Arthur N

Why is it that, despite everything bad that can and often does occur in a persons life, we still want to live? Is it fear of what comes next, hope that tomorrow will be better, delusions of nobler things, habit formed through years of the same, ... etc?

What is the point of life, why do we continue to choose to live instead of just laying down and dying?

Please explain your answers as completely as possible.

It has been said that "Life is a game of give an take", as such what would you give up for the chance to have your most cherished dream realised?

What is it that you want, what would you give up and why?

If a good deed is done does it matter what motivated it? For example what if a billionaire were to give vast quantities of cash to charity, donate time to worthy causes, etc but only did so just to get some more publicity. Or what of a volunteer who volunteers his time but does so because he gets pats on the back by his mates. Does the fact that it was for selfish purpose negate the good the done?

Do the ends justify the means if the result is positive or must noble deeds be done for selfless motives? Can any good deed ever be truly selfless or will the one doing it always get something from it?

Why?

What have you done, if anything, to further your belief?

There are a few cases that I know of (civil law cases) where it seems that personal responsibility has been all but forgotten. I will give you a brief run down on the first ones that come to mind.

1. A woman walking down the street texting on her phone trips over some uneven paving outside a shop. She proceeds to sue the city council and shop owner for injuries and damages.

2. A woman buys a cup of coffee and while driving spills it into her lap. She sues the company for injury and damages.

3. A man while robbing a house is injured by a fence as he flees. He later sues the owner, claiming that the fence was dangerous, for injury and damages. (Note: He is arrested and charged for the break and enter)

The question is ‘How could these cases have come to be in front a court to begin with?’ Why is it that in the above cases personal responsibility was seemingly not considered?

I do not know the intimate details of the above cases (nor do I care to) but I do know the details of others, which I am not at liberty to divulge, where personal responsibility was replaced with external accountability. By that I mean, instead of the individual taking responsibility for their own actions they attempt to blame others for their mistakes.

Surely in the above cases if you are unable to keep an awareness of your surroundings while texting, then don’t walk and text. Likewise if your vehicle does not have cup holders then how about getting out of your car and enjoying your drink in the store, or if you don’t have the time wait until you get to your destination for your coffee. And surely I don’t need to go into what is wrong with the third example.

We are all invested with certain rights, like the right to live in a safe environment and the right to buy safe products. However with the exercising of a right comes a responsibility. We have the right to live in a safe environment true but we also have the responsibility to ensure that we are taking due care so as to not put ourselves in harm’s way. We have a right to buy safe products but we have a responsibility to use those same products in a safe way.

It would appear that at no point did anyone tell those involved in the above experiences to ‘pull their socks up’, that they were the primary cause of their own situation. At what point did the right begin to outweigh the responsibility? When did the onus on the individual cease and the burden on the society start?

[ As an aside, I believe that there is a place for ‘Bright as a two watt bulb’ legislation. Laws were if the individual involved was acting in a manner which is likely to cause harm then they are left to foot the bill, situations like texting while not looking where your going.]

In terms of our society and culture, our laws and systems of justice, our families and our communities what has happened to personal responsibility and how has it changed?

Thanks.

Just as it is impossible to argue that God does not exist. The problem as it seems is that humans lack to language to be able to describe objects and/or entities that are not part of this universe. The main issue is that God is said to have created the universe. For any entity to create something that entity must first exist outside and external to what is being created.

An example may help:

A man wakes up one day and decides to make a super-computer. It takes a while to finish but when he is done the computer has infinite processing speed with infinite storage. But what good is a toy if you have no game to play on it. So he sets out to program a complete digital world within the computer. After a while there is a whole community of 'sims' (for lack of a better word). All of these sims came online at the same time, so no one has a memory of the writing of the programs that run the world. After several generations the sims have science, maths, art, philosophy and culture. One day two sims take a hike up the Megabyte range and while resting for lunch begin discussing the concept of the Programmer. One believes that the Programmer is real while the other does not.

Assuming that the man who designed the world can see what happens, like watching a movie, but does not cause any input into the simulated environment the only thing that the sims would know would be there own world. Their science, technology, maths, philosophy and culture would be based on what they could see around them. Since they can only see their own world, with their world based solely on a digital program based solely on a one or zero basis, there is no way that they could create an argument to either prove or disprove the existence of the Programmer. To do that they would have to first construct a language which can describe an analogue world. However as their (and our science) is based on observations and not one of them have seen an analogue world there seems to be no way for them to even begin to construct this language.

Likewise, if God created the universe and humans are part of the universe, humans would be unable to construct a language to describe the environment in which an entity like God could possibly exist. Let alone being able to show that an entity like God could or could not exist.

However, the lack of ability to describe the environment and entity does not equal proof of the non-existence of God. This is due again to the fact that there is no ability to describe the lack of the environment and entity. Proof that God did not exist would require evidence to the contrary, evidence stating that either there is an environment in which an entity like God could exist is there but that God is not or that there is no possible way that such an environment or entity could exist. As there is not the language to describe this there is no possible proof.

All arguments for and against the existence of God are based on inferences and assumptions. It seems that it all comes down to the old saying “For the believer no proof is necessary, for the sceptic no proof is enough”

Your thoughts?

What is the value of this phrase?

I would seem to be saying that there is always someone worse off than you and therefore that you should get over it. That one should exercise self control - that having no shoes is not the worst thing that could happen. But while the value a healthy amount of self-control is not in question here the construction of the phrase seems to negate any beneficial effect it may have.

A man with no shoes must walk everywhere without protection for his feet. This means through all sorts of terrain and weather. It could be the middle of winter with freezing rain and cold sucking mud that could hide anything or the middle of summer with burning sand and baked hard razor sharp dirt. His feet may become infected from the injuries he sustains which could lead months to years of pain and suffering right through to septicemia, amputation and even possibly death.

A man who has no feet is not in need of shoes to protect them. While it is true that he cannot walk to the places that the man who has no shoes can, he also does not have the same danger that the man without shoes does. A man without feet but with shoes is gaining nothing by having them, a man with feet but without shoes is in danger of losing what he does have.

Also, can it not be argued that both men suffer equally? The one without feet must beg for lack of work, the one without shoes does work but must work with sore injured feet and also must live with the danger of losing what he does have.

So what in the end is the value of this phrase?

There is a school in my local area who have a large banner proudly displaying the motto 'Become who you are'. I doubt that would have the power to inspire anybody. Become who you are - I already am who I am. That was a short trip!

So anybody have anything better, a more nauseatingly useless inspirational phrase? Where is it and why do you hate it?

There is a school in my local area who have a large banner proudly displaying the motto 'Become who you are'. I doubt that would have the power to inspire anybody. Become who you are - I already am who I am. That was a short trip!

So anybody have anything better, a more nauseatingly useless inspirational phrase? Where is it and why do you hate it?

In my right hand I hold a small red pill. If you take it you will get everything that you have ever wanted. You could have fame, money, fast cars, beautiful wife/husband, beautiful young bit on the side, boats - it doesn't matter what you want you WILL have it. But you will only have it for 5 years. Five years from today you will be kidnapped and tortured to death. Your estate will be fought over and the legal battles will last years after your death.

In my left hand I hold a small blue pill. If you take it you will NOT get everything you want, in fact you will never have enough money. You will live in a small house in a nice enough neighbourhood and drive a small, cheap to run car. You will marry your sweetheart and have several children and a few grandchildren and great grandchildren. You will die peacefully in your sleep sometime after you turn 100. You will never have fame or fortune but you, your children and their children will have a happy family life and your children and grandchildren will remember you fondly.

You can take the red pill, the blue pill or walk away. If you choose to walk you will never again get this offer. What do you choose?

Why?

What is the format of the Boyup Brook Country Music Festival in Western Australia?

I wish that I had grown up on a farm with brothers and sisters, with a mother and a father and a horse or two. Instead I grew up in a large town/small city, the only child of a single parent (since my father left when I was young) and was ill for much of the time.

This got me thinking, what do you wish your childhood had been like and why? Is there any way to get a piece of the life you wanted in adulthood or are you locked into the path that was set for you?

Take any crime you may well imagine - rape; murder; assault; robbery; etc. - and you will find that our society as a whole is intolerant of it, as indicted by the fact that we have a justice system set up to punish those that transgress.

In all of these crimes some form of harm is being done to the victim. Yet when it comes to bullying a strange thing is seen, instead of a perpetrator (the bully) being subjected to a system of where by they are required to 'pay back' their debt, we see that it is in fact the victim of the bullying that is required to change. Society in effect turns its back on the victim in favour of protecting the perpetrators right to free speech and act, even if that right is used to cause harm to another.

Now the detrimental effects of bullying are well known from anecdotal sources and psychological studies of both children in school and adults in the workplace. Bullying is linked to stress, low self esteem, physical and medical complications, injuries and illness caused by physical abuse and has even been linked as a major contributing factor to teenage suicide. Please see http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/index.htm and http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=69... (fact sheet 17) for more info, but this is by no means the only sources out there.

