I didn't think our talk would be so...
Passion arousing...
It doesn't seem to be of the right kind, unfortunately. After I said good-bye to you, I heard someone say "So you think I shouldn't buy a Scorpion Woman doll for my daughter, although it's all the rage and every girl in her class has one. But instead, I should send the money to Darfur for feeding the orphaned and starving children?''
Ça alors ! Someone was following us?
Yes. I don't know why she waited until then to speak up.
What was your reply?
When I turned around, she didn't give me the time to answer and said, "I bet you don't have kids.'' It was almost a growl.
Oops, she chose one of the most deadly lines, but I suppose she didn't know that...
We'll talk about this some other time, but most people claim ignorance when it comes to the fact that their words could hurt, offend, or anger others.
I've been given explanations like, "Everybody says such things, so naturally, I thought it harmless. I think you're overly touchy.... No, no, I meant sensitive.'' Only if they knew how much I dislike the word, sensitive.
You give high rankings to your friends who do not use that word, I know that.
Needless to say, it has to come naturally, not by arm twisting.
I hope we're allowed to say you're difficult, at least!
Sure, I like the word "difficult" much better. I would even take "abnormal."
Can you say that, never in your life, you have said anything that hurt someone?
We should be talking about hypocrisy, you're saying... Getting back to our share-or-not-share discussion, I had the opposite experience.
Let me guess... You ran into Queen Elizabeth, II. She said she was very much impressed by what we said and would like to give up Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle for promoting antiviral therapy for AIDS patients in the third world. Right?
It was an old lady, wearing an ornate hat and walking a dachshund. She said she was delighted to hear our sophisticated conversation, because she would rather bequeath her four homes to her dog than to her son and his family.
Her dog rather than her son... I wonder if she had thought about her son becoming the custodian of the dog.
I was just thinking that a parent-child relationship is something even the law takes for granted. In other words, some legislations are based on pure biological facts.
Parents are legally responsible for their children's welfare until they are no longer minors.
Most laws around the world stipulate that the parents' assets would be shared among the surviving family members, and their children are given the priority.
It would not be against the law if I send one of the pacifiers of my hypothetical baby to other babies without one. It would probably be against the law if I feed my baby just enough to keep it alive and send the rest of the money to Darfur.
If there is a passenger who can put the oxygen mask alone and could help others around her/him, you do not have to risk your life by going to that aisle. In the starving babies' case, that passenger would be the parents who can take care of them. No problem either, if you do not have to sacrifice any of your responsibility to assist others.
After all, we are all free to do as we wish. Nobody can force a billionaire to send his money to Darfur; he may buy a yacht for his son, go on a vacation around the world with his mistress, and even have a dinner with his fifth wife at Tour d'Argent.
Your sexist overtone is distracting... We could argue that as long as one's well-being is not affected, we should give to those whose biological survival is at stake. I bet the billionaire would say that he would be very unhappy if he didn't get to do all of what you listed. He may even say that it is his responsibility to take care in that way.
Some are willing to share and others not. It has always been so.
I suppose such tendencies are innate. We have managed, however, to expand our definition of human beings, those whom we are supposed to be compassionate about, although not always in material terms.
If it were not for the revisions, most of us would not count as one.
The 1960s saw the addition of three types of human beings, according to Yujiro Nakamura. The children through "Centuries of Childhood" by Philippe Ariès, the mentally-ill through "Madness and Civilization" by Michel Foucault, and the primitive through "The Savage Mind" by Claude Lévi-Strauss.
"L'Enfant et la vie familiale sous l’ancient régime," "Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique," et "La Pensée sauvage"...
The powerful turned their attention to the less powerful and recognized that they, too, are human beings.
I wouldn't put it that way. They were made to adopt a more egalitarian system by force. The starving masses couldn't take it any more, and in the face of violence that could cost their lives, those in power did not have any other choice.
You must be thinking of the French Revolution and the like. But what about abolitionism? Some in power thought we should share this world more equally among human beings as newly defined, and they have prevailed to a good extent over those who resisted the change.
Our mental capacity has accommodated the changes and come to care about the added groups as humans.
If that is what we call progress, shouldn't we continue to enlarge the circle of those we care, to include the groups that are more and more removed from our family, clan, tribe, gender and race?
The history of suffrage is a good example. It started with a small group of male population from the upper class, and the voting population in every country has become more and more inclusive.
Take family-run businesses. Nowadays, we applaud an owner who chooses a competent niece, or even an extremely capable outsider, over a dumb son as a successor.
It has also made it possible to say something like, "Nous sommes tous Américains."
May I recommend to stay away from that one...?
