I would like to start this by saying that we must live in a world where we take responsibility for our actions, and hold ourselves accountable for the results.
There have been talks about unemployment rates, and how the actual amount of unemployed is not accurately reported. That the actual number of unemployed is higher than we believe it to be. I believe that we are responsible for that problem, and can still find a way to change that, to a degree. I cannot tell you how frustrated I sometimes get when I am in a grocery self-checkout, because the store has decided to cut jobs and put in automated machines, and something either doesn't ring up (scan), has a problem, I have a coupon, or some other minor situation that requires assistance, and the one person they have overseeing things is trying to help three or more other customers, and all I can do is sit there and wait until they see fit to get to me.
I understand why so many people use the self checkout; either because the cashier is so under-educated and can't make change, or maybe you just don't like people, or you realize that yes, in some cases, it really is faster. The problem with using automated technology is that we are creating a need to cut someone else's job. Now that person is probably going to be competing with you for the job you are trying to get. If we could get the cashiers back on the register, and the machines out of the store, we could decrease unemployment by a good percentage. True, the cashiers would have to be better trained, and learn a good sense of work ethics. That would hopefully give management reason to empower the cashiers to have more override powers, which would reduce the wait times in the checkout lines, and everyone can be a little happier.
The bottom line is that we are selfish and don't think about how our actions will effect others, which in turn effect us. I think that we should be a little more conscious of our decision-making, and realize that we are in this country together, and need to do our part in making this country great. If we take control of the problems we have the capacity to change, then we can mold this country to the way it should be. Words to live by: Honor, Integrity, Responsibility, Accountability, Honesty. One word is not more important than the other.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Thursday, March 5, 2015
Food for Thought 20150305
I was scanning news headlines, and came across one that seemed interesting enough for me to want to share it with you: Ben Carson Apologizes for Saying Being Gay is a Choice. Now, I have to admit that I have not followed this story from the beginning, so I will not say that I fully understand the gravity of the situation, so I advise everyone that reads this, to do with a grain of salt.
To my understanding, the topic of discussion is regarding sexual orientation, and the ability to choose, or the lack of ability to choose which orientation is followed. I have my opinion on whether or not people can choose who they are, as well as having my own opinion as to whether or not orientation is a choice in itself (I believe both subjects are separate, though can be argued they are one and the same). I am not here to discuss my opinion, but to present to everyone a question that, hopefully, will garner some thought, and allow people to contemplate the vastness of ramifications, of the answers which they themