Eff's Rambles (Archive)


It is not about restoring honor.

I will tell you that I am a moral person; rather traditional. Am I ever hypocritical? Yes, and I am also not an altruistic person. But acts of selfishness and cruelty bother me, especially those done with conscious understanding. I am angered that a person could not only be so evil as to do something intentionally cruel or selfish and negligently stupid, but that said person could live on. Far too many people excuse terrible behavior: they are young, they were drunk, the other person made me angry. I will not say that special circumstances do not exist, but some people know of their guilt and evil of what they did, and in some cases their acts resulted in death. And those horrid persons death by their own hand or lifetime of attempted redemptions suits me fine. How any person, that has killed heinously or been involved with a dangerous act done in a cruel manner on others, does not think of, at least, and act upon suicide, sickens me. It is near sociopathic rationalizing of their own acts and negligence; their heartless apathy. I do not want suicide as an option just to restore honor to the guilty or the towns from which they came, I just want it because, while I oppose state executions and agree that the state must try to prevent suicide attempts by prisoners, etc., I believe trash ought to know what it is and remove itself from this plain. If they aren't willing to try to make up for their acts, I wish they'd do the final acts on themselves.


Probably unoriginal psychological and, or, neurological question.

If a person with a child and an addiction to something is given the hypnotic suggestion that the child will die if said person resumes use of the item of addiction, where even being in its tangible presence will act as a trigger for the hypnotic suggestion to repeat in that person's mind until the person stops any attempt at using the item, and the person uses it despite believing, presumably, in the cost of use, the child's death, what does that say about the person? What does it say in general. I don't know, but I am curious. If someone would like to answer this as best as possible, please do so. Thank you.


The Sgrena shooting: A Short plea for Silence.

The Sgrena shooting is still under investigation. Claims need to be confirmed, and testimony disputing the claims need to be checked out. All reasonable avenues need to be used to resolve this matter. So, to every one going on about who's at fault, in the name of being objective, please shut up, you fucking leeches, and let the investigation finish. Then, if you have a reasonable argument to contest the investigation and what punishments, if any, were given, can you not look like an evil asshole in your protests and defenses.

Damn bastards jump at the gun over every news story.

The worst is that some of you want punishment before errors, let alone malicious intent, have been established as reasonably avoidable.



Making bad comparisons.

Hitler and Bush are not the same person. Similarites do not make people mirrors of each other, nor the virtual reincanations of others. One might be able to argue Bush is evil, but no amount of supposed, even proven, similarities can show that people are the same when one of them does not share the same belief as the other, and has not been reviewed with the benefit of the hindsight of history. Without such context, one is engaging in broad, possiby, theorizing; it's often harder to prove the intent and psychology behind an action when said action is still being implemented. But one can find reasons for an action, however the intent is hard to prove. Hitler was a bigot, racist mass murderer. Bush is not, save for, depending on your opinion, the last part.

Also, no matter how innocently intend, any comparison to Hitler is offensive to many. One might find it interesting, and it might be, perhaps enlightening, but it shouldn't be surpising that some, perhaps most people find it appalling.

Long and Short of Something.

Two kinds of interpretations and subsequent resolutions in response to an event are those that might be more useful for the long term prevention of the occurence of a like event, and those that might be more useful for preventing events which are theorised, like those events that might recur in the long term, to occur, but, however, in the short term.

It's possible that the continuation and exacerbation of a policy which might be the whole or partial reason for the occurence of the first event might make recurrences of like events more probable. But it's also possible that that policy might be the only viable method for stopping the occurence of short term events which might be arguably more probable, if it is the case that evidence exists more strongly in its favor than for the theoretical one that believes said policy to be the reason for the perpetration of the first event, and one might presume other events committed by the same perpetrators, or others responding in like manner, for as yet undertiminable reasons, to the original perpetrators.

The continuation of a policy that might be responsible for an event might make recurrences of similar events, or the likelihood thereof, virtually perpetual. But the necessity of the policy, if cessation is not seen as viable, might override long term consequential considerations and subsequent resolutions to that end. The precedent made by an event might make it necessary to continue with the same policy, or use a new one, which might not comply with the needs of the long term perspective.


Bullies 2

I remember that it was many years ago, I couldn't have been older than thirteen. There was a kid that I would never treat badly. One day I did. I think I tried to apologise, but I am not sure how good of an attempt I made that day. I don't know what happened to him, but I am sure we did not part with him thinking as well of me as I would have liked. If I ever remember his full name, I should like to apologise if I can find him. Well, that is in the past and I do not know how much I should wonder about it, what I did. Have I done enough of that? And do I really want to talk to him about it? I'm not sure if I should let it go. I tend to think often about the things I regret.

Some take bullying seriously, speaking sincerely about how wrong it is, and try to find solutions to the problem. The solutions vary. But some are dismissive. Some put it all down to a natural part of life which people over react to.

Well, to those who dismiss the importance of talking with bullies and their victims; to those who presume most instances of bullying are exaggerated in degree and impact, no matter who you are, you are a fucking sack of shit.

People have died, felt isolated, driven to terrible acts and the possible commission of violence toward those whom wronged them in no way (the innocent, undeniably), because the seriousness of this issue was downplayed. You chose to treat it as a small issue. How dare you. From the parents of bullies and their victims, to the peers of both, any of you that could have spoken up, could have helped any of them, and did not try, and even encouraged becasue of an imbecilic belief that it is ok, you are scum and should feel the greatest level of shame. As a whole, I have little sympathy and empathy for any of you.

Not everyone will grow stronger, bolder and more outward. Life need not be made harder by cruelty.

Do your jobs and help these kids and yourselves.


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click