Thoughts of Mine

These are beliefs I hold about the way the world is, or the way the world should be. These are not necessarily the beliefs of Dugnet. If you can argue logically against or support the following, then do so. The world is all the better when one thinks.

Abortion Entertainment Equality Family God & Logic Gun control Human Population Learning Legal

Legal Love Memories Political Correctness Responsibility Self-Mutilation Suicide Wealth

---

Random Proverb:

---

Okay, since few people who argue for abortion are on the same moral measuring stick as I am, let's look at things logically. At the end of World War II, the Nazi war criminals were tried at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity. Their defense was based on the fact that they were under orders from their superiors to carry out their actions under the face of punishment for doing otherwise. The courts found them guilty for while it was legally allowable at the time to carry out orders resulting in the deaths of Jews, they were still morally responsible for those deaths. Now let us jump ahead 50 years. The primary difference between those in our country today ordering & carrying out abortions and the Nazi war criminals is that the former are not under pressure of punishment if they refuse to abort babies. If those doctors who perform the abortions and the women who order them were placed on trial before a court more righteous than this country's obviously is, say God, they would be found guilty, for while it may be legally allowable to abort fetuses, they still would be morally responsible for those deaths.

I have brought up the topic of entertainment in conversations with coworkers on multiple occassions and believe that it is not given enough thought. When you consider that your time is divided between eating, sleep, and working, entertainment is only given a fraction of your time and yet it's one of the only times in which you may choose exactly what you want to do. How you spend that time says almost as much about you as all the other activities combined. One aspect of entertainment is clearly to distract us from the tedious struggles of life. Does it serve any other function? It occured to me while watching The Fellowship of the Ring that the reason I enjoyed the movie so immensely was not only the inspiration I experienced, but also sense of yearning it imbued me with to find something greater that is missing in my own life. This is not the only time I have experienced these feelings with a source which was designed to entertain. Other movies, videogames, and roleplaying games have all left me finding the world around me lacking after they have passed. So what are to be done with these feelings? Should I embrace them while the source is there and then relinquish them to go back to world that feels empty? Is the craving for something better which is brought on by entertainment dementia? This involves the classic question of what defines normal. If it is required to follow the norms of society, then perhaps entertainment means more to me than it should, but I've never been a fan of following popular trends.

In this area, I have a very strict view but one I feel is simple. Everyone is created equal and no matter what race one belongs to, they are not more precious than someone else because of that. This often places me at odds with the NAACP (can you say "Black Panthers"?), affirmative action and feminist movements because I believe that their goals are beyond equality.

The family and the individual philosophies are more complex than those of the social aspect. This is because we all live in one large society, that of humanity. We each have our own facet of it, but it is still the same society. Each family is different however, and cannot be compared to others. When I was younger I would always try to compare my family with those of my friends, in order to stay out later, get out of chores, or get a large allowance. Needless to say it did not work. My parents already knew what took me several years to pick up. Each family is unique in its values and structure.

According to the English dictionary, "logic" refers to correct reasoning or the science of correct reasoning, or can refer to "what can be expected by the working of cause and effect." The nature of any known language has a logical basis where words refer to causal events or contradictions to other things are possible. While my car can be in the college parking lot at 10:50 and be gone at 10:51, it cannot exist there and not exist there at precisely the same moment. It is not logically possible. Logic also applies shapes and colors, as has been discussed in the Philosophy 206 classroom. Spherical squares and completely and visibly red and green cannot exist because the definitions of those qualities are contradictory to each other. We cannot pursue the concept of the spherical red and green square any further because it is logically impossible for it to exist, and since our language is based on logic, discussion of it's properties would be pointless and nothing could be determined about it. Such applies to everything ever proposed. If it is self-contradictory, we can make no progress and cannot even comprehend its existence.
When applying the question of whether God is bound to the Laws of Logic, it can be considered a separate issue. It has not been proven that God did not create the universe and time, so it is possible for God to exist outside of time. If God exists out of time, then the logic of cause and effect may no longer apply to Him. In that situation, nothing more could apply to the topic of God because we would be trying to define something outside the Laws of Logic by a language which is based on those laws.
In conclusion, sense cannot be made to the claim that God is not bound by the Laws of Logic. This is because if that is the case, then it can never be proven or disproven because all we have as tools to prove or disprove are the Laws of Logic and those can only be applied to explain events and objects they govern.