So bearing in mind that our society is intolerant of actions that cause harm to other individuals, as evidenced by the fact that there is a justice system in place (its record of getting it right is not at issue here), why is it that our society in general expects a victim of bullying to change thier actions and does nothing to alter the behaviour of the bully?

Take any crime you may well imagine - rape; murder; assault; robbery; etc. - and you will find that our society as a whole is intolerant of it, as indicted by the fact that we have a justice system set up to punish those that transgress.

In all of these crimes some form of harm is being done to the victim. Yet when it comes to bullying a strange thing is seen, instead of a perpetrator (the bully) being subjected to a system of where by they are required to 'pay back' their debt, we see that it is in fact the victim of the bullying that is required to change. Society in effect turns its back on the victim in favour of protecting the perpetrators right to free speech and act, even if that right is used to cause harm to another.

Now the detrimental effects of bullying are well known from anecdotal sources and psychological studies of both children in school and adults in the workplace. Bullying is linked to stress, low self esteem, physical and medical complications, injuries and illness caused by physical abuse and has even been linked as a major contributing factor to teenage suicide. Please see http://www.bullyoffline.org/workbully/index.htm and http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=69... (fact sheet 17) for more info, but this is by no means the only sources out there.

So bearing in mind that our society is intolerant of actions that cause harm to other individuals, as evidenced by the fact that there is a justice system in place (its record of getting it right is not at issue here), why is it that our society in general expects a victim of bullying to change thier actions and does nothing to alter the behaviour of the bully?

I have been privileged enough to know quite a few tomboys over the years, one of them is my sister. Without fail at one time or another each one of them has been subjected to bullying and rumour about being lesbian. While one tomboy is actually gay and living with her girlfriend now the others are not. One is engaged to a nice man, another is getting into dating guys and my sister has been in a long term relationship with a guy for over two years now. So why is it that tomboys are considered to be and dismissed as being gay?

When two people fall in love, was it coincidence that they were there at the same time or did some force guide their path that day? When a plane crashes, was it an unfortunate series of events that lead to it going down or had some force selected that time and place? When someone is hit by a drink-driver was it just bad luck or had someone chosen it to happen?

Some people like to believe that they are at the wheel and are in total control of their own destiny. Others like to believe that life is predetermined, that we are but actors placed upon the stage that is life. Others like to think that while they are at the wheel when they find themselves in a rut that is when fate steps in and gives them a nudge in the right direction.

The Greeks believed in the three fates, some swear to have seen the mothman. Others believe in Karma while some believe that God has a hand in peoples lives. So, my question is, do you believe in fate? Why or Why not? Please explain your answers as best you can.

Thanks.

People become emotionally invested in music, many is the time you will hear someone saying that a piece of music reminds them of a time in their lives. Music helps to define ourselves, it helps to place into context the world around us. When you are having a really bad day a great song can turn it all around leaving you feeling fantastic, nothing has changed just except you. The right song can make you cry, laugh, love, get angry, inspire and gut.

So if you were a piece of music (a song, opera, soundtrack, etc. the only thing is it must exist) what would you be? Why?

Thanks.

The following is a true story, the names have been changed but the events actually happened. The question here is who holds responsibility for the death of John? Please note that any answer saying that John was fully responsible will NOT be considered.

Many years ago an eleven year old boy was travelling with his mother on a road trip around the country. At length they came to caravan park in a small town where sugar cane grew. The boy, Bret, was a trusting sort but also was not one to rush head long into unfamiliar situations and his mother, Emma, was a cautious sort who had been hurt by an ugly divorce and having to raise her son alone. They had depended on each other over the long trip and trusted each others judgement of the situations that were presented to them.

One day, a man from a caravan a few spots down struck up a conversation with Emma. He introduced himself as John and said that he was one of the few permanent residents of the park. Bret and she had organised a game on the ping-pong tables that were always in demand so the conversation could not last long. Two days later John approached Emma again and invited Emma and Bret over for dinner in his caravan saying that he had bought enough food for all three and that he would make fabulous dinner for the three of them. Emma however was cautious as always and said that she would have to talk to Bret. Walking back to their small car she talked to Bret and said that she didn't trust the situation, not that he seemed to be dangerous or anything just that a story from the news from two weeks before had been playing on her mind and they decided that they would say that they had planned to go to the cinemas instead. Emma told John of their contrived plan to go to the cinemas and he said that ‘maybe another night’, but he did not look like he meant it.

