What is respect?
Respect can be shown by listening when another is talking. Respect can be given by holding a door open for some one with their hands full.
But WHAT is respect?
If the only way to define something is through actions how can you say someone has disrespected you? Not all people will have the same way of expressing respect. Take for example the different salutes used throughout the world. Each country has their own unique twist, yet they are all ment to convey the same feeling: respect.
woops there went that train....
Monday, December 23, 2013
Monday, November 18, 2013
Morals, Morality, More of ... rant warning
What are morals? What is morality? Who gets to define this mess?
So ... Hmmmm ... I am going to try to write this without using sources. This will be entertaining.
Morals are those things that one believes to be right or wrong. The fun thing is the variances between what is considered right or wrong. Another amusing aspect is the way some are applied making the person a hypocrite.
That being said morality would be the application of said morals.
So now I am going to pick on one "moral" all life is sacred.
There are pro-abortionist who think the death sentence should be abolished.
There are those who support the death sentence who are against abortion.
Then you have those that believe their life or their religions followers or their ethic background or some other ideal should be the only one and then proceed to kill, yet these very same people will be against abortion or the death sentence or both.
How can one profess that all life is sacred if they support killing?
And this is where I get the resounding "BUT .... " with their justifications as to why one is ok and the other is not. While I do not like the idea of a rapist roaming free, one cannot support killing said person if one wants to pull the all life is sacred line... In my opinion anyway.
But even more fun is the who gets to define what a moral is.
Religions cannot seem to agree on a set list of morals. Even those that share the same holy writings cannot pick a similar set or so it seems to me. Even those "morals" like killing are not universal. So who sets the moral standards when they seem to be like fashion styles? Maybe that is the answer. Maybe it is the collective that decides what is right and wrong. If that is true then all it would take is a drastic, yet unified decision to abolish just about any wrong.
It would mean that as a race we are ok with people starving, people going without shelter, people dieing of easily cured diseases ... The list goes on and on of things that would take a collective change to fix.
Interesting
So ... Hmmmm ... I am going to try to write this without using sources. This will be entertaining.
Morals are those things that one believes to be right or wrong. The fun thing is the variances between what is considered right or wrong. Another amusing aspect is the way some are applied making the person a hypocrite.
That being said morality would be the application of said morals.
So now I am going to pick on one "moral" all life is sacred.
There are pro-abortionist who think the death sentence should be abolished.
There are those who support the death sentence who are against abortion.
Then you have those that believe their life or their religions followers or their ethic background or some other ideal should be the only one and then proceed to kill, yet these very same people will be against abortion or the death sentence or both.
How can one profess that all life is sacred if they support killing?
And this is where I get the resounding "BUT .... " with their justifications as to why one is ok and the other is not. While I do not like the idea of a rapist roaming free, one cannot support killing said person if one wants to pull the all life is sacred line... In my opinion anyway.
But even more fun is the who gets to define what a moral is.
Religions cannot seem to agree on a set list of morals. Even those that share the same holy writings cannot pick a similar set or so it seems to me. Even those "morals" like killing are not universal. So who sets the moral standards when they seem to be like fashion styles? Maybe that is the answer. Maybe it is the collective that decides what is right and wrong. If that is true then all it would take is a drastic, yet unified decision to abolish just about any wrong.
It would mean that as a race we are ok with people starving, people going without shelter, people dieing of easily cured diseases ... The list goes on and on of things that would take a collective change to fix.
Interesting
On the Clock / Off the Clock
A blogger I follow http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/?m=1 posted a bit about having an internet signature or history.
Some one replied something to the effect of an employer using your internet history as a deciding factor for hiring.
Personally I do not think using your latest or even historical postings as a means to determine if you get a job (unless the job is something along the lines of a blog, news, etc. Where your being hired for your opinions) should be permitted.
Every person in this country is entitled to an opinion and entitled to express it, as provided in the constitution.
Every person, including our highest office, is entitled to a personal life. I cringe and pity who ever is the latest victim of our obsession to know everything about who ever is in the spot light. Some times I wonder if it is done out of envy, a means to pull the person down. I sympathize with them for the pain it must put them through to have the worst parts of themselves flung in their face everyday and hung out for all to see.