Everytime I think of this topic, I must laugh to myself at least a little as I recall at trip with a friend in which we saw a bumper sticker on the back of a pickup stating: "Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target."

Seriously though, my curious nature interests me in what gun control supporters actually think new laws will do to keep shooting sprees from occuring. Can you tell me? Well, since I heard no one speak up, I'll tell you what I think about it. People who go on shooting sprees, like those intent on suicide, usually don't have concerns about the laws they'll break in the process. To me this basically means that someone who is far enough of the moral track to kill another human being probably won't have qualms about stealing a gun or buying one off the black market if they can't obtain one through legal means. At this point the law won't do anything to keep the crime from ocurring unless the criminal is caught between the time of the first crime, and the second. I just don't think new restrictions on firearms purchasing will prevent someone who is not concerned about the law from abusing the weapon and taking someone's life.

Another problem yet I have with "gun control" is that it forbids the ownership of firearms by convicted felons. Anyone who has been convicted of a felony is not eligible to own a gun. I don't have a problem blocking the purchase of violent felons, but give me a break here; any felon? What is the purpose of preventing gun ownership of someone who has laundered money, street raced, or had underage pornography in their possession? The punishment should fit the crime, and crimes that don't involve violence shouldn't be punished as those that do.

I think that humanity has a difficult future ahead of them. The following information* regards the population of the world and is the basis for my concern:

Year	Population (billions)
8000 BC	0.005
1750 AD	0.75
1950	2.5
1970	3.7
1995	5.6

In addition to this information, the U.S. Census Bureau reports that the world population broke 6 billion in 1999. If you look for patterns, you will see that the world population is increasing exponentially. This might seem great and wonderful to the people who love kids and have eight of them, but to be frank the planet can't support our growth for much longer. Pollution/global warming is the most obvious sign of this so far. Even leaving the planet out of the picture, how many times has someone's election platform been creating new jobs? Does that sound stupid to anyone else at all? When there are so many people that they exceed the jobs that are necessary, that should be seen as a suggestion that a greater population is not helpful. So what am I doing here? I'm suggesting that it should be considered that couples should decrease the birthrate by limiting themselves to two children maximum until the population can ease down a little and we don't present so much of a burden on the planet.

Something that bothers me a bit is the American education system. Why is it so fashionable to put as little work as possible into learning? I've always liked to learn things. Some go to class only with the intention to pass the class so they won't have to take it again and frequently don't care if they learn anything at all. This feeling is probably associated more with general education classes which the genius administrators *sarcasm* of our country feel must be implemented. I believe that general education should be an option for students beyond highschool, not a requirement. The depth of an average profession's curriculum is too great to cover over the course of two or four years. So why reduce the general education requirements instead of lengthening the expected time to complete the curriculum? One argument is that students are often already taking more than 4 years to complete their bachelor's degrees; increasing the length of study in this changing world will deteriorate some of the material they learned early on into the realm of obsolete. Think about it, five years ago colleges were teaching students to use Windows 95, try impressing a potential employer with that. Another argument is that general education classes are often large obstacles in students' educational progress. Why should someone be expected to have extraordinary skills and also be fluent in foreign languages and a brilliant public orator? Albert Einstein was never a great speaker, yet he made a great contribution to the world. Students should not be kept from achieving their goals by unrelated fields of study.
I may not have always liked school, but when I was there I would always try to learn as much as possible. There is so much out there to learn! Doesn't that interest anyone? I'm not saying that there's a life to live in a library. Some of the most important answers are not found there. But you can still discover. You can learn things that others don't know and share that knowledge; and in turn you can learn things by just conversing. It's well worth the effort I think.

I think that one of the worst, or perhaps most abused, tools given to people by the government is the lawsuit. In theory, I suppose it would be great. Under the eye of the law, get what you have entitled to you. But as I see things in this country, that's not how it works at all. Instead, it has become an excuse for people who behave incompetently to take advantage of others.
If someone spills hot coffee from a cup that is marked "hot" onto themselves, they should not be paid for being clumsy. They should learn not to do it in the future. Is that not what we spend much of our childhoods doing? Learning from our mistakes? Yet no one gives a toddler a cool million bucks when he or she breaks the antique lamp playing ball in the living room.

I can honestly say that I do not believe in love at first sight. While this is a romantic notion to follow and makes things easier when you can dream that you'll just run into someone and know from that day on that he or she is the person you'll spend the rest of your life with, I just don't believe it anymore. I believe that you can be strongly attracted to someone at first sight, and that can turn into love, but that initial feeling is chemistry, not love. That comes later.

What do we have besides memories? Whether they are good or bad determines whether we will cherish or be plagued by them. Sure, we can close our minds to memories and forget what we've experienced, but along with leading to a painless existence, it also leads to an empty one. To most people, including myself, an entire existence is based on memories of things which occured prior to the present moment. We compare where we are now to where we were before. I've lost friends to memories because they couldn't cope with the change of being in a situation that they were so happy with, to one in which they were miserable.
I admit that instead of feeling more complete by the closure of a new experience and the addition of new memories that I'll dwell on, I feel more empty. I'll see the names of places where I've been, whether it be Iowa, New York, Maryland, or others and think about the times I'd spent and the people there. I wonder why things could be different, why they have to be memories. Both cherishing and plagued.

My opinion of political correctness is that it is a joke. It infringes on the freedoms of the people and promotes closed mindedness. No prayer in public schools? God is not subject to petty human politics. If it is the wish of the people to pray at football games, then it is their inalienable right to do so. Schools belong to the students, parents, and faculty. I have never supported political correctness, and do not think that it offers anything other than an assemblyline-produced society.

"I can't do anything about it now."
The statement above can be used in any situation by someone to shirk responsibility. I don't like this statement because it mixes a part of truth in with an attempt to leave the issue unresolved. There will be some times when the effects of actions cannot be altered, but many more times, there is something that the person could do to prevent the problem from becoming worse, or to heal some of the damage. People seem to love escapes from things. Lawsuits is an example I talked of earlier. Fell flat on your face walking down the sidewalk? Sue the city for having uneven pavement. Pain and suffering. My view is that the person is truly suffering who doesn't have enough believe in his/herself for be held accountable for their own actions. I also think that they should get counseling on their own dollars. In few situations can they blame the city for their own inadequacy.

Okay, I want to get a couple things out of the way. First, I'm not talking about people who have the unrestrainable urge to pierce each body part. That's an issue I don't care about. Secondly, this also does not apply to everyone. People are dynamic enough that I do not believe many things can be said that are accurate of all people.

People who hurt themselves, but not critically, should be considered at a different state of depression than those who attempt suicide. While those who seriously attempt suicide are looking for a way out of life, those who harm themself may often be looking for help. I've often overheard people say: "Oh, she's just doing that for attention." He or she may be hurting themself with sharp objects in part for attention, but not for popularity as people might think, but more as an outward sign of their suffering. Think about it. People who have bruises, scraps, or even cancer usually have visible signs of the pain they are experiencing. People who suffer from major depression or other mental illnesses usually do not appear different than others besides looking downcast. Because so much of the populous is prone to feeling down, the magnitude of the individual's suffering is overlooked and they are left to manage the weight of depression on their own. By giving themselves outward signs of how badly they are doing, it lends to the possibility that someone may take them seriously, and that they may find a solution that will allow them to live a better life.
Another motive that some other people experiencing depression and a low self-esteem may hurt themselves as punishment for some mistake he or she thinks was avoidable and occurred because of their own believed personal shortcomings. This is often not the case, as they can be overly hard on themselves and objective judgement is clouded by feelings of dislike for themselves. While their motives for hurting themselves are not to receive attention and help, and may try to conceal or give other explanations as to how the wounds were caused, they deserve help as well.

Suicide is another special case which cannot be associated with only the individual, nor with only society; it is seamless. Having to deal with the death of a friend through suicide affected me immensely. I understood why he did it, sometimes things can seem hopeless, even for a long time. You've probably heard the old "you never know what tomorrow will bring" saying, and that's what has personally kept me around for so long: hope. There are so many opportunities out there, that if you're looking, you could very well find an alternative solution the the problem which might be bringing on suicidal thoughts. You never know that sticking around for a few days, weeks, or months might give you the answer(s) you'd been looking for. I've found that smiling is every bit as powerful as people say. I know it sounds funny, but since you have nothing to lose by giving life a try, who minds if it's funny?

"Money can't buy happiness" becomes more apparent to me the older I get. While having enough money to live comfortably and not have to worry about having enough for the bare necessities can help you to be happier, having so much that price is never an object won't bring you real happiness. The same is true for wealth obtained through theft, other dishonest means, and when its supplied freely from someone else long term. In Citizen Kane, Kane is a billionaire tycoon who has everything money can buy, but the only thing on his mind on his death bed was what he didn't have. What couldn't be bought.

Some Stuff to Learn