That night they went to the cinema but they did not enjoy the show. They were a good family and did not enjoy lying even if it was to get out of a situation were they felt uncomfortable. At length they decided that they would go over to his caravan in the morning and invite him out to a fancy restaurant in town by way of an apology, not that they could spare the money. The next day Emma and Bret went and knocked on his caravan, but there was no answer. As Emma was about to knock again a voice from behind them made them jump, it was the wife of the owner of the park telling them that he was not there. Emma asked if she could leave a message for John but the wife refused. Then Emma asked why, a question that brought tears the wife’s eyes. She explained that after Emma and Bret had said no to dinner John had locked himself in his caravan until after dark. When he did finally emerge he was holding a small blanket. Walking into the sugar cane field that surrounded the park he spread out the blanket and laid down, took his service revolver and put it in his mouth and ate a bullet. It was she who had discovered his body after going to investigate the noise of the gun shot as her husband was away at the time.

Emma and Bret were struck dumb as ice water ran in their veins at the realisation that they had been the last people to see him alive. The owners wife went on to explain how John’s wife had left him years before, lying about him abusing her and their children to gain sole custody over them, a move aimed solely at hurting him. The claims had been thoroughly investigated by the police and each one was proven false. But the stress of the divorce and the investigation had turned him to drink so when his day in court finally came he was ruled an unfit parent and once again denied custody and visitation rights. This spiralled had him into a deep depression. The only thing that brought any light to his life was his small dog who had died only two weeks before after being hit by a car. Bret and Emma realised that John was not only being nice by asking them over for tea he was asking for help, for someone to talk to, for someone who provide a shoulder to cry on. They realised that he had not meant them any harm and if they had accepted he would be alive that day.

To this day neither Emma nor Bret can forgive themselves for what happened that night, nor will they ever turn down a plea for help again, no matter where it comes from.

Who is responsible for John’s death? Bret and Emma, John’s wife and kids, the other people in the caravan park, all of them, none of them?

Serious answers only please!

Thanks.

Humans have many and varied emotional states such as love, hate, bitterness, happiness, joy, longing, irritation and jealousy. And whether we like it or not these emotions are always around, colouring everything we do and every situation we are in. In fact any law enforcement officer worth his/her pay will tell you that emotions cloud people’s memory. Fear and anxiety will distort peoples perception of an event causing them to remember things differently, one person may not even be able to tell you if an attacker had feet while another would be able to describe in intricate detail every article of clothing. How many jokes have been born from the classic his and her points of view on a date? The female view may be something along the lines of "Great night, went out to dinner and when we got there ..., etc." while the male point of view may be "Bad night, didn't get any and went to bed early."

The fact is emotions are with us all the time, they effect everything we do, say and think. The single great piece of evidence for this fact is that the human face is capable of creating over 10,000 expressions, why would we have so many possible expressions to choose from if emotions were only a side note to life? Why also are emotions so pervasive and intrusive into our lives if they are simply there as an evolutionary afterthought?

It is therefore my assertion that the purpose of life is to feel, to experience life in all it's many and varied shades and colours. This does not mean that we should let go and wallow in all of the hedonistic pleasures available but simply to enjoy life as it comes our way. We are all endowed with a mind capable of processing our thoughts and feelings and we should use it to place our emotions in context, to allow us to navigate the traitorous waters of life to find safe harbours during the storms. Descarte said "I think therefore I am" I say "I feel therefore I have a reason to be."

So my question is, If feeling and emotion a major part of life or perhaps even the purpose of life? If so why or why not? Please explain your answers if you can.

Serious answers only please.

Thanks.

but eventually leads to real wisdom and contentment?

As I read Y!A, watch the news, popular entertainment and those around me I am often left with the feeling that people are only interested in the quick fix, a fix that leads to instant gratification but very little or no lasting enlightenment. It seems as if the mantra is 'if it is hard to find it isn't worth it'.

A good example may be the way in which relationships work, most people that I know of look to the outer beauty wanting instant gratification and then over time get to see the inner beauty (if there is any) later. Would it not be better to search out the 'diamond in the rough' from the start? It may lead to better stronger relationships and may also lead to a lowering of the astronomical number broken homes.

So my question is, is it better to go with the quick fix that grants instant gratification or is it better to put in the hard yards and search out the truth? If it is better to search then why does it seem that everyone only wants instant gratification?

Please explain your answers, with examples if possible.

Thanks.