Readers’ Blog

Proposed protection of worthy communication systems

Viewed 313 times 2019-3-19 01:43 |System category:Life

Worldwide, species vocalize upon presumption of care. Theft happens, teamwork happens, but the laws aren't based upon accidental pre-judgement such as by rules about chronological age. The lion pride sends their sons away after the son's learn to hunt, rather than on their second birthday just because anyone said so.

Are there qualifications for being able to make or say laws?

Of course. Wisdom and skill are prerequisites. There is a difference between an accidental pre-judgement and an unawareness of a foreign way of thinking. I think it would be a good idea if serious educators could increase trade in lesson effectiveness. We have an excellent, high quality liberal arts education in Canada that really impresses many people who are observing tricks of the trade for the first time, and it would be great to be able to distribute the wealth of stored know-how for the betterment of all. 

I wonder how species adopt babies from other species. A jaguar adopted a baby monkey - it is a popular video on YouTube. In 2010, we saw another video of a dog mothering a baby tiger. How do these creatures communicate into maturity? 
"Mom, I love you, but I need my own tree, and I need to choose my food." 
Or denial: "Whaddya mean my baby tiger grew up bigger than me? I'm the biggest and most entitled daschund there is. I have a plan! I'll steal my baby tiger's DNA to make me bigger." 
That happens in some families, but not in the wild. Old tortoise Mzee adopted orphaned hippo Owen and the two communicate normally, based upon care. The fictional daschund doesn't care.

A lot of people have described the systems that should be, ideally, or hypothetically, maybe in Utopia. Have you ever wondered why the laws of any country are about gender, chronological age, and income, with so many exceptions to their own rules, to try to clarify what they meant? I would love to live in a place with a government issued ID card that says my name, omits gender, says my employable skills in mathematics education, and my ontological age. 

Should people be required to wait until they are 25 before they are allowed to be in the government, and wait until they are 38 before they are allowed or required to be wed? Or is it true that age must necessarily imply relevant experience, and does marriage not exactly correlate with age? 

So, we have these words called ontological and chronological age. Your chronological age is what your government issued ID says you must know because of the experience you must have. Your gender on your government issued ID says what life you must live. Your employable skills relevant to the economy and to social networking, listed on your government issued ID, don't exist. Your ontological age is your real you. Some children are ready to advise the government and make relevant requests although only nine years old. Some adults keep their youth. Telling a fit, healthy, vibrantly alive 65 year old to retire and go watch TV all day is like a death sentence. In Canada, the retired are allowed to work if they like, and many want to, because they feel bored at home with too much spare time. Some people nor look nor act old when they are 95. It's genetic.

Most of these issues surface in the west under left wing banners of gender related pride, and in the UK as news about child prodigies. In that methodology of public expression, there is a silent former mainstream. As the gay pride parade places rainbows everywhere and pink ribbons are hung and colours with other meanings are worn, the silently infrared or ultraviolet are: we who abstain, we who were given no choice about our bodies, we who talk about something not related to gender usually... but HIV, LGBT, choice, tattoos, piercings, colours, races and liberal arts educations need to demonstrate in public their voices crashing through our happy conversations about anything else. This conclusion has confused my oriental students for 1.5 decades: they are talking about themselves. We were talking above collar before they crashed into our attention span. They are talking about how important their very important topic is to them. That's okay, they are allowed to talk about themselves, that's their topic. Let's go meet another group who has another topic. 

Shouldn't we manage them?

No, not yet. A terrorist already attacked the government of Canada so we need to pay attention to the security rhetoric. 

Security in the news has a good introduction: we want safe people. Whence terrorism, define the roots, while don't know then investigate more, do more false dichotomies pressing further into the identified problematic areas, talks? what are talks?, they demand we must accept their values, so I do that to you so you solve that issue in your spare time so I say I'll solved that issue and then that issue continues, because... and it seems reasonable. It's a known algorithm we Canadians reject habitually. "Wait until you're mugged," we say. It's a fallout from our brotherly relation with America; we trade, as payment for emergency defense. 

"We can't do anything yet because America didn't lead first," say so many of my students. 

We can wait for Bangladesh, too. They are probably doing more for the environment per capita or per GDP. We can wait until after the polar ice melts. If that's okay.

I wonder whether our beloved brotherly relation with America is the reason for the low quality pipes that have excessive leaks in our Alberta pipeline into America. It is poorly engineered. But Canadian engineers made the Blackberry phone and Bombardier airplanes. We make good ships, too. Okay, so, you know our work when we are not burdened by something. 

"We need to remember what it feels like to be brave. Brave doesn't pit people against each other or put money over lives. It doesn't spread hate, cloud truth or build a wall. That's what fear does," said Gillibrand reported China Daily. She hasn't surfaced on the Globe - we aren't talking about her yet.

1. False dichotomy: brave or fear. There are more than two options. We can be calm. We can feel fear and still do as necessary. There is such a thing as enough. 

2. Abusive ad hominem. We have not forgotten, so we don't need to remember, because we didn't forget.

3. Lie in a strange anglophone dialect that includes suppressed evidence. That isn't a fallacy from Aristotle. Aristotle wanted his governments to make fallacies illegal. 

Aristotle wanted suppression of evidence to be illegal. It is, now, thanks to him. Defamation is illegal now, too, and some of that used to be called Abusive ad Hominem circumstantial. 

Low quality western politicians like using abusive ad hominem circumstantial - they call it mudslinging and they say it should be done to make more noise. Baboons are smarter. Baboons who do not have a trade relationship with their neighbourhood lions warn the prey when the lions hunt, making it difficult. Baboons who do have the trade relationship let the lions hunt, and make a racket for any visiting predator. 

Low quality politicians rely excessively on tricks like Appeal to the People. The people should know to reject that as doing so is part of a good education. 

Whence expressions of violence? 

The trend is frustration and lack of ability to communicate. Emergencies. Opportunism. The bandwagon is another fallacy Aristotle wants government to make illegal, although that is said to be difficult because fashion trends are bandwagons, and they are good for the economy, and harmless, mostly. So, violence, is after dissatisfaction has had enough.

Many of us are seeing entitlement as a central issue. Aristotle did not focus much on entitlement. He was outlining the basics then. He is the father of western civilization, but his periodic table had four elements: Earth, Wind, Fire, Water. We need reforestation. Aristotle gave us a binary system essentially saying, 
- here are some patterns I hope governments make illegal, 
- harmlessly build as you like presuming you know how (and presuming infinite Earth), 
- and happiness is the driver. 
So we have invested centuries into talking about what happiness is. 

"How dare you want viability! How selfish of you!" Gillibrand implied. No? Okay, correct me if I am wrong: national security at the expense of the national economy = risks to viability. Yes? She might as well come right out and say so. She doesn't, because she is speaking to an audience who calls our CBC in Canada to say, "We love your programs, but can you please make your weather reports easier to understand? You're saying the weather report in English but is precipitation rain or snow?" We have a top quality liberal arts education in Canada, provided to all from our government. 

So, whence terrorism?

The quotes in public show supply chain errors in logistics, essentially, "We felt frustration and didn't know what to do and got excited together," before breaking laws... if they were to say it straight.

So, public demonstrations about gender? 

Well, if it isn't relevant, why bother? Is disrupting the peace okay? We can talk of the same issue by switching topics to environmentalism. Not only are there legal and illegal expressions, ethical and unethical expressions, there are also effective and ineffective methods, and something called lack of consideration.  The individual person who figures out how to increase national wealth by planting huge quantities of trees will have contributed significantly, and eventually the demonstrators will take credit by saying there are more trees because in their protests they shouted and blocked traffic for governments to plant more trees - they believe need generates the economy. 

Gender? 

I prefer trees. Some people like the colour pink. It's a preference.

Traditional gender roles?

Some economists don't know how to make the equations work without a free labour source.

Nature? 

Enthymeme?

We're had an issue with a region in the world called...

Did something dishonest reiterate? Because that's a pattern. IE: when ontology and straight talk and safety are supplied, then it works, or a crime happened so needs to be reported. 

They said, "But we want...."

Fallacy of presumption. Reassert normality.

They said, "But the cow jumped over the moon and in a faith when the dish runs away with the spoon then the new dish must 'normally' be from...."

Fallacy of relevance. 

One implies all?

Maybe a hasty generalization, depending on the domain. 

Zero implies one?

Hidden source. 

Slippery slope? 

If 1 then 2 and if 2 then 3 and if 3 then an effect happens, however, what if the effect happens without 1, or 2, or 3, and what if some scientists find how to make the effect? 

Self-contradiction?

I am not. 

Is self-reference allowed?

Some. 

Strawman fallacy?

Deliberate misinterpretation, mis-characterization, for the purpose of attack. Often with abusive ad hominem. 

What went wrong within this ideal, simple, binary system - a bicycle! - driven by happiness? 

"Zero implies one is not false, so it's true." But in real life, false (a lie) < not true (a misrepresentation) < not false (a limited grasp) < truth. 

"There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole." Do you know this song? He asks her how to fix the bucket. So, please let Earth live. It's really all I can ask.
 

(Opinions of the writer in this blog don't represent those of China Daily.)


Passing

Eggs

Flowers

Shake hands

Ray
Like 0 Share
8.03K

Report

Comment (0 comments)

facelist doodle Doodle board

You need to login to comment Login | register


Album

Recent comments

  • Teaching English in Many Places 2019-3-28 14:10

    You have lived some countries and collected some amazing experiences while teaching English.
    Its a kind of great property to lead a happy life.
    I suggest you to write a book about students' feelings while learning English which can depict a learning style of some countries too and that includes your  teaching methods too.
    good write up dear sister! Cheers!!

  • Teaching English in Many Places 2019-3-28 02:45

    "The different regions in East Asia have different cultures."

    I wonder how each may interpret the Batman movie line, "Have you ever danced, in the pale moonlight?"I never let the moonlight into my home, it is forbidden. Our police say the crime rate fluctuates with the lunar cycle.

    "Will you have dinner with me and my friends?"

    What if one of them likes salmon?

    "It's a riddle, isn't it?"

Star blogger

Anming

4124

views

Maierwei

2603

views

财神

4580

views

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.