That being said. My PERSONAL life is just that PERSONAL. I make no claims to be perfect. I am a sinner. I have done wrong and crazy and bizzar and OMG WTF. All that means is I am human, will I answer truthfully about it, yes. Am I proud of it, well that depends on what we are talking about. I am not proud of breaking my word to be with one man the rest of my life (aka marriage), but I draw the line at being shaken by the man that claims he loves me. Which brings to mind another idea for a blog post. There are something's that I quite proud of that are not quite "right".
So unless my employer is going to pay me around the clock, don't know many that do, what I do on my non paid time is entirely my business and not theirs. The ONLY exception I make is for if I break a law, then its my employers business IF it effects my ability to do my job.
But then you have folks who are on call. Here is quasi land. Or that wonderful grey shade ... Hehe ... Still with in reason, read with in legal limits, what they do away from their office is their business unless clearly defined and accepted between both parties in a contract with the ramifications of failure defined.
What say you the reader?
Some one replied something to the effect of an employer using your internet history as a deciding factor for hiring.
Personally I do not think using your latest or even historical postings as a means to determine if you get a job (unless the job is something along the lines of a blog, news, etc. Where your being hired for your opinions) should be permitted.
Every person in this country is entitled to an opinion and entitled to express it, as provided in the constitution.
Every person, including our highest office, is entitled to a personal life. I cringe and pity who ever is the latest victim of our obsession to know everything about who ever is in the spot light. Some times I wonder if it is done out of envy, a means to pull the person down. I sympathize with them for the pain it must put them through to have the worst parts of themselves flung in their face everyday and hung out for all to see.
That being said. My PERSONAL life is just that PERSONAL. I make no claims to be perfect. I am a sinner. I have done wrong and crazy and bizzar and OMG WTF. All that means is I am human, will I answer truthfully about it, yes. Am I proud of it, well that depends on what we are talking about. I am not proud of breaking my word to be with one man the rest of my life (aka marriage), but I draw the line at being shaken by the man that claims he loves me. Which brings to mind another idea for a blog post. There are something's that I quite proud of that are not quite "right".
So unless my employer is going to pay me around the clock, don't know many that do, what I do on my non paid time is entirely my business and not theirs. The ONLY exception I make is for if I break a law, then its my employers business IF it effects my ability to do my job.
But then you have folks who are on call. Here is quasi land. Or that wonderful grey shade ... Hehe ... Still with in reason, read with in legal limits, what they do away from their office is their business unless clearly defined and accepted between both parties in a contract with the ramifications of failure defined.
What say you the reader?
Thursday, October 31, 2013
FOOD IS A HUMAN RIGHT ...
Rather than repeat what is said here is the link.
It is good to hear the Catholic Church working on the problem of hunger.
It is good to hear the Catholic Church working on the problem of hunger.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Co Dependency
Pulling a midnight shift, so I figured I'd blab a bit.
Co Dependant
well what is it? Cue google search and wiki
then you have a psychological point of view with a list of the symptoms. And finally WebMD's take.
My summary is that a codependant sacrifices themselves to the point of harm for another person. Mostly the articles point to those in relationships with substance addict, but the condition can arise without substance addiction.
While some dependency is needed in a relationship I think the defining line is marked at two things. One being one person in the relationship is giving to the point of harm to themselves. Two the person giving to the point of harming themselves is doing so that the other can be enabled; be it drugs etc.
Co Dependant
well what is it? Cue google search and wiki
then you have a psychological point of view with a list of the symptoms. And finally WebMD's take.
My summary is that a codependant sacrifices themselves to the point of harm for another person. Mostly the articles point to those in relationships with substance addict, but the condition can arise without substance addiction.
While some dependency is needed in a relationship I think the defining line is marked at two things. One being one person in the relationship is giving to the point of harm to themselves. Two the person giving to the point of harming themselves is doing so that the other can be enabled; be it drugs etc.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Friday, October 18, 2013
Finally Friday
Yup its Friday and yup its a full moon and then one of the folks I work with decided to say it was slow... 30 minutes later all hell broke loose
I need a hug, but I am gonna settle for beer and manual labor tonight.
I need a hug, but I am gonna settle for beer and manual labor tonight.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Pope Francis
I love this guy.
Really really love this guy.
The first article I read on him today was about his effectively kicking the priest in charge of the papal charities out of his chair with a command to go and see those asking for help.
