Tuesday, October 21, 2008


So, buses by nature, of course, end up coming more erratically than scheduled. Today the wait was longer than usual, so the number of people about doubled by the time the bus pulled up (about 50 people, enough it will be jam packed and many will have to stand, generally uncomfortable, et cetera). So with about half of those people on the bus, another one, same route, pulls up. I turn around instantly and head toward it, and even try to point out to people 'there is another bus...' and stop trying after being emphatically ignored. After a grand total of one other person gets on, the bus takes off more quickly than the other, which the operator has to be more careful in pulling out since there are so many people jammed in. What this says to people is that they are both extreme conformists within systems or that they are lazy or probably both for most of these people.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Lying About Selfishness

I would like to elucidate on the nature of weakness by providing a simple example of combined weaknesses. When one lies about being selfish, one engages in many forms of weakness all at once. The first is to lie to avoid hurting another or yourself, or simply to be malicious. There can be no other reason to do this than sheer ignorance that you are doing it, which is also weak. Now, avoiding hurting others or yourself in actually being honest that you are making a demand on them, usually out of apathy, is cowardice, which is a weakness in any sense. Next, it is often hypocrisy because most people who do this do not realize at all that they are lying, and these people usually will believe that they are not liars or that lying is wrong. It is also weak in denying selfishness as a positive aspect of life: by lying about being selfish, one implicates that it is wrong. It is easy to see that it takes strength, although hardly much, to actually honestly be shamelessly selfish in this instance. Finally, it is weak in that it actually shows that the person expects the other person not to be smart enough to understand they are being lied to when the lie is so absurdly simple. While people may not all be wise enough, even if they do not understand why they are being lied to, if you do it even merely a few times, they will probably resent you for it, whether or not knowing the resentment is because of an obvious lie.

Saturday, October 11, 2008


Since my last post dealt with drugs fleetingly, I thought I should address them a bit further. Firstly, I believe that using any drug at all is stupid and idiotic. Secondly, I do not get the emphasis on keeping people from harming themselves or dying because of drugs: if they want to die due to it, then allow them, just hopefully in private and in a way not injurious to others. I am in favor of all drugs being legal or all being illegal; however, since cigarettes and alcohol will never be conceivably illegal in the United States, all drugs should be legal. Drug use will initially rise and eventually fall. Enforce highly strict penalties for any public damage caused by drug abuse (much higher than at present). Keeping pot illegal and taboo while cigarettes and alcohol are legal is a farce, hypocritical, cowardly, and absurd (sometimes not both the second and third, but usually, as applied to individuals' reason to be against it, is so).


While I support selfishness as a great founding principle of how to properly live life, this is always meant to be in a manner that is not excessively injurious to others, and not injurious at all if it can be so helped. I do not want to get into the semantics too much here because it becomes very messy: if I do not buy a product from seller A because it is a a small business and more expensive but do buy it from seller A because it is a large business that can offer it cheaper, I am serving my selfishness and injuring one and not the other (and possibly injuring other people by buying from a large chain who uses unfair practices or whatever), and buying from both seller A and B is perfectly fine, but B is the logical selfish choice. One could, of course, also be selfishly getting some extra sense of satisfaction (which could be vain or not; stupid if vain, not if not) from supporting the small business...and is injuring the large chain, too.

An easy example of what I mean is that smoking in public where anyone who does not want to breathe in your smoke and will be forced to loiter in the general area (a crowded street, for instance) is a selfishness that ought not be tolerated. They can do whatever they want in private establishments that allow it, as people who dislike the smoke can then avoid it. People with weak lungs should not ever have to find themselves short of breath due to smoking in public, nor should anyone else who does not want to have to either, nor should anyone who despises the smell have to smell the hideous stench.

Selfishness is a stellar altar to serve at, and one ought to serve one's interests while tempering it with a respect for the right of others to be selfish.

Animal Cruelty

Animal cruelty is a subject sensitive to many people because they own and have developed some sort of love for their pets, or at least this is the most common reason. Their love for their pets eliminates the chance that they can look at animal cruelty with any semblance of objectivity, contributing to a hysterical response to any occurrence of this supposed brutalization. This all seemingly contrasts, however, with the notion that animals are inferior to humans (which they are) and that we may then logically do with them whatever we want (not true).

I do not endorse a crazed abuse of animals to satisfy some desire to be cruel. this is probably a genuine 'sickness' and, if not 'sick', certainly highly illogical. There is nothing to be gained from doing this that is productive.

I also do not support abuse to pets to make them do something better. This is, of course, viewed as abuse more in regard to activities like animal fights, but typically not if performed to instruct one's one one's pets, which is a gross hypocrisy. This is a foolhardy way to attempt to differentiate. A better separation between instruction and abuse here is how wanton it is or with the temperament in which it is applied as a detriment. If one relentlessly beats a dog for biting a stranger, then it is abuse, but if one hits it and firmly tells it 'no!', then it is obviously instructive. The difference in temperaments here is fairly clear: in the former, the beating is too severe because of some stupidity or anger or a genuine satisfaction in beating the dog, or maybe even to overcome inadequacy, or some mixture thereof; the second situation, however, implies a calm and rational demeanor and approach.

Though I do not support beating the animal to make it fight better, I do support making it fight or race or lead a blind human or whatever logical means the owner wants to use an animal toward. If done with no sense of malice, and with no abuse involved, then it is not cruelty. It might become cruelty, but it might not lead to, and while something like pure 'dogfighting' is going to be more seemingly cruel, I do not want to try and make a distinction between that and horse racing, which is seemingly less cruel to most, but probably is of the same pain for the animal; both are unpleasant, but it is using the animals for a profit. It is not a malice filled endeavor, even if the animal experiences pain, and it is perfectly acceptable because animals are our tools. there is nothing wrong with being detached of emotion in regard to animals instead of assuming an emphatic and indignant love of them. I find many animals awesome, but it does not make me sad when one dies, and I will not feel badly if I kill one incidentally to something I do such as driving. They are our tools and we have the right to utilize them in whatever intelligent manner we choose.