• 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 28 days ago
cake
Cake day: November 21st, 2024

help-circle





  • If a person refuses to see whether they are causing harm even unintentionally… refuses to even try… that’s all that matters. Responsibility lies there when the person causes harm. Same for persons who are aware and are personally fine with causing harm for gain. On the other hand, seeing and personally trying to reduce it, a person can atone for harm caused by oneself. These things cannot be forced. Attempts to be fully aware and not cause harm only brings happiness to the one making such attempts in the end. The ‘pains of life’, which is the purpose for the concept of ‘escapes’ to exist in the first place, go away completely. You could call such pains either the result of maliciousness or the naivety which aids people who want to cause harm.

    This is a decision everyone can only make by themselves.


  • Education has, traditionally, been more about control than anything else. It just seems the two most focussed groups are those who choose ‘acceptable learning’ which is wholly detrimental (and against) to critical thinking and intellectual freedom, and those who take the desire for the lack of learning to the extreme.

    The best education is the one which wholly focuses on learning, without restriction. Very few places in the world have that.

    Learning did not start with education and predates it by a lot. However, many people I’ve known who are educated cannot comprehend where things came from before they became information. The mindset that you cannot know anything unless you read it in a textbook. I too am educated but it felt most inadequate to me. We live in a somewhat educated world, and most of the educated world believes that the nature of many problems cannot be known and many problems cannot be solved.

    That said, what the article states is absolutely worse. It is taking the traditional meaning of controlled education and using it to the extreme. Short term political gain, long term pain. If they are lucky enough to change ways in an adequate manner to avert disaster (and that is a very unlikely if), there will still be many economic and violent socially disruptive consequences which will directly be influenced by this choice. Such models of real forced control are not really sustainable—either the total (or even near total) control is a self-appreasing lie, or it is the prulude to the fall.


  • Many places. We’re at a stage currently where people are more engrossed in telling others what they ‘should’ do, and enforcing it, than just being ‘chill’, minding their business and working with their own hands to bring about the better times they preach about. Such people may sieze power over what they believe to he everyone in their respective regions, but they’re incapable of actually letting problems get solved or dealing with unexpected situations outside of ready made solutions they use but do not properly understand. The last resort is usually to manufacture and blame some ‘bad’ side which has no power yet somehow managed to destroy their hard work and sensible plans (there was no hard work and sensible planning).


  • For the industry to exist, someone has to be using said region’s industry’s cotton. Otherwise the cotton industry would’ve shut down.

    Logically it does make sense that some dum dums aside, most foreign brands in the region will avoid this while the local ones will take advantage of this. However, it is also so that a large number of business entities are not known for good logic. However, still, it takes a special level of dum dum to specifically get this industry’s cotton after this had become a big issue as it is (which is to say it is not an issue for everyone, and nothing ever is otherwise it wouldn’t exist, but it is still a substantial problem for those caught). Which means someone from a foreign brand probably signed off on using said industry’s cotton, I believe. Because thinking ability is not particularly a strong trait, however in many cases it is also a critically weak trait. So chances are someone did do such a thing, however incomprehemsible it may feel to people did an at least okay-level sense of logic.

    As mentioned, local businesses would feel less worse benefitting from it, but also country’s brands which operate in few specific regions only and not in any of the large parts of the world that would, through political office, state that this referenced industry is a moral issue.







  • What is this take… that was not my take at all. The intention was misunderstood, there was a misunderstanding of the language used. Primarily, it was a joke. I certainly do not believe there is a “the powerful” side.

    You could have asked🤷

    I do not know what you assumed… but I am confused because I have no concept to what you have referenced. Is there anything in particular which was offensive here? Do elaborate. I can say however that I do not know what it is, and I certainly did not mean what you believed I meant (because I do not believe there is one “the powerful” side). Unless, of course, you object to the use of all general terms. Like ‘the royalty’. ‘The general public’ in any general sense. ‘The people’, again, in any general sense.

    I get a feeling that I have offended some political thing I have no idea about. When I have no such relation to any such thing, if it is really so.