Then I read how he is warning against "moralistic ideology".
I just wanna shout to all hey check this dude out!
Really really love this guy.
The first article I read on him today was about his effectively kicking the priest in charge of the papal charities out of his chair with a command to go and see those asking for help.
Then I read how he is warning against "moralistic ideology".
I just wanna shout to all hey check this dude out!
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Abortion: moral? or legal?
Hot button topic, tis always fun.
Personally I feel that its a womans choice, she is after all the one who has to or not live with either side of that coin.
But for the sake of arguement and to see if I can change my opinion here we go ...
Pro lifers, for lack of a better term, say that life starts at conception.
Yet more oft than not when a person is brain dead those given the power choose to remove life support. Brain waves don't start until the pregnancy is 6 weeks along.
From my understanding your pronounced dead if your heart wont beat. A fetuses heart doesn't start beating until the pregnancy is 3 weeks along.
Also its should be noted that a baby's organs are not fully form until 37 weeks have passed, but babys born before then do have some chance depending on how developed they are. These are babys that are normally refered to as a "premie" indicating that the were born before all systems were fully formed and functional. Premies often have multiple problems that develop later in life centered around brain development, which makes me wonder if that is what caused the early birth.
But a fetus is not a fully formed person, so can you really use the same metrics to determine life? It represents the potential for life, but yet it can't survive on its own.
This is why I consider abortion a moral decision; how do you decide if and when a fetus becomes a human being?
Many have tried to get that very question answered and legalized and I don't know of one that has stuck for the whole of the USA; Its a moral decision.
Christ taught to give on to Cesar what is Cesar and give to God what is God's. Moral decisions are God's realm, laws are the governments at least in my understanding of separation of church and state. Therefore would it not be wrong for one to impose on the others realm of power?
Which means that the government has not right to impose laws about moral decisions.
You want to end abortion, change the way pregnancy is seen, change the way society sees a woman who has given birth. The chances of effecting to a 100% birth rate is not that great, but that is where faith and hope come in and lets not forget lots and lots of dedication and hard work.
So in the end I guess you can say I am of both sides of this argument.
what say you?
Personally I feel that its a womans choice, she is after all the one who has to or not live with either side of that coin.
But for the sake of arguement and to see if I can change my opinion here we go ...
Pro lifers, for lack of a better term, say that life starts at conception.
Yet more oft than not when a person is brain dead those given the power choose to remove life support. Brain waves don't start until the pregnancy is 6 weeks along.
From my understanding your pronounced dead if your heart wont beat. A fetuses heart doesn't start beating until the pregnancy is 3 weeks along.
Also its should be noted that a baby's organs are not fully form until 37 weeks have passed, but babys born before then do have some chance depending on how developed they are. These are babys that are normally refered to as a "premie" indicating that the were born before all systems were fully formed and functional. Premies often have multiple problems that develop later in life centered around brain development, which makes me wonder if that is what caused the early birth.
But a fetus is not a fully formed person, so can you really use the same metrics to determine life? It represents the potential for life, but yet it can't survive on its own.
This is why I consider abortion a moral decision; how do you decide if and when a fetus becomes a human being?
Many have tried to get that very question answered and legalized and I don't know of one that has stuck for the whole of the USA; Its a moral decision.
Christ taught to give on to Cesar what is Cesar and give to God what is God's. Moral decisions are God's realm, laws are the governments at least in my understanding of separation of church and state. Therefore would it not be wrong for one to impose on the others realm of power?
Which means that the government has not right to impose laws about moral decisions.
You want to end abortion, change the way pregnancy is seen, change the way society sees a woman who has given birth. The chances of effecting to a 100% birth rate is not that great, but that is where faith and hope come in and lets not forget lots and lots of dedication and hard work.
So in the end I guess you can say I am of both sides of this argument.
what say you?
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Fear and welfare
Lets start with the Wikipedia definition:
"Fear is an emotion induced by a perceived threat which causes entities to quickly pull far away from it and usually hide. It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to a specific stimulus, such as pain or the threat of danger. In short, fear is the ability to recognize danger leading to an urge to confront it or flee from it (also known as the fight-or-flight response) but in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) a freeze or paralysis response is possible"
From a Catholic stand point fear is defined as:
"Fear is an unsettlement of soul consequent upon the apprehension of some present or future danger."
