i’m looking at how there is a difference in realities.
it bothers me that proactive may be over-reactive.
i am not sure that hushing protective natures is a good way to proceed as a people.
(the best defense is a good offense)
it is true that playing the odds is a fool’s game, while self-importance is no game at all.
how do we form our needs?
the fact is that any thoroughfare is public responsibility; no, you cannot weed dandelions from your neighbor’s lawn. but yes, you can remove the garden hose from their pathway.
that is called supraceding; rather than splitting into more individual mandate (such as only those properties that have clearly defined markings of ownership), one devises a prequil to the legislation that diverts ruling from an unwanted result.
who cares … the hush
is it right to calm instruction when adults are putting themselves in harm’s way?
if they have a child with them, THEN is it appropriate to warn of danger?
removing the “one law for children-bearers and one law for childless” … what is the better course?
authority, of course is always bound to warn; police, park rangers, firemen, your town preacher; but what of neighbor to neighbor?
by relegating warnings or safety instructions to designated personnel, is that a weak spot.
powers of command.
obligations in powers of command, the direction of fellows.
(last week the short statured black man was raging on the sidewalks of downtown, yelling at each person passing on what ‘sin’ he perceived in their carriage or immediate action.
what door; what mode.)
test subject Guyman has been in position of command but then lost that position and appears to actively hunt for situations in which to issue command.
general rule is no citizen but those in official roles are to command another.
is this a false premise, to engender a weaker society at key points in time?
rocking the boat is sometimes necessary.
how do you determine a general rule, when adherance or course must be achieved by computating the odds of injury, and weighing that against general boundaries of non-interference?
like water overflowing a shoring.
you can explain: LOOK n that stretch of meadow there, down to the shore n THAT’s obviously the path the moose take to and from the marsh n see the length you have there of solid ground n that gives the animal enough purchase to jump the boardwalk n see how you three women and your baby in a stroller are hanging out in that one spot well that’s not smart n you’re upping the chances of getting hurt n are not setting a good example since many think they can dodge a charging animal, but most humans cannot even dodge another charging human n if the animal is jumping, and accustomed to a certain height of purchase, they are not likely to factor in YOUR height upon the jump n also you are not carrying a rifle n you are not actively photographing from the site n you are not pausing due to any obvious injury or malady n appear to simply have stopped in what can be only a complete lack of awareness for your positioning n do you also picnic on busy highways?
n=+, well=/, since=⥹
it was easier to say: “there is a moose out there…”
“might not want to be hanging out right here … go somewhere behind the trees.”
is the better course to shut up and say nothing?
maybe ⥻ maybe hero-syndrome where a being mentally tallies up lives they ‘might-have-saved’ or injuries they ‘might-have-prevented.’
(certainly the notation with subject Guyman was that all tendencies toward directive action were from a motivation that at least included as a subset the ache and need for importance/leadership.)
no matter its source, though … any tendency to issue direction will be seen by populace as an obvious ploy for ego boost, due to the nature of logics that have that direction falling with a very fine line between a non-so-obvious calculation of foresight.
the ‘hush’ principal against those issuing direction can give rise to a defensive reaction in those attempting to issue direction, which then creates a spiral of causality (self-fulfilling prophecy) in that any command will faulter to indecision by a hush — thereby supporting the supposition that all directives by stranger to stranger are incorrect modes of behavior.
in otherwords, we might be better off if allowed to boss each other around more–it is unknown, because the data return on the process will always fall into the negative; therefore a probability that an avenue for greater cohession of a community has been overlooked due to citizens being automatically faulted for directive command upon a stranger, when the ends derived from a loosening of those boundaries would prove more progressive. they may or may not, my point is that a judgment upon process has occured without larger consideration for the overall product.
attempts to “test” these social boundaries are evident, such as one citizen telling another not to smoke; you see that coupled with the proclivity for adults to asign the task to their CHILDREN, for the purpose of avoiding adult-adult confrontation.
young adults will yell directive commands from their cars … “get a room!” “smoking’s bad for you!” “shake it baby!” …. as you can imagine, very few of these have any positive sociological fallout.
any time you have children remanded to a societal task, one has to question where the adults are hiding out in the picture.
within official command forces, such as city police, the repeated practice of command gives rise to a consistency within overbearing dictate.
refusal of compliance is not seen as a citizenry right, no matter the legality of the directive ⥹ while most citizens issuing directive will not force a compliance.
therefore issued direction by citizens falls under teaching, not commanding.
however, within the construct of citizens being SUBJECT to compliance-oriented command via authority, populace will see ANY command as compliance-oriented regardless of its instructional element.
without a greater ratio of command authority to populace, that command authority might well prove to be detrimental to community endeavors, rather than a help to community well-being.
the truth is, that if you treat any human as less, they are going to become less.
reactions of hush submit a calculation of DOUBT, which then translates as BAD AIM. “the ‘hush’ principal against those issuing direction can give rise to a defensive reaction in those attempting to issue direction, which then creates a spiral of causality.”
(the best defense is a good offense)
“the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few”
the whole not having faith in actions of the one.
(the best offense is a good defense)
treat a being as less and they will fail in their performance.
humans are dependent on faith … not their faith outward, but how much others have faith in them.
a moose, after all …always stays a moose; treating it less only turns yourself into one of the many versions of stupid.