Ever ask yourself how you lead your life? What are the elements of your life that are private? Why are they private? What are the things about you which you do not mind sharing with everyone? What are some things about yourself that you only share with some people rather than the whole and why is that? What is an opinion to you? How much of an opinion can you listen to before dismissing it for whatever reason? Are you set in your ways?
While writing a review about a movie recently I noticed that while the majority of the reviews were seemingly terrible, in that they regarded the movie as a poor choice, the few that were in the opposite end not only described what they liked about the film, but pointedly remarked on those who were leaving reviews opposite theirs with strong disdain. Clearly that does not imply that the majority is right, or the minority, merely that the disagreement extended not only on whether the film was liked, but the reviews that were unlike theirs. As I was one of the many who agreed that the film’s content was perhaps for a different audience or for no audience at all, I thought about it for quite some time when I read over and over that, I paraphrase, you shouldn’t pay any attention to the reviews of those who are easily offended (in the above, the majority). I thought about it because I was not in fact offended. I like eggs, scrambled are my favorite. There are those who do not like eggs, or who would rather not have millions of chickens in borderline abusive lives -but that is for a different letter. If I were to attempt to make sense of the review debacle then I must agree that those who do not like eggs are offended by my eating/liking them. I must fairly ask then, is it fair that a judgement is made to begin with?
Should my argument, based solely on the content of the above-stated be that, you shouldn’t pay attention to the reviews of those whose opinion is different than mine? Seems like the question bares no content in itself. I want to turn your attention to choice. At a time in your life you will decide your view on a particular subject. It is a choice, unlike most we make, benign, and rather pointless even. However, like anything else, that choice is not a perpetual one. Chance, random happenings in life, experience, and other things pose a threat to that choice. I say threat because any choice that stands to change can be viewed as threatened by the mere thing that will cause its change.
Asking ourselves questions is not enough, we must answer them fairly and according to our desires, or feelings, perhaps just by views, and experience. It is not wrong to do that as long as the decision is not pushed unto others and furthermore that we really listen to the opposing views and attempt to understand them as much as we would like ours heard and interpreted to our liking. Others too should be allotted sufficient time to accommodate their thoughts into opinion by way of thinking. Something as simple as killing can be viewed -through choice- in two very distinct ways: I like it or I do not like it. Let’s not worry for now about circumstance, situation, or even reason, just the stated for its sake and go from there. Is it right for me to condescend someone only because of what they like or don’t like? What gives me the right or power? This being a general question must be brought into the fulcrum of wit in order to posit the nature of the feeling by which misunderstanding usually rests.
Discussing the I like it from before one must first put it into perspective. A killer, someone who draws benefit of a kind, whether it is sexual pleasure or other through a sadomasochistic means looks at the situation merely from the stance of gratification. Therefore, I like it is to them what to us is an act of decadence, an act that bares no merit through the social norms. Please note that the use of “what to us is” in the previous statement is not meant to separate the group(s), but rather to make a distinguishing remark to there being at least two groups of thought. The same killer would possibly not like it if at the end of any encounter there isn’t a mark left behind with which to recall the pleasure(s) of the encounter; thus your romantic outing at a bar, restaurant, movie, or else would seem rather pointless and futile to them. Then, it is characteristic of a judgement that a situation will be liked or disliked. Furthermore, the individual making that consideration or judgement may impart through conversation or other means the desires sought, feelings achieved, or other goals possibly attained through the act of killing, which by the way is completely right and common in their eyes.
A person disliking a killer merely because they kill fails to see that there is judgement in the statement and that, although without justification, bringing down such incredible disdain to a killer is in fact no different -where judgement is concerned- as the initial decision to kill; because the act was done to achieve something. The killer achieves the gratification sought in the act while the person judging the killer gets to have gratification by advocating about the evils of the former. Social conventions would have us believe that one is right and the other not-so-much. The reasons are many, none of which merit discussing -here- due to the confusing nature of the particulars they are burdened with.
Some questions arise as being particularly interesting such as: do you like killing, do you hate killers, do you recieve pleasure from the act of abusing your victims, how can you explain the deplorable state of an individual’s thoughts that kill, are you happiest when you kill, are you happiest when others agree with you that killing is wrong, and so on. With every question seeking to adjust to the situation by bringing forth the issue that is: no thought, just action. Just to mention one example, a great German leader once sought to eradicate all other groups different than his own. He believed wholeheartedly that was right. The initial group to feel the raw power of that man may in fact have a thing or two to say against it. But who is right? Is the person doing the killing any different than the person judging the person doing the killing and later even promoting a sentence that perpetuates killing? Talk about a revolving door.
Some issues must be attacked for what they are, misunderstanding-due-to-lack-of-comprehension. Here is an issue that plagues a multitude of countries in the world today, albeit broken down do its most simple parts in a candid example. Was my uncle Frank guilty of killing the man that killed his wife? Was uncle Frank’s wife guilty of killing the son of the man that killed my uncle’s wife because she was driving drunk? Was the bartender who served the drinks guilty of the deaths as well? When will the drink manufacturer be destroyed by aerial attacks because of all the murders they are responsible for? And sadly, so on. The war-ridden country of Somalia comes to mind as well. Decades, just recently, of war devastating family and region. Your uncle killed my uncle, who killed your grandmother, who killed my great cousin, who killed… and so on, therefore I will kill you. Sure, that’s a very simplistic view of the situation and I will grant you that, but we’re not here to talk about Africa, or any other particular place, the aforementioned was merely and example to amplify the already made point. Who is right when a killing occurs? That is the important question isn’t it? In the eyes of the killer, they are right. In the eyes of the so-called victim the killer is wrong. But that same stance happens on both sides of any conflict. Who is right?
Would it be fair to say that there is no right? Moreover, can it be argued that other more positive, or rather less life-ending choices can be made? There are those who have made it this far in the reading but cannot fail to say: “it’s easy to say from a chair hundreds or thousands of miles away in safety”. To you I say: “You are absolutely and positively right”. Sometimes when there is too much feeling in a situation, an outside force must intervene. Not in the behalf of any one, or a thing, but of what is at stake. Without veering any further from the subject of the review that brought all this about, and the disagreeing minds who purportedly claim to know what is right for every faction, individual, or cause involved let us finish by extrapolating what has been said. For there to be conflict there must be two things that are right. They may not be right in themselves. However, they are right for individuals who have made it a point to stand behind their side. In that decision to back some thing or some one, there is a lot of feeling involved always. Feelings in moderation are good, but like anything else, it is the overcompensation of feeling that pushes boundaries. You overcompensate by bringing your views, feelings, examples, and more into the accord, but at the same time leaving the potential to understand the other side. This happens on both ends. Thus, no resolution can be achieved because there is no dialogue, or worse yet, the will to listen and further understand; both parts present themselves merely to impose.
Thus, we are back at the post with disagreeing individuals at odds because although a review pointedly remarked on the views of one person, another person didn’t like it and they were both being supported by others, however uneven the support, and the clash occurred when one side decided to push their ideals, thoughts, and etc. on the other. Clearly this has happened before and inevitably will occur again. My last question is: were you easily offended?