Passion arousing...
It doesn't seem to be of the right kind, unfortunately. After I said good-bye to you, I heard someone say "So you think I shouldn't buy a Scorpion Woman doll for my daughter, although it's all the rage and every girl in her class has one. But instead, I should send the money to Darfur for feeding the orphaned and starving children?''
Ça alors ! Someone was following us?
Yes. I don't know why she waited until then to speak up.
What was your reply?
When I turned around, she didn't give me the time to answer and said, "I bet you don't have kids.'' It was almost a growl.
Oops, she chose one of the most deadly lines, but I suppose she didn't know that...
We'll talk about this some other time, but most people claim ignorance when it comes to the fact that their words could hurt, offend, or anger others.
I've been given explanations like, "Everybody says such things, so naturally, I thought it harmless. I think you're overly touchy.... No, no, I meant sensitive.'' Only if they knew how much I dislike the word, sensitive.
You give high rankings to your friends who do not use that word, I know that.
Needless to say, it has to come naturally, not by arm twisting.
I hope we're allowed to say you're difficult, at least!
Sure, I like the word "difficult" much better. I would even take "abnormal."
Can you say that, never in your life, you have said anything that hurt someone?
We should be talking about hypocrisy, you're saying... Getting back to our share-or-not-share discussion, I had the opposite experience.
Let me guess... You ran into Queen Elizabeth, II. She said she was very much impressed by what we said and would like to give up Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle for promoting antiviral therapy for AIDS patients in the third world. Right?
It was an old lady, wearing an ornate hat and walking a dachshund. She said she was delighted to hear our sophisticated conversation, because she would rather bequeath her four homes to her dog than to her son and his family.
Her dog rather than her son... I wonder if she had thought about her son becoming the custodian of the dog.
I was just thinking that a parent-child relationship is something even the law takes for granted. In other words, some legislations are based on pure biological facts.
Parents are legally responsible for their children's welfare until they are no longer minors.
Most laws around the world stipulate that the parents' assets would be shared among the surviving family members, and their children are given the priority.
It would not be against the law if I send one of the pacifiers of my hypothetical baby to other babies without one. It would probably be against the law if I feed my baby just enough to keep it alive and send the rest of the money to Darfur.
If there is a passenger who can put the oxygen mask alone and could help others around her/him, you do not have to risk your life by going to that aisle. In the starving babies' case, that passenger would be the parents who can take care of them. No problem either, if you do not have to sacrifice any of your responsibility to assist others.
After all, we are all free to do as we wish. Nobody can force a billionaire to send his money to Darfur; he may buy a yacht for his son, go on a vacation around the world with his mistress, and even have a dinner with his fifth wife at Tour d'Argent.
Your sexist overtone is distracting... We could argue that as long as one's well-being is not affected, we should give to those whose biological survival is at stake. I bet the billionaire would say that he would be very unhappy if he didn't get to do all of what you listed. He may even say that it is his responsibility to take care in that way.
Some are willing to share and others not. It has always been so.
I suppose such tendencies are innate. We have managed, however, to expand our definition of human beings, those whom we are supposed to be compassionate about, although not always in material terms.
If it were not for the revisions, most of us would not count as one.
The 1960s saw the addition of three types of human beings, according to Yujiro Nakamura. The children through "Centuries of Childhood" by Philippe Ariès, the mentally-ill through "Madness and Civilization" by Michel Foucault, and the primitive through "The Savage Mind" by Claude Lévi-Strauss.
"L'Enfant et la vie familiale sous l’ancient régime," "Histoire de la folie à l'âge classique," et "La Pensée sauvage"...
The powerful turned their attention to the less powerful and recognized that they, too, are human beings.
I wouldn't put it that way. They were made to adopt a more egalitarian system by force. The starving masses couldn't take it any more, and in the face of violence that could cost their lives, those in power did not have any other choice.
You must be thinking of the French Revolution and the like. But what about abolitionism? Some in power thought we should share this world more equally among human beings as newly defined, and they have prevailed to a good extent over those who resisted the change.
Our mental capacity has accommodated the changes and come to care about the added groups as humans.
If that is what we call progress, shouldn't we continue to enlarge the circle of those we care, to include the groups that are more and more removed from our family, clan, tribe, gender and race?
The history of suffrage is a good example. It started with a small group of male population from the upper class, and the voting population in every country has become more and more inclusive.
Take family-run businesses. Nowadays, we applaud an owner who chooses a competent niece, or even an extremely capable outsider, over a dumb son as a successor.
It has also made it possible to say something like, "Nous sommes tous Américains."
May I recommend to stay away from that one...?
Posts
