Murphy's Law..Opinions are like noses. We all have 'em and many are different. But to say 'you can blame no one but yourself'... yeah I do agree with that mostly yet if space junk falls from the sky, lands on the hood of my car and blocks my view from seeing the car in front of me has stopped and I smash into that car....am I really to blame there?
I actually agreed with most of it. I kind of disagree with "You can blame no one but yourself." People love the illusion of control, but the truth is 95% of what happens to you is completely outside your control. At best you can prepare yourself for what might happen, but not avoid it.I had a hunch I shouldn't have posted that. Some people dont like reading things like this, it gives them headaches. I sincerely apologize to all offended parties.
It's only my opinion but I happen to think almost everything you wrote here is either wrong, or taken out of context, based on my life experience. It might seem odd to you but people without a so-called moral compass don't go on to become vile things. In fact, young children don't show any prejudice to those different from them. They learn it from their parents. Ditto for most of the other bad things adults become. There's actually a lot of good self-interest reasons for treating others well, even if a person has zero morals or empathy.Wasn't planning on it. Some of the things he said were quite shocking though.
"There is no good or bad. There is no right or wrong."
With no moral compass how can you steer children to being upstanding members of society instead of ax murderers?
"Love is unconditional acceptance."
No. Love means you have the person's best interests at heart. If a child wants to jump off a bridge, set their hair on fire, chop off their genitals, join a cult, or eat themselves into having diabetes and a heart attack, a loving parent will tell them no and set boundaries for their own good. To allow otherwise would be negligence or child abuse.
There are too many people in this world raised on teachings of evolution, survival of the fittest, and relativism. What people get from these teachings is that they were an accident, not created with a purpose; that they have to claw, fight, and cheat their way to success and it doesn't matter who they hurt to do it; and there is no absolute truth, no right or wrong. If there is no absolute truth, how can that statement be true? This is known as a self-refuting statement.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, including me. I just happen to think those opinions are wrong.
First, nothing I wrote implied we should not treat others well, even if the person has zero morals or empathy. Sometimes these people need to be shown love and treated with decency from good people because they haven't experienced it in their lives. You have to show them what they've been missing before they can ever want it for themselves.It's only my opinion but I happen to think almost everything you wrote here is either wrong, or taken out of context, based on my life experience. It might seem odd to you but people without a so-called moral compass don't go on to become vile things. In fact, young children don't show any prejudice to those different from them. They learn it from their parents. Ditto for most of the other bad things adults become. There's actually a lot of good self-interest reasons for treating others well, even if a person has zero morals or empathy.
Unconditional acceptance simply means that you love a person no matter what. It doesn't imply that you don't also try to guide them from harmful behavior.
Of course. I've learned that especially with animals. Show an animal love who never experienced it, eventually they'll seek it out.First, nothing I wrote implied we should not treat others well, even if the person has zero morals or empathy. Sometimes these people need to be shown love and treated with decency from good people because they haven't experienced it in their lives. You have to show them what they've been missing before they can ever want it for themselves.
A some point it's society's duty to stop a person once they reach the point where they pose a danger to others. Unconditional love and unconditional acceptance are two entirely different things. The former can help people get through tough times. The latter may help enable antisocial behavior.Second, unconditional acceptance means you have no conditions in accepting someone how they are. If they are stealing, doing drugs, going through gender surgery, joining a cult, gluing themselves to the floor of a car dealership in protest, etc, you aren't judging or stopping their reckless actions. Unconditional acceptance means you've given up your right to say no and stop them. Once you've accepted they can do whatever they want, you have no moral ground to stop them and anarchy will soon follow.
Trump is not the Antichrist no matter how much you want him to be. Antichrist means against or opposes Christ. The Antichrist would be an atheist or possibly a Muslim. He'll worship a god of fortresses according to Daniel 11:36-39 in the Bible. Trump has Jewish family members. The Antichrist hates and kills the Jews.Putin? Trump? Those two come to mind first when I read what you wrote. Problem is Putin is at death's door, and Trump is likely going to finish out his days in a prison cell.
