You can!
But should you?!?
Neither makes sense.
At first glance, the second even less.
Buying a gun in order to ‘have an opinion’ is not only possible but also cheap.
At a second glance, the first is worse.
It sets the stage. In a certain manner….
Archives for posts with tag: Guns
‘I need a gun to protect myself from those who do not obey all of God’s words but I don’t need a mask to protect me from any of God’s creations. Even from a virus’.
‘A mask protects both of us, regardless of who wears it. And if we both do it, the benefits are bigger for both of us.
On the other hand, if you decide to trust our immune systems that will dramatically increase the chances that both of us will get the disease. Actually, your confidence in our immune systems/God is similar to shooting guns blindly. Statistically there are not that many chances to hit someone, right? Unless you do it in a public space…
That’s why we need to wear a mask in public and to keep all guns away from the hands of those who might use them indiscriminately.’
One-Time
Monthly
Yearly
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
Or enter a custom amount
$
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!
Another very efficient way to help would be to share my posts.
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!
As much as I love writing, I do have to eat.
And to provide for my family.
Earning money takes time.
If you’d like me to write more, and on a more regular basis, hit the button.
Your contribution will be appreciated!
Erica Volini et al, Introduction: Leading the social enterprise—Reinvent with a human focus
I’m afraid there is nothing new here.
‘Technology” has always been the elephant in the china shop.
Only it is very seldom that elephants enter by themselves. Anywhere, let alone in a china shop. And the mahouts who led them there were not always up to the task.
First things first.
“Technology has leaped ahead…” is an oxymoron.
Technology has always been one step behind the humans.
For no other reason than the fact that technology is a human invention. Each and every technological feat has been initiated and put in practice by a human being.
Hence ‘ ‘technology’, (wink) has leaped ahead of leaders and organizations, and the rest of the human element needs to catch up’!
Secondly, the ‘mahouts’ have a relatively easier job than those who drive the ‘rest of the human element’. Developing a technology is fairly easy but making sure that people do not hurt themselves while using it is fairly impossible.
The physical world is straightforward. It’s reaction is always the same. Once the experimenters learn what happens when they execute a certain action, the ‘response’ elicited from ‘that’ physical system by the experimenters’ consistent actions will never change.
On the other hand, people – conscious people, that is, are not that straightforward.
Being self aware, they constantly evaluate the consequences of their responses. They constantly evaluate what happens after they respond to whatever probes them from ‘outside’.
They constantly re-evaluate the consequences their actions produce upon themselves. They learn.
Only they don’t do it ‘mechanically’. Each of them has preferences and a certain freedom of will. Hence their inconsistency. Each of them learns slightly different things from the same situation. And each of them may choose to react in their own manner.
In spite of their assumptions, people are at best reasonable and never fully rational.
Bluntly put, it is fairly easy to evaluate the consequences of a gun being shot at a man but a lot harder to evaluate the consequences of a man shooting a gun.
So, a man of the cloth, driving a Corvette, pointed a gun at a guy who was trying to overtake him in a truck.
Reading this had somehow set my mind into overdrive.
If the other car would have been a Mercedes, or a BMW, would the priest had reacted differently? Better or worse?
In America, the priests are hired directly by the community. Why would a community of church goers entertain the wishes of a priest who covets a Corvette?
What kind of advice would such a person give to a grieving widow? Or to a grieving widower – or parent, whose spouse/child had been killed in a road accident?
This is not a blame apportioning contest but who was/is in a position to do more? The individual subjected to various craves/emotions or the individual(s) having the opportunity to evaluate/keep in check the first?
Where do we draw the line between ‘desirable behavior’ and ‘no go zone’? Can we reasonably expect the ‘significant others’ (priests, doctors, teachers, politicians) to behave differently (better?!?) than the rest of us?
When is the proper time to act? How much deviation from the norm should we accept before ‘pushing back”?
When is the proper time to act? How much deviation from the norm should we accept before ‘pushing back”?
What is ‘proper behavior’, anyway?
nicichiarasa 