Most of this is taken from a post I started, no one else really got involved.
Kindness does not mean turning the other cheek to be bitchslapped by bullies, it is a kindness to protect those weaker empathic people by standing up against ignorance and to make all kinds of attempts at jogging understanding into those of influence. It also means supporting understanders where ever you recognize them. So is kindness violated by this idea, because the feelings of the ignorant are hurt when you stand up to them? The thing is it is kind to protect the weak from the ignorant by standing up to them. There is nothing an ignorant person can say to harm a wise person because the credibility of the ignorant is taken away by their own derogatory words. However, everything a wise person says cripple an ignorant person, that the only retort is violence or subversion.
Kindness always applies, even in enforcement you never need malice. Yes, it is not only a kindness to those you protect but also an opportunity to get the offender the help they need. But not all confrontations will have a pleasant ending, ignorance IS a principle on its own, not a true one like kindness, but one strong nonetheless.
There is no right or wrong, good or bad, but there are these two distinct factors about everything: Contructive relationships and destructive forces in nature are the fundamental manifestation, but as that translates to human beings is as empathy/apathy, kindness/ignorance and love/fear. (to name the key factors)
In the causality of everything, we have what I think is best described as Yin/Yang because it does not place a possitive/negative connotation on anything, but they all correspond in the order I placed them because fundamentally they all share the same characteristics.
As in nature you can see that there are “bad” contructive relationships, an example would be cancer, and likewise there are “good” destructive forces, certain treatments of cancer could be interpreted as such, or how tornados wipe out trailer trash. (there are heaps of real examples of this, you may be able to think of some yourself)
But as there is this flip in the benefits of the roles of these things on in the natural world, it would only make sense that the same is true regarding the human aspects that I mensioned. But as we take explosives to destroy a building (you may be familiar with) in the early days of this technology the results were chaotic, but in time we discovered ways to control the blast in a way to have less collateral damage at the site. So it would make sense that we find a way to focus the destructive forces of the human aspect appropriately also.
Why kindness is preferential over ignorance is obvious, but for the hell of it: We as humans are a constuctive relationship and as long as that relationship is constructive, we would not want to destroy it. Then when you look at our very nature, you see we respond to those key emotions love and fear, that for the most part we find things like babies and puppies a passive and nice sensation, whereas regardless of the exhilirating enjoyment fear often brings us (an aspect of that flip in benefits, as before) a threatening situation is usually tense, heightened, alarming.
(I also seen this video on how most of our 52 genes are inactive but the emotion of love touches down on more points in the sequence than fear, as though we some how get more out of our dna by love than we do from fear, I suppose more does not inherently suggest “better” but it makes some kind of point on an emotion/science level)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2XF8BsJ ... re=related
I know we all hate the idea of forcing anything on people, and you are absolutely right, I don’t object to that. But every philosophy you currently enjoy as a free right is being taken away from other people who deserve it.
This thread is not about forcing anything but only about coming to reasonable conclusions to provide everyone with the same freedom you enjoy. It is bad to enforce but it is empathic to try to find a way to appropriately justify everything our civilization enforces and ignores.
Any suggestions of what is a right, is enough. You can also add if you think it is a basic or an earned right and why you think that so others can discuss it to see if we can conclude it or reasonably define the responsibilities that come with it.
For example, people say freedom is a basic right, but if that were true we would have no justification for prisons and generally seperating certain people and animals from other people and animals. So freedom is a basic right as far as you meet the responsibilities to keep it, but what are they?
The responsibilities of freedom depend a lot on not hurting people, but if that were the only factor then we would have no powers to stop others who hurt people. This is a big key to it all. All situations vary, some times you have options to stop people from harming others, evident because we actually have prisons and generally certain people and animals seperated from other people and animals. Other times killing is the only option, but this is not always strait forward either because everyone makes mistakes on judgement calls.
So then we have to establish the intent of force, malicious or human error, deliberate or accidental, if the person paniced, was neglectful or was in clear sensibility.
If they were clearly sensible then we establish motive, was it justifiable or excessive, then deem accordingly.
But then we have cases where the cause of harm is not dirrect, that people make various decisions everyday, if they know who and how it will effect others must be established. Then we have the motives for the decision. The scope of the decision determines accountability for the micro-management of the effects, and if the person in question cannot manage that area appropriately then the area must be divided into areas that are manageable.
Then you have the fact that some areas are more profitable than others and you have areas where the responsibilty to manage outweigh the resorces that area provides to manage it. So generally, all areas cannot be completely independant of each other but the profits of one area have a certain responsibility to the management of other areas. That is where we as human beings and a civilization are neglectful and deny liability.
It is called subsidiary rights and responsibilities and every buisiness, every individual person in the world is liable to it, and deserve it. No one is perfect and we can never expect them to be, but what we can do is provide the environment for people to be imperfectly free. We are imperfectly free, well at least a lot of us are. Pretty much everyone I know has the opportunity to be self-sufficient to their greatest potential an therefore become self-determinate. Should that be all that counts?
Every country that has these opportunities for their citizens has a sustainable population growth, some of them actually have a negative population growth. Sure culture plays its part in that but culture primarily depends on the education level of the citizens. The trends of the group mentality deminish as the people become more independant and free to make their own choices.
It would cost the world a lot to do something about this, but the benefits would mean that we become more sustainable and as we do, the quality of life improves for everyone and we actually start to pay back all that it cost us to do it. But most of all it means that an uncountable number of people need not die in poverty every day and this reduces the global crime levels, including terrorism, uncountably.