Postingan

The god v.06

When social condemnation is your god, you'd need the social to condemn However you knew that the society is blind, so you'd need the society to conform to esteemed figures However you knew that the revered figures are corruptible (especially those who gave assurance that they're uncorruptible), so you need auditors However you knew that the revered figures will attack the auditors, but somehow you didn't know what to do... Lets increase the punishments instead -------------------------- fyi : that post was sarcastic... -_- why make punishment harder and harder for public sentiment? Evil politicians! Like, these persecutions only empowers them to intimidate others who are checking on them or wanted to do better than them. Reduce the punishments so that audit can be done with less stakes and anyone can audit. If you said audit is a market then the opposite is logical! we need people to realize what audit is and how expensive it is... if they never do that because of "

Different definitions of worship

Based on my own personal observation, open to critique btw, some people have different meanings of worship when they say worship. I think what a lot of people had is I'll subject myself to "God" with absolute loyalty. That's the kind of embedded circuit within people, which entails one of the "need" in human being, to have someone or some deities to worship. Its probably like sex where it just needs to be channeled.  However you got to train yourself to separate elements of this circuit in your brain. Politicians could tap into this and take advantage of this against our own best interests. People might not realize this but the party that they're in, the race, the religion, the group that they're in, potentially not only cater to our social needs but also our room for God. Such if unchecked can make people do things or be a certain way that is profitable firstly not to them but to other people (evil politicians).  So when you worship, worship to the

Drawing meaning through derivatives (of writings and sayings)

When someone was not talking directly either responsibly or irresponsibly (attribution-wise), what is the meaning that the person was saying or writing? Stalkers and gossipers would argue it is in their conviction, but a person could have hierarchies of convictions. So based on the gossipers and bully's culture they would consider whatever they deemed to be the meaning as the meaning, as long as it is a person's conviction.  This is why in Christianity God is the one who sees the heart, humans are to judge just by the result. When comes to "conviction", a person might had emotional conviction in what he / she illustrated, but if such person was, for example, acted in a discipline that always prioritized their "Rule conviction", maybe they were religious, or maybe they commited to lawfulness, it would be painting a wide brush to say that such emotion was what they mean when "the rule" could mean another. Moreover I don't think types of convictio

Maybe, cause it had to go somewhere right?

When you communicate usually it would transfer responsibilities to the receiver, when it comes to art or humor or music that shouldn't be the case, but other times it is. For example when you say that there is a lamp that is yellow and there is a lamp that is blue, since you've said it, you've said it, so when such information amount to something you would've already said it. The worst kind of communication is when there was a transfer of responsibility but the messenger wouldn't be responsible, in this case the receiver couldn't refuse the responsibility or adjust it without "paying" for some extra steps. It is infuriating.  Then I assume, people thought that it is normal to experience such things, so the culture went towards more and more furious. What I mean by that is that the culture is looking for more and more things to define as bad or immoral or not nice or unacceptable. Most of the time such things are not that infuriating supposedly, but dam

Justice people are not being difficult, the focus is different

Good and Evil is not about neuroticism or not. Today some neurotic people might feel like doing injustice for the excuse of their intense feelings, tommorow the less neurotic people might be the ones who were unjust for this and that. Justice is hard enough to achieve, like an arrow might not hit the bullseye even after being aimed, those that are aiming would not hit the bull's eye unless its a coincidence.  To make it harder for those that are trying or specifically prevents those that are trying to be Just is being too adversarial, unnecessarily adversarial. People we should talk responsibly

Turn based community credit system v.02

So 3 people made collaterals (same sizes), and the bank gave for them an overdraft account. Each could take 90% of 1/3 freely, but if at a moment one would take, say, 130%, the next turn he/she could only take 50% Each turn period was determined beforehand, maybe 6 months, maybe 8 months, or else. You'd want to use this for...

This could reduce gang fights, maybe

Because gang disputes are evil, when you remove a chunk of the evil the interests would reduce. So if you legalize gang fights, maybe create a special area like special economic tax free territories we have now, and then you inform to the gangs that you knew were in a tension with each other, you'd reduce the chances of that happening.  Maybe an increase for non deadly fights, but deadly gang battles should be able to be reduced just by the act of legalizing and organizing it. Because they were fueled by evil. If they wanted to do it without supervision anyway, then I don't know, but still my point if you organized it and legalized it, they should be less likely to want to do it. Such event should add nuances to the way of the gangs and eventually reduce the chances of "traditional" practices.