By one world government I mean something along the lines of the United Federation of Planets, not Communist Russia. The idea is nations still retain their rights to govern mostly as they see fit, but there's cooperation in areas of mutual interest, as well as protection of basic human rights everywhere. Instead of the US, Russia, and China having competing space programs, we would have one. We would share research and scientific discoveries. Disputes would no longer be settled by force. Think of the concept as similar to the United States. The federal government has certain dictates for the common good, but states and localities retain most of their autonomy.Also, One World Government.... If I ever get too old to walk, I'll fight tooth & nail against it from my wheelchair. It's not going to be one guy. It's going to be a group of men in charge of everyone else. We got a preview of that on a smaller scale in Communist Russia. I could go into detail about my father's experiences. But this topic is already leaning a bit too close to Underground territory. A One World Government won't make folks' lives better. It'll just spread the misery around to every citizen until the level of hopelessness crushes whatever tiny gram of their hopes and dreams they still have left.
And that's exactly why I want something like I just suggested. This isn't the future I thought we would see when I was a kid. The hopefulness of the 1960s gave way to the "can't do" malaise of the 1970s. By the 1980s we went full steam ahead towards dystopia.For anyone who hasn't noticed.... There is no dystopian future because we're all living in a dystopian present. As a writer who specializes in horror with some Sci-Fi mixed in, I've created entire worlds on Writing forums (obviously) outside of CPF. Not even the most nightmarish, horrific worlds I created in the 1990s can compete with the current real world we're in, now.
I don't take scripture literally. I just picked two evil leaders who happened to come to mind first. There are plenty of others though if you're unhappy with my choices. From the maps in my link it's pretty depressing how much of the world is made up of countries with limited freedom.Trump is not the Antichrist no matter how much you want him to be. Antichrist means against or opposes Christ. The Antichrist would be an atheist or possibly a Muslim. He'll worship a god of fortresses according to Daniel 11:36-39 in the Bible. Trump has Jewish family members. The Antichrist hates and kills the Jews.
Putin isn't the Antichrist either. He may be Gog in Ezekiel 39-39. Gog is a leader from the far north (Russia) that attacks Israel with many nations including Iran, Sudan, Libya, Eastern Europe (possibly Germany), and Turkey. Putin can't be both people.
I'm sorry but, with respect; that's just not a realistic outlook. Even something like protection of basic human rights. You're assuming that certain nations actually care about that. They don't. Mutual interest is one thing. But mutual cooperation isn't realistic. Heck, nations who have been friendly with us going back to the First World War, spy on us. We do the same! A short while back, I coined a term in one of my short stories. Human-beings are disgustingly predictable.By one world government I mean something along the lines of the United Federation of Planets, not Communist Russia. The idea is nations still retain their rights to govern mostly as they see fit, but there's cooperation in areas of mutual interest, as well as protection of basic human rights everywhere. Instead of the US, Russia, and China having competing space programs, we would have one. We would share research and scientific discoveries. Disputes would no longer be settled by force. Think of the concept as similar to the United States. The federal government has certain dictates for the common good, but states and localities retain most of their autonomy.
Their people do, their leaders don't. That's the problem. Even with all the current events going on I don't see the Russian people as evil. They just pick the wrong leaders. In some countries people don't even get to pick their leaders, or just consistently pick the worst ones. I'll grant that this isn't an easy problem to fix. The US has a bad track record trying to install democracies.I'm sorry but, with respect; that's just not a realistic outlook. Even something like protection of basic human rights. You're assuming that certain nations actually care about that. They don't.
Unfortunately, I'm not rich or well connected but I'd be the first one to do that if I was. Become the change you want to see.I can't write a fictional story about a kind-hearted boss who pays off all of his employees' mortgages one year just because it's the right thing to do and he can afford it. Not realistic, nor predictable. No one would believe it.