Ok so I am Catholic, get over it.
So fear is the result of one foreseeing a possible loss of a valued item, view, etc. Or being confronted with the loss of a valued item.
Would it be accurate to say that where there is fear there is no joy, love, hope, etc? I think so.
So if fear is the absence of joy, love hope, etc then anything that brings those feelings during or while you are in a situation that causes fear will be held tight.
And finally...
It is because of the need to have good feelings and to not be afraid that welfare, etc will not go away until or unless another system springs up to be as effective and as indiscriminate as welfare is.
It is the fear of not having food, shelter and clothing that keeps the welfare system in place.
This is where the churches should step up.
Yet the churches are known for delivering judgment not compassion, so I can see why one would find a government ran option as preferable. There is not judgment as to if you are worthy other than proof of need and continued proof of need. That's an easy requirement to meet and prove.
I know there are soup kitchens that feed any who walk in their doors ran by churches, but feeding a person for one day does not solve their need the next. Just like the government ran welfare giving money etc away doesn't solve the need, only transfer the burden of the person.
So I do wonder what could be done, for I do believe every life is precious and entitled to food, shelter, and clothing. But I also know that baring a massive psychological change for the whole there will always be those who will not have those things.
Because it will take a change in the way people view food, clothing and shelter for all to not worry about their having it.
Its a bit disjointed, but I'll go with it
"Fear is an emotion induced by a perceived threat which causes entities to quickly pull far away from it and usually hide. It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to a specific stimulus, such as pain or the threat of danger. In short, fear is the ability to recognize danger leading to an urge to confront it or flee from it (also known as the fight-or-flight response) but in extreme cases of fear (horror and terror) a freeze or paralysis response is possible"
From a Catholic stand point fear is defined as:
"Fear is an unsettlement of soul consequent upon the apprehension of some present or future danger."
Ok so I am Catholic, get over it.
So fear is the result of one foreseeing a possible loss of a valued item, view, etc. Or being confronted with the loss of a valued item.
Would it be accurate to say that where there is fear there is no joy, love, hope, etc? I think so.
So if fear is the absence of joy, love hope, etc then anything that brings those feelings during or while you are in a situation that causes fear will be held tight.
And finally...
It is because of the need to have good feelings and to not be afraid that welfare, etc will not go away until or unless another system springs up to be as effective and as indiscriminate as welfare is.
It is the fear of not having food, shelter and clothing that keeps the welfare system in place.
This is where the churches should step up.
Yet the churches are known for delivering judgment not compassion, so I can see why one would find a government ran option as preferable. There is not judgment as to if you are worthy other than proof of need and continued proof of need. That's an easy requirement to meet and prove.
I know there are soup kitchens that feed any who walk in their doors ran by churches, but feeding a person for one day does not solve their need the next. Just like the government ran welfare giving money etc away doesn't solve the need, only transfer the burden of the person.
So I do wonder what could be done, for I do believe every life is precious and entitled to food, shelter, and clothing. But I also know that baring a massive psychological change for the whole there will always be those who will not have those things.
Because it will take a change in the way people view food, clothing and shelter for all to not worry about their having it.
Its a bit disjointed, but I'll go with it
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Welcome
To those of you following from PalmCityGirl; Welcome!
To those of you who are new; Hello!
This blog is for the posting of my point of view and opinions. If your offended stop reading, cause what is posted is staying.
To those who would caution me about what I put up; I refuse to live in fear. That being said there are lines I won't cross; my address, phone number, etc. Will NOT be featured on or in any postings.
Beyond that if anyone cares to create a dossier on me, its not hard to find bits and pieces about me all over the net. Or just ask, I after all have nothing to hide. My opinions are mine and formed by my world view amongst other things.
Enjoy your stay and I look forward to some engaging conversations
To those of you who are new; Hello!
This blog is for the posting of my point of view and opinions. If your offended stop reading, cause what is posted is staying.
To those who would caution me about what I put up; I refuse to live in fear. That being said there are lines I won't cross; my address, phone number, etc. Will NOT be featured on or in any postings.
Beyond that if anyone cares to create a dossier on me, its not hard to find bits and pieces about me all over the net. Or just ask, I after all have nothing to hide. My opinions are mine and formed by my world view amongst other things.
Enjoy your stay and I look forward to some engaging conversations
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)