TaN: Still another argument against death penalty is the accounts of Jesus Christ in the Holy Scriptures — that all throughout the preachings and teachings and admonitions of our Lord, there was never an instance when He caused the death of someone, regardless of the severity of the crime or sin or wrongful act.
Moreover, it is mentioned clearly in the Ten Commandments — even though the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is said to change the Law of Moses and establish new commandments that are intended until the end of eternity (and beyond) — the fifth, if I am not mistaken: Thou shalt not kill. And there is no qualification as to whether it is in self-defense or for any other reason, justifiable or not. There is no moral, ethical, nor logical justification for killing or the taking of another’s life — with the possible exception of for the purpose of (essential, i.e., to fend of hunger or starvation, and not merely for pleasure or indulgence, like snacks and food preferences) food. [In nature, with the exception of autotrophs or those that create their own food, like from solar energy and air and water and minerals, it is necessary to kill another creature to sustain one’s own life. In this sense, killing is “justifiable” but still does not make it right.]
In addition, that Old Testament Commandment is repeatedly explained and illustrated in other passages and accounts, like when Jesus said (and I paraphrase): “Let those among you who have no sin cast the first stone” and “Love one another as I have loved you” and “If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also” (Luke 6:29) or “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39, KJV), to name a few.
Finally, there is also the passage (and I paraphrase again): “Vengeance is mine, said the Lord“.
TaN: Gossip is the epitome of crab mentality and the adage, Great minds talk about ideas, average minds talk about events, small minds talk about others. Gossip as crab mentality is our bad habit of looking for the dirt and flaws in others in order to feel good — that we have a better life and others are worse than us.
Many will justify and sanitize it by arguing that it is not gossip but helping disseminate information. However, what these gossip-mongers, especially those that are in the entertainment industry specifically in show business, fail to understand is that the legitimate and unbiased disseminating of information is different from gossip in that the former’s purpose is to inform others of matters that concern and will affect them whereas the latter is pure and simple meddling and spreading for primarily selfish and self-serving interests — i.e., just to have something to talk about, just to find things regarding others (invading and violating their right to privacy) that are of little or no consequences for others, or just to make the self feel good because we are not what they are or not do what they did or we simply just like to pry into other people’s business.
Gossip or gossip-mongering is (probably) the most distasteful and lowest form of information dissemination ever. And being a gossip-monger or participating in it is not something one can be proud of. The worst of all is to profit from it — like earning (as in compensation) from it or gaining influence or an advantage or fame.
On the contrary, one should be so embarrassed and distraught that one would swear never to indulge in it again. There is no redeeming or salvageable quality in it. Probably the only worthwhile take-away is to learn a lesson from it.
TaN: In the case of bees and their honey, nature does not observe uniformity though it has standards. What I mean is that honey will not always taste and look the same. The quality, taste, smell, and nutritional content vary according to the flowers from which the bees collect their nectar and the season in which the nectar has been collected.
It is foolish to expect that honey will taste and look — in terms of color and clarity — the same all throughout the year and even year after year. This is especially true when it comes to wild honey, which is the best — just like the concept of free-range common food animals such as chickens, pigs, and cattle.
Bees will collect from flowers that are in bloom and along their usual flight routes. Moreover, the nutritional content of the soil from where the flowering plants draw their sustenance will determine the nutritional content of the plant as well as the nectar (in the flowers).
As a rule, the darker the color of the honey, the better nutritional content. In addition, impurities are a natural occurrence and their complete absence only indicates that purification has been done and there is a distinct possibility that some of the nutrients or portions of them may have been reduced or removed along with the purification process.
Moreover, each batch of honey will not be the same because conditions in nature constantly with the events that transpire — as in storms and fires and droughts changing the flowers that are available as well as introduction or invasion of alien plant species or significant seismic activity (tectonic or volcanic origin) that may kill off the natives or failure to flower due to a disaster befalling the pollinators.
There is also the very possibility of intentional or accidental interference by and from man, like putting out sugar water for the bees, destruction of habitat (for residential or agro-commercial purposes), and poisoning of pollinators because they are considered pests or nuisances. And then there is the accidental poisoning of bees when they visit nearby agro-commercial plantations that use toxic pesticides — such as neonicotinoids.
In conclusion, I would be very suspicious of a commercial honey brand that is consistently producing and marketing honey that remains the same every year for every batch. It is just not natural.
TaN: I absolutely agree with the late Joan Rivers in an interview where she (I think) said she told her daughter (Melissa) that (and I paraphrase): If you sleep with a man without his ring on your finger, you are a whore — regardless of whether it was consenting or whatever.
Today’s value regarding socio-sexual relationships have become so twisted and distorted that everything has been turned upside down and inside out. What was once abhorrent is now not only acceptable but fashionable and even a must-have or must-do. The two greatest reasons behind this unfortunate and ridiculous turn of events are the gender and race issues, stemming from the redefinition of terms, concepts, and values.
It used to be that it was: Innocent until proven guilty — but now it has become the accused’s burden to disprove his/her guilt. The burden of proof has shifted from the accuser to the accused. Moreover, people cannot seem to understand the principle that “One cannot prove (nor disprove) a negative” — i.e., one cannot prove that one is not something, because there is no need; it is senseless and contradictory. In fact, the joke today regarding guilt and innocence is: One is presumed innocent until he gets a lawyer.
It used to be that: Promiscuity is something to be ashamed of and brings dishonor to be labeled or known as such, whether married or not, but it is now worn as a badge of honor. It is as if the more promiscuous one is, the more popular one is and the more people look up to you.
It used to be that: Manufacturers are responsible for the harm or damage brought about by their products and products are thoroughly tested for quality prior to sale or introducing to the market, but vaccines are pushed on the population through intimidation, deception, collaboration (from medical and health care professionals and practitioners), and/or force of law and manufacturers cannot be sued or are not criminally liable for harm or even death arising from vaccination. Furthermore, beta releases of software shifts the burden of product testing from the software company to the consumer. Accountability has become a thing of the past.
It used to be that it was: Children are a blessing and people welcome their arrival with great anticipation. Today, contraception and abortion are regarded as being responsible and pregnancy, among mainstream (allopathic) medicine in the United States of America, is gradually but deliberately being pushed as a disease and post partum depression is a condition to be treated with pharmaceuticals. To enjoy the pleasures of sex without accepting the responsibility of pregnancy and eventual childbirth is perfectly fine.
In today’s Sodom-and-Gamorrha society, child-bearing is a burden that interferes with the indulgences of a woman. Pro-choice is regarded as a woman’s right to her body, conveniently forgetting or neglecting or ignoring the fact that the fetus in the womb is not part of the woman’s body — ergo she has no right over it.
It is interesting and intriguing to ask: At what point does a fetus or child obtain or acquire its inalienable rights — such as the right to life [This presents a very intriguing and invaluable issue or topic for debate and in-depth discussion but this will be for another occasion]. And what exactly does “inalienable rights” really mean? “Inalienable” means an “inherent” or “integral” or “that which cannot be separated from”. The argument would be: When or at what point does inalienable rights exist in a being? This will determine whether abortion is moral and whether a fetus possesses inalienable rights, such as the right to life.
Finally, the sad and frustrating as well as infuriating fact of all is that all these do not have to be so — to be so (intellectually) repulsive, to be so (morally) controversial, to be so (consequentially) inevitable, to be so (emotionally) confusing. It is just that we have been complacent and permitted the insignificant few to manipulate and exploit and hijack our life(style) into their agenda for global domination and rule.