Every time an apple is opened, a quantity of seeds is exposed. A
number of these seeds, that are all viable, are effectively killed
because I put them in the trash. Because of this, they won't ever grow
to any useful fruit, others die on the spot because my knife cut
destroyed them. I do not feel bad about any of this. I cannot feel bad
about this. This is the nature of things.
Sadly, humans are the
same. We're on a higher level. We "feel". So we have the in-built
desire to not destroy our "fellow apple" or "fellow seed". That
needlessly complicates things more than uncomplicating things. Death is
inevitable. Some just have longer timelines than others. Trying to
sugar coat this causes needless harm to the thinking of fellow humans. A
death sentence is in-built on birth. Dancing with why or why not some
person's timeline shouldn't be being abbreviated is too much playing-god
to me.
I tire of some of these worn out "what-if"
scenarios. If I'm sentenced to death, wrongfully, I'm likely to not ask
for any appeals. I'll accept death and be done with it. I know what
faces me, for good or for bad. Let's be done with the second-guessing.
It bores me. Enough is enough. I'm a tired apple.
2015/01/30
2015/01/24
Android confusion
WTF?
Seriously. Am I supposed to be annoyed at how Android works? Am I supposed to be annoyed that it is downloading "updates"? If the answer to either is "no", then someone has failed, badly.
I'm supposed to not-notice background crap. When a game auto-pauses because it sees that it was superseded, that's a hide-in-the-background fail. I've removed the download manager's ability to generate notices, and the Play Store may soon follow if the stupid "background" notices don't stay in the background like they should.
If the UI would stop annoying me, I'd not be annoyed.
2015/01/20
Daft federal government, sigh
How does the federal government not comprehend that it only has one group it can grow? The federal government can't "grow from the middle class out" (which is the new, unfortunate narrative).
The federal government can only grow the poor. Every time the federal government takes money, it is from taxpayers. Then because it would be "unfair" (gag me with a spoon) to distribute that set of taken (stolen, but some hate that word in relation to government) resources to anyone but the poor, Only the poor benefit, but not in individual quantity (more to you) but in total zombie count.
If you're thinking about benefiting yourself, you then you want to be poor, to get "free" goodies. Of course, you'll have to partially subsist, but such is the cost to join the zombie horde.
If you're a taxpayer, you're just plain screwed. The government will take what you have sooner or later. Give up. Game over. Join the horde. That's the plan anyway, so quit resisting. The government horde is the Borg written in flesh with no technological boost to reign in the stupid. Resistance is futile.
The federal government can only grow the poor. Every time the federal government takes money, it is from taxpayers. Then because it would be "unfair" (gag me with a spoon) to distribute that set of taken (stolen, but some hate that word in relation to government) resources to anyone but the poor, Only the poor benefit, but not in individual quantity (more to you) but in total zombie count.
If you're thinking about benefiting yourself, you then you want to be poor, to get "free" goodies. Of course, you'll have to partially subsist, but such is the cost to join the zombie horde.
If you're a taxpayer, you're just plain screwed. The government will take what you have sooner or later. Give up. Game over. Join the horde. That's the plan anyway, so quit resisting. The government horde is the Borg written in flesh with no technological boost to reign in the stupid. Resistance is futile.
2015/01/19
Robin Hood and the Red Herring
Recently the annoying question of "Would you steal bread to feed your starving family?" has come back up, yet again. This question annoys me to no living end. Right from the top, the whole thing is a red herring masquerading as a valid question.
First, there's the tragic case that it is assumed that God has nothing to say about the scenario. With so many continuously noisy atheists running around nagging people about how even talking about a god is offensive, it's not surprising that most people quickly give up on trying to talk about that. God has a plan, and maybe his plan is to perform a miracle whereby the potential thief is soon to be gifted with a quantity of food out of the kindness of someone's heart. But God sees that the potential thief is going to take law or lawlessness in their own hands and "remedy" the "unreasonable situation". So, God cancels the planned miracle. Maybe the would-be altruistic neighbor witnesses the theft and decides that feeding a family supported by a thief would do more harm than good. But, since God is so unpopular, we'll set this possible resolution aside.
The question pre-assumes that every other option has been exhausted. This is patently nonsense.
There are lots of charity groups whose stated goal is to prevent people from starving (or even simply being hungry) by providing them food. Yes, there is humility that must be exhibited in going to these charity groups and asking for help. It is probably not even necessary to beg for help. Begging would still be appropriate if the situation is "dire". There are many charity groups that can be asked or begged for help. Refusing to make the effort of trying those options before choosing to steal shows a serious flaw of priorities. Clinging to pride instead of embracing humility is probably one of the worst character flaws, especially if it is to the detriment of loved ones. Even if every charity group reports an inability or an unwillingness to help, there are still other options.
If family, friends, and neighbors are unaware of the situation, they may not know that there is a need. Informing family, friends, and neighbors may prompt them to supply food, money, or offer to take the potential thief to a store and buy food for the family. Again, telling family, friends, and neighbors about the situation and its seriousness requires a degree of humility. Again, if pride defeats humility, that counts as a serious character flaw.
No matter how much I hate the food stamp or SNAP programs, those are still options. The problem with the programs is that the asking person doesn't really have to exhibit humility since both the asking person and government think that the person "deserves" help because of "circumstances beyond their control". Unfortunately pride, which likely led to the situation in the first place, is one of those "circumstances" and isn't properly treated as the character flaw it is. So, the character flaw is reinforced instead of being addressed and replaced with proper humility.
All of this available help still doesn't help in the cases where a person already suffers the mental error that says that stealing from the "rich" is a virtue instead of the crime it is. This mental error has been growing more and more recently with people choosing to view themselves as a Robin Hood character. It doesn't help that too many in government have continued to push the false narrative that the "poor" are the victim of the "rich" instead of the truth that both the poor and rich are victims of a government grown far beyond anything resembling a reasonable size. It is easier for government to keep both sides in check by continuing the narrative that the two sides should be fighting each other instead of fighting the government like they really should be.
Long story short, don't come to me with the question of, "Should someone steal to feed their family?" The question and the premise are broken. Humoring the possibility that maybe theft is reasonable, is actively harmful to individual thinking and to the future of society in general. Stop asking the question. Asking the question in any serious manner without "No!" being the only right answer just makes you look foolish.
First, there's the tragic case that it is assumed that God has nothing to say about the scenario. With so many continuously noisy atheists running around nagging people about how even talking about a god is offensive, it's not surprising that most people quickly give up on trying to talk about that. God has a plan, and maybe his plan is to perform a miracle whereby the potential thief is soon to be gifted with a quantity of food out of the kindness of someone's heart. But God sees that the potential thief is going to take law or lawlessness in their own hands and "remedy" the "unreasonable situation". So, God cancels the planned miracle. Maybe the would-be altruistic neighbor witnesses the theft and decides that feeding a family supported by a thief would do more harm than good. But, since God is so unpopular, we'll set this possible resolution aside.
The question pre-assumes that every other option has been exhausted. This is patently nonsense.
There are lots of charity groups whose stated goal is to prevent people from starving (or even simply being hungry) by providing them food. Yes, there is humility that must be exhibited in going to these charity groups and asking for help. It is probably not even necessary to beg for help. Begging would still be appropriate if the situation is "dire". There are many charity groups that can be asked or begged for help. Refusing to make the effort of trying those options before choosing to steal shows a serious flaw of priorities. Clinging to pride instead of embracing humility is probably one of the worst character flaws, especially if it is to the detriment of loved ones. Even if every charity group reports an inability or an unwillingness to help, there are still other options.
If family, friends, and neighbors are unaware of the situation, they may not know that there is a need. Informing family, friends, and neighbors may prompt them to supply food, money, or offer to take the potential thief to a store and buy food for the family. Again, telling family, friends, and neighbors about the situation and its seriousness requires a degree of humility. Again, if pride defeats humility, that counts as a serious character flaw.
No matter how much I hate the food stamp or SNAP programs, those are still options. The problem with the programs is that the asking person doesn't really have to exhibit humility since both the asking person and government think that the person "deserves" help because of "circumstances beyond their control". Unfortunately pride, which likely led to the situation in the first place, is one of those "circumstances" and isn't properly treated as the character flaw it is. So, the character flaw is reinforced instead of being addressed and replaced with proper humility.
All of this available help still doesn't help in the cases where a person already suffers the mental error that says that stealing from the "rich" is a virtue instead of the crime it is. This mental error has been growing more and more recently with people choosing to view themselves as a Robin Hood character. It doesn't help that too many in government have continued to push the false narrative that the "poor" are the victim of the "rich" instead of the truth that both the poor and rich are victims of a government grown far beyond anything resembling a reasonable size. It is easier for government to keep both sides in check by continuing the narrative that the two sides should be fighting each other instead of fighting the government like they really should be.
Long story short, don't come to me with the question of, "Should someone steal to feed their family?" The question and the premise are broken. Humoring the possibility that maybe theft is reasonable, is actively harmful to individual thinking and to the future of society in general. Stop asking the question. Asking the question in any serious manner without "No!" being the only right answer just makes you look foolish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)