TaN (update): I agree completely with the sentiments of Ms Catherine Deneuve and Ms Brigette Bardot when they say that those (actresses) in the MeToo are just plain being too sensitive. This is the wave that is sweeping over social media today.
For me, it is pathetic and we are playing right into the hands of those who wish to sow discord among people because it is where they derive profit, power, influence, and control — i.e., eventual complete domination. People become so engrossed, embroiled, and conscious with just about everything and anything that they no longer have time and attention to focus on the really important things in life.
This is precisely what I have been arguing in previous TaNs where people become so conscious about being politically correct that they even go to the extent of “inventing” terminologies just to appear “politically correct” — like chairperson (no such animal), directress (no such animal), doctora (dra, no such animal), and spokesperson (still no such animal). People have become so gender-conscious that it has reached absurd heights and proportions.
It is the same with the current MeToo thingie. Stop being such whinies and cry-babies. If you are only airing out that you have been victimized in the past too, so be it. But there is no need to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Most of you are in situations today that are a lot better than most other people in the world. Those “transgressions” in your past contributed to what you are today. For all you know, things would have been a lot different (and worse) for you today if those “victimizations” in the past had not occurred.
And as Ms Bardot expressed, many of you “had to sell yourselves” to get ahead. Well, you got something out of it in exchange. Would you rather not have been “victimized” and end up way below what you are today?
Okay so it happened to you too. That is it. Move on!
And you in the media should be ashamed of yourselves; taking advantage of the miseries of others to advance your own agenda and interests. Hyping up everything to get as much mileage out of it for your own selfish ends. How much lower can you sink?
TaN: There are no fake news. By its definition and nature, news has to be true. When it is not true, it is not or cannot be news. Fake news are either shabby, hurried, unvetted, unprofessional, or otherwise irresponsible reporting.
Most people today are so eager to be the first to report or spread some newly-received information and pass it on without first making sure that what is being passed on is accurate and true — if not, at least, factual. [And should it be factual instead of true, that there should be accompanying qualifying or conditional circumstances to indicate that it is conditional truths — i.e., truthfulness depends on certain conditions existing and when these conditions change, it may no longer be truthful.]
The problem with these times is people are so eager to create new terminology even at the risk of inaccuracy or confusion (terms like super food and fake news) or mis-use terms for their selfish interests (like sustainable).
I guess all these are just part and parcel of the downward vortex we are all spiraling into for the sake of greed (corporate profit and monopolistic and exclusivistic property rights), fame, and power (or control or domination) — because there is no money to be had in peace, love, honesty, and all the other (truly good) virtues. Only in war, conflict, confusion, discrepancies (and gaps and inequality, like education gap, health gap, knowledge gap, and opportunity gap), and deceit (as in “clever” marketing or deceptive advertising and predatory pricing and cartelization).
TaN: If we go by logic and the Holy Scriptures, it does not make sense that God would punish us — by bringing misfortune upon us. If what has been written in the Holy Scriptures are to be believed (and I believe so), then our misfortunes are brought on by ourselves (by not obeying God’s directives and teachings, through His Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ) and happily obliging Satan.
It does not make sense that God would bestow misfortune upon us after all the trouble and heartache He went through to send and watch His Only Begotten Son suffer under the our hands — as, despite all His miracles, teachings, and good works, He was mistreated, libeled, ridiculed, beaten up and tortured, and put to death. What was all that suffering of Christ for if God will only later bring misfortune down upon us (for disobedience).
It does not make sense that God would go to all the trouble of creating the universe in preparation for the creation of man, then creating man only to bring misfortune down on him. This would make God some kind of sadist or otherwise have the strangest and cruelest sense of humor.
It does not make sense to disobey God and still expect things to turn out fine. And to top it all, to have the shameless audacity and unmitigated gall to pin all the blame on God for the fruits of our disobedience.
All these are somewhat similar to the argument of conventional and mainstream Big Medicine — most probably with the collusion or even instigation and prodding of Big Pharma — that diseases are inherited and are “incurable”. He is a cruel and sick God if He creates man with the intention of sharing His happiness and blessings with man and then includes all sorts and manners of diseases and ailments. This simply defies all the (good) qualities that we attribute to Him.
Furthermore, it does not make sense either to think and believe that a benevolent and loving (and wise) The Father would bother sending His Only Begotten Son to endure all the ordeals and agony to save us when He (i.e., The Father) has purposely included so many diseases for us to suffer.
Finally, logic dictates that inheritance can only happen if and only if our parents have them — and having them means that, sooner or later, they will manifest and be evident — in order to be able to “pass it/them on” to us. However, as I have always argued, posited, and maintained in previous TaNs, if we go back far enough in our lineage or heritage, we would discover that, eventually, we will arrive at an ancestor/s (and beyond hi/them) who never had the diseases. So, how can it be said and argued that the diseases are inherited when it was never in our DNA in the first place?
So stop blaming God for our own mistakes, disobedience, misfortunes, and suffering. How could we? The NERVE of us! Such ingrates!
TaN: Do not be a victim of unscrupulous and unethical marketing ploys and campaigns intended to target non-critical thinking and simple-minded and impulse buyers. What I am referring to is the increasing use of the phrase “up to” in announcing big sales events with discounts.
With the phrase “up to” in the advertisement, all management has to do is have one item — usually the one that management have the most difficult time selling and practically has no worthwhile value at all — that is discounted at the rate mentioned or stated in the advertisement and the company is “off the hook”. They can no longer be held liable for false advertisement because they really have an item with the stated discount rate — but they should because there was malice to begin with; there was clear intention to deceive and entice people under false pretenses and veiled intentions.
Instead, the smart consumer should look for — but I doubt if there will ever be such a case — the phrase “at least”. This means that there will be no item with a smaller discount rate. It does not really matter anymore how high the discount rate of other items. You are at least guaranteed that no item will have a smaller or lower discount rate — otherwise they will be liable for false or misleading advertising. The only two things left to be concerned with are whether there are items worth spending our hard-earned money on or the discount is worth to trip to the store for a look-see or they can “escape” the false advertising liability by claiming they have only one item on sale.
The best thing to look for is the combination of “all items on sales” and “at least so-and-so% discount”. With these phrases together, it is practically ironclad and next to impossible to weasel out of their obligations. But this is a pipe dream.
In any case, with increasingly widespread and rampant profit-drive corporate greed, consumers are ever more embroiled in a struggle to optimize their dwindling purchasing value of their hard-earned income against Big Business. And, unless the 99% finally unite and decide to distance themselves from being so dependent on Big Business and cooperate and trade goods and services among themselves — and leave the global power and financial elites out in the cold to fend for themselves, not knowing how to grow things or any practical trade for daily living — everything will just continue to get worse and the Biblical prophecy will eventually come to pass.
TaN: There is this saying, It is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. This is a very pragmatic attitude but extremely risky — because the damage will have been done (assuming that there will most likely be negative rather than positive or (morally) beneficial consequences) and there is no undoing what has been done — and frequently resulting in regrets, especially when the outcome is not (completely) favorable or desirable.
Since there is no option left — because the deed (and damage) has been done — but forgiveness and understanding for the intention behind the action or decision. This is all well and good but only if and when the results are for the better and everything turned out good. The risk here is that during the deed, things can go either way and all the blame, responsibilities, consequences will (have to) be shouldered or assumed by all those involved..
This alternative — i.e., do the deed and ask for forgiveness later — is a good topic of discussion for ethicists.