By all means it wouldn’t be a blanket ban applying to all areas, rather just in areas of high risk (like spots where turning your back can lead to a nasty fall).
And as far as compassion goes, I am pragmatic with it. I see no reason why I should starve because the person next to me does not want to spend their money on food.
Give him food, don’t let him die of hunger, but at the same time give a stern talk about why they need to learn self sufficiency and if need be convince him to hire a caretaker or move to a group home (If they don’t want to live independently, then they lose the independence).
Wouldn’t a stern talk be just as (in)effective as giving a ticket as a way of solving problems when people do wrong?
(to be clear, I’m for tickets, talking with people, etc… I’m just asking questions.)
joseph raccoon, you touched on this briefly, Discipline. Nobody has it these days. If people had discipline and exercised self control, I feel it could solve a lot of problems.
There’s the old saying “you can’t help people who can’t help themselves” and that is true for a lot of issues. However, when it comes to matters of life and death, anything to get him to help himself is on the table (which might even include forcing the intake of food and water and perhaps even getting him a mental evaluation so as to gauge treatment options).
Most people have the capability to turn around and realize the foolish things they’ve done earlier in life, and there is no one out there who has never done anything that might be considered dumb and ill-advised (In other words, if you believe you’ve took perfect responsibility and have a flawless record, then you might have an underlying issue with narcissism).
My girlfriends step father is a marriage therapist and he once told me that one of the biggest problems in marriages is that people tend to think “if only he/she would just change everything would be fine.” The problems arise when they try to make those changes happen.
The trick isn’t in trying to force the other to change, that’s what tears them apart, it’s in accepting that they are not who you think they should be.
P.S. Actually I believe the saying is “you can’t help someone that doesn’t want to be helped.” And maybe it’s just because their idea of help differs.
P.P.S. His job, the therapist, is not to change one spouse or the other, but to help them come to terms with their differences.
You’re jumping to a lot of conclusions off of two sentences I wrote, and they weren’t exactly ones that I wrote while chanting “death to homo inferior”.
Perhaps it was not readily obvious but it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously.
Of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t truth to it. Just last night when I was uptown and saw (not even ten seconds apart) this guy walk across the street in front of a car that was only about ten yards away, and when the car slammed on its breaks, he just kind of glances over at it like he didn’t even care that death was rubbing its hands in expectation. Then I literally just looked to the left to see a white truck driving through an intersection when another driver just decided “my time is now” and makes a left turn not even a few feet in front of him.
My point here is that there are so many people that just have no common sense. And no, I highly doubt the people walking in front of cars and drinking shampoo are the geniuses working on putting human beings on Mars. It’s a product of the way we do things- we put so many laws and guidelines in place so the people who lack common sense are no longer weeded out. From the reaction I saw in your previous comment, I feel I need to remind you to not jump up at that statement and call me some awful Darwinist fascist something rather, as I am not trying to tell you that something needs to be done or that we “just need to kill all those darn undesirables”, but rather, that there is a very real problem that needs to be recognized, lest it get worse.
Now here’s some comedy I’m sure you of all people can appreciate, Ace:
~
Not long ago my girlfriend and I were riding our bikes through a Wal-mart parking lot around 10 or 11 at night. As we rode through the lane all of a sudden a minivan driving across lanes through the parking spaces comes somewhat close to hitting us, she slams on the breaks and honks her horn.
She rolls down her window and tells us that we should be more careful riding through the parking lot. The thing is that we were actually obeying all the rules of the parking lot, she was the one cutting through the lanes. That doesn’t mean she was wrong though, we do need to be careful not to assume everyone else is staying inside the lines. Ultimately if we get hit it doesn’t matter if someone broke a rule or not, if we get hit we’re the ones going to the hospital regardless of who the law says was in the wrong.
The law cannot reverse time and say actually the driver of the vehicle was in the wrong and should be the one with a broken neck. Point being, the law cannot protect us from such things, people are going to ignore those rules and we need to be aware of that.
P.S. Using a bicycle as your primary mode of transportation has its ups and downs. Legally we’re supposed to ride in the street and follow all the same traffic laws that a car would. Regardless of what the law says a lot of drivers think they own the road, we certainly get honked at and yelled at plenty of times and a lot of those people sound pretty pissed off. Particularly during rush hour and in the back of your head you know one of those irate drivers might just pull a road rage get out and beat you even though you were following all the rules.
And when those fists are pounding your face does it even matter what the rules are?
In this case, whether or not the tourist was “taking a selfie,” he fell down a staircase, and died from the resultant trauma. He wasn’t competing for a Darwin Award.
It’s naturally quite hard to tell non-serious lines from serious lines on the internet, especially if they are mixed together (that’s why some sites practically require the [sarc] tag).
But on top of that, there’s an unbelievable amount of people online who actually have a serious belief in that type of thing (something that is actually quite commonplace on places such as tech. sites and Youtube).
Quite true, in fact historically people with such views associate with fascism.
“A major element of fascism that has been deemed as clearly far right is its goal to promote the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements…”
“The basis of fascism’s support of violent action in politics is connected to social Darwinism. Fascist movements have commonly held social Darwinist views of nations, races, and societies. They say that nations and races must purge themselves of socially and biologically weak or degenerate people, while simultaneously promoting the creation of strong people, in order to survive in a world defined by perpetual national and racial conflict.”
The people I mention, they are essentially strong believers in natural law as defined by today’s scientific circles. They believe that natural law trumps man-made law and one of the key components of natural (or evolutionary) law happens to be survival of the fittest, death of the weak. In this case they are not far right and are definitely not religious, but rather such a view is fully compatible with what they say is empirical scientific observation.
Hehe, no science, art, culture, music, vision… then. No Einstein, Hawking, Tesla… all them mad crazy scientists. No computers. Basically no human as no one is perfect until dead, meaning cannot evolve anymore. Brain is stronger than any nation or society… it is from mouse to God (by depiction of Michelangelo and Darwin). It is what homo sapiens as a being means. So how to understand followers of this leaders, this kind of authoritative unreasonable persona? I feel sorry, mercy, for all of them are weaklings. In their words & philosophy, them are against selves. That is why they still kill & die for their stupidity. It is democracy.
Well the law of nature does govern all that exists within the universe, but that law is what it is regardless of how it is defined or perceived. Love and compassion are natural aspects of humanity and are therefore part of that law. If survival of the fittest were the law of nature and caring for the meek was weakness then love and compassion would’ve gone extinct long ago, but instead they flourish.
In other words I don’t think observation supports the theories of those of which you speak.
P.S. Don’t worry Ace, I know we have our differences on the subject. Not tryin’ to get into it or anything, just sayin’.
