly linked to their gender. This can both be a strength and a weakness for both genders, but just as twins can be exactly the same they will have different lives and personalities.

As well as the sociological factors there are also the scientific factors. Gender selection in the womb can be determined by changes in the external environment. As such should we really interfere, could we be putting our children at risk by deciding that we know better than nature?

In Summary

A child gender should not and can not be decided in the same way as we would choose a child's name.

To allow such selection would open up Pandora's box of children becoming the latest fashion accessory.

There are sometimes reasons why nature chooses one sex over the other, should we really interfere?