Before, no one was bragging their good deeds publicly, so by saying nothing, perception about me was a toss up. Now insert a bragging person into the conversation and I'm in a playing field where someone is describing each of their good deeds.
It makes the people who choose to remain quiet look like they are doing no good deeds, or at the very least, no related good deeds or else they would have spoken up. Suddenly, I went from feeling as if no one was making any assumptions about me either way, to feeling as if I might be perceived as doing little to no good deeds. I now feel as if I have to defend myself, or in other words, compete in the bragging arena.
This feeling, illogical or not, makes me want to correct perception away from negative to at least neutral. I don't want to be perceived negatively, regardless of what reality is. In a case where at least one person is bragging (and each additional person intensifies the pressure for you to compete or lose by default), neutral may seem impossible. The subconscious effort then aims to go directly to positive, perhaps even overcompensating for the previously perceived negative perception.
This is how I understand bragging competition and why it annoys me, even when someone is talking about their good deeds.
Here is why you should keep your good deeds to yourself: If you brag, you won't know if you did a good deed to get praised or out of compassion. If you don't tell anyone, you can't get praised, and you will know for sure that you did it out of pure compassion.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Solution to Abortion Debate (or the beginning of one)
Follow this formula:
("reason for abortion" * " rights of mother") > or = or < ("death" * "rights of fetus")
The "reason for abortion" is a number from 0 to 1, with 1 being the best reason there is (perhaps that the mother is guaranteed to die if she doesn't have the abortion). "death" is either a 0 or 1 if the fetus is killed or not killed. Action is unethical if the formula ends up with a <, doesn't matter one way or the other if it is =, and ethical if it is >.
Then it's your own opinion of what the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are. If you believe they have equal rights, then it will never be ethical to have an abortion because no reason for abortion is of greater importance than death (perhaps except death of the mother, in which case it would be equally ethical to get an abortion or not get an abortion). If you believe the fetus has 0 rights, then the reason for the abortion can be non existent and still be ok. And, of course, everywhere in between.
After we've decided that your views on abortion rest with what rights you think the mother and fetus have, we can debate the much harder issue of who is right about the amount of rights the fetus has and the level of rights the mother has.
This debate, I think, seems to stem from the question about when human life begins, since we give human life more rights than non living things (or even, some would say, non-human life. For example, a sperm and a fertilized egg are both alive.)
In my opinion, there is no moment after conception that BOOM, the fetus is suddenly a human life. Whereas conception is a pretty defining moment in the change of what's inside you (perhaps the change is no life to life?) as well as the moment the baby is born. Everything in between is sort of just cell multiplication according to DNA. You don't go into the ultrasound office and hear her say, "Oh yes, see that movement there? That's an alive baby. Before he wasn't alive. But now I can tell, there's definitely life."
Therefore, we have to assume that life either beings at conception, or when the baby is born and is detached from the mother. To pick an arbitrary date in between seems rather... arbitrary.
Therefore, I say life begins at conception. Are the fetus' rights any different from the mothers? I personally do not think that age determines worth (although you might say a 10 year old's life has more worth than a 99 year old man's, but this actually would prove that the fetus' life has more worth since it has more potential years ahead of it).
So, if we assume that the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are equal, then the formula will only ever be ethical if the baby is not killed or both the mother and the baby are killed.
If the fetus will be born with defects, do its rights diminish? If so, then abortion may be ethical depending on what level of rights it has and how strong the reason for having an abortion is. If not, then it isn't.
Here are some pro-abortion arguments. I will tell you why they are all illogical.
Incidentally, do pro-choicers think it's ethical to tattoo a fetus in the womb? Ok, so you hire a tattoo artist and he sticks his hand, machine, and arm up there, and tattoos a heart on the baby's chest. Did the woman have the right to do this "to her body"? Of course! If she can KILL it, she can certainly tattoo it! When the child grows up and says "You had no right to tattoo me when I was a fetus. This heart is really stupid looking." you can tell him with confidence, "It's ok, you didn't have rights when I did it. Aren't you glad I didn't kill you instead? You little wise-ass."
What if a giant alien, in an experiment, took a 2 month old and hooked up her intestines with his and swallowed her into his little cavity thingy. Essentially, she now lives inside of him and if taken outside, could not live on her own anymore (remember her intestines?) without serious surgery. Does this alien now have a right to this little 2 month old's life? "I'm done with it now. Kill it please." He probably wouldn't even have to be as gruesome as we are, just disconnect them and she's done for. No acid or scrambling of the brains for our alien friends.
"Philosophers such as Aquinas use the concept of individuation. They argue that abortion is not permissible from the point at which individual human identity is realised. Anthony Kenny argues that this can be derived from everyday beliefs and language and one can legitimately say "if my mother had had an abortion six months into her pregnancy, she would have killed me" then one can reasonably infer that at six months the "me" in question would have been an existing person with a valid claim to life."
I don't know about you, but I'm glad I wasn't aborted!
("reason for abortion" * " rights of mother") > or = or < ("death" * "rights of fetus")
The "reason for abortion" is a number from 0 to 1, with 1 being the best reason there is (perhaps that the mother is guaranteed to die if she doesn't have the abortion). "death" is either a 0 or 1 if the fetus is killed or not killed. Action is unethical if the formula ends up with a <, doesn't matter one way or the other if it is =, and ethical if it is >.
Then it's your own opinion of what the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are. If you believe they have equal rights, then it will never be ethical to have an abortion because no reason for abortion is of greater importance than death (perhaps except death of the mother, in which case it would be equally ethical to get an abortion or not get an abortion). If you believe the fetus has 0 rights, then the reason for the abortion can be non existent and still be ok. And, of course, everywhere in between.
After we've decided that your views on abortion rest with what rights you think the mother and fetus have, we can debate the much harder issue of who is right about the amount of rights the fetus has and the level of rights the mother has.
This debate, I think, seems to stem from the question about when human life begins, since we give human life more rights than non living things (or even, some would say, non-human life. For example, a sperm and a fertilized egg are both alive.)
In my opinion, there is no moment after conception that BOOM, the fetus is suddenly a human life. Whereas conception is a pretty defining moment in the change of what's inside you (perhaps the change is no life to life?) as well as the moment the baby is born. Everything in between is sort of just cell multiplication according to DNA. You don't go into the ultrasound office and hear her say, "Oh yes, see that movement there? That's an alive baby. Before he wasn't alive. But now I can tell, there's definitely life."
Therefore, we have to assume that life either beings at conception, or when the baby is born and is detached from the mother. To pick an arbitrary date in between seems rather... arbitrary.
Therefore, I say life begins at conception. Are the fetus' rights any different from the mothers? I personally do not think that age determines worth (although you might say a 10 year old's life has more worth than a 99 year old man's, but this actually would prove that the fetus' life has more worth since it has more potential years ahead of it).
So, if we assume that the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are equal, then the formula will only ever be ethical if the baby is not killed or both the mother and the baby are killed.
If the fetus will be born with defects, do its rights diminish? If so, then abortion may be ethical depending on what level of rights it has and how strong the reason for having an abortion is. If not, then it isn't.
Here are some pro-abortion arguments. I will tell you why they are all illogical.
- It’s the mother’s body - she should decide what happens
Incidentally, do pro-choicers think it's ethical to tattoo a fetus in the womb? Ok, so you hire a tattoo artist and he sticks his hand, machine, and arm up there, and tattoos a heart on the baby's chest. Did the woman have the right to do this "to her body"? Of course! If she can KILL it, she can certainly tattoo it! When the child grows up and says "You had no right to tattoo me when I was a fetus. This heart is really stupid looking." you can tell him with confidence, "It's ok, you didn't have rights when I did it. Aren't you glad I didn't kill you instead? You little wise-ass."
What if a giant alien, in an experiment, took a 2 month old and hooked up her intestines with his and swallowed her into his little cavity thingy. Essentially, she now lives inside of him and if taken outside, could not live on her own anymore (remember her intestines?) without serious surgery. Does this alien now have a right to this little 2 month old's life? "I'm done with it now. Kill it please." He probably wouldn't even have to be as gruesome as we are, just disconnect them and she's done for. No acid or scrambling of the brains for our alien friends.
- Every baby has the right to proper care and love; if this is not possible, abortion should be okay
- There are already too many unwanted babies in our over-populated world. Why add more?
- Surely the woman, and her family, have rights, not just the unborn baby?
- Raped women should not be made to have the baby as they did not choose to get pregnant and would be constantly reminded of their ordeal as the child grows up
- If baby is severely handicapped, only mother can decide if she can look after the baby
- In the case of under-age pregnancy, the girl may not have really understood what she was doing, and should not lose her education and career opportunities over one mistake
- A family may be too poor to cope with a child, and if there are other children already, they may suffer
- Life doesn’t really start until birth, or at least until the fetus is viable
- Many pregnancies end through natural abortions (miscarriages) – abortion is natural and often women don’t even know they were pregnant: it doesn’t have to be a big deal
- A baby with severe disabilities may have a very poor quality of life that also brings trauma to the parents who have to watch it suffer. It may be kinder for that child not to be born.
"Philosophers such as Aquinas use the concept of individuation. They argue that abortion is not permissible from the point at which individual human identity is realised. Anthony Kenny argues that this can be derived from everyday beliefs and language and one can legitimately say "if my mother had had an abortion six months into her pregnancy, she would have killed me" then one can reasonably infer that at six months the "me" in question would have been an existing person with a valid claim to life."
I don't know about you, but I'm glad I wasn't aborted!
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Children's Books - My Picks
If you've been immersed in the world of children's books or seen any at all, most likely you've been less than satisfied. Point blank: they suck. They either teach bad habits/values or nothing at all. Sure, if all you're out to do is entertain your kid, then get any one you want. If you want to have great books that teach good things at the same time, it's a lot harder.
Well luckily for you, I've done all the work. I've spent countless hours researching the best children's books that are not only good but demonstrate good behavior or have a good message. And let me tell you, they're hard to find. But once you know about these books, why buy any other ones? If they're both entertaining and well made, why chose one that encourages your kid to give you a hard time at bed time over one that gets the message across that they should play nicer with their friends? Both have dinosaurs, both enthrall the kid.
About half of these books have God or Christianity in them. Apparently, or so it seems, only Christians care about their kids being honest, kind to others, or thankful. (And considering we have a whole holiday devoted to being thankful, you would think at least Thanksgiving books would talk about being thankful, but if you thought that you would be wrong).
Non Christian
Carl Sommer books for kids
DK Eyewitness Books
Being ... books (E.g. Being Responsible) by either
Well luckily for you, I've done all the work. I've spent countless hours researching the best children's books that are not only good but demonstrate good behavior or have a good message. And let me tell you, they're hard to find. But once you know about these books, why buy any other ones? If they're both entertaining and well made, why chose one that encourages your kid to give you a hard time at bed time over one that gets the message across that they should play nicer with their friends? Both have dinosaurs, both enthrall the kid.
About half of these books have God or Christianity in them. Apparently, or so it seems, only Christians care about their kids being honest, kind to others, or thankful. (And considering we have a whole holiday devoted to being thankful, you would think at least Thanksgiving books would talk about being thankful, but if you thought that you would be wrong).
Non Christian
Carl Sommer books for kids
DK Eyewitness Books
Being ... books (E.g. Being Responsible) by either
Homeschooled Kids are NOT Socially Inept
Some of the most cliched assumptions about people are really true. “Homeschooled kids are socially inept,” I heard one woman say today.
It's not true, but people still say it. If you took the time to think for more than a quarter of a second, you would realize there is much more to life than school, and many more social opportunities. Sports, church, boy/girl scouts, neighborhood kids, and things like that give kids constant socialization with the same kids their own age. I'm sure if you tried to think back, you would realize a lot, if not most of your childhood friends were not met in school.
Since the academic part of homeschooling can be done in 3 hours while public school takes 8 hours including lunch, recess, music, art, and the bus rides home, there is a lot more free time during the day to interact with humans socially. Field trips become easier and more frequent.
Sitting at a desk for an unnatural amount of time when kids need play to grow seems more stunting. How much of class time do teachers really even allow social interaction?
And lastly, there is the issue of family bonding time. With a kid at school for most of the day, there's only a little bit of family time spent in the evenings on most days. Working mothers come to the defense, but nothing can justify lack of time spent with your kids. Perhaps its even the reason our teenagers have become such rebellious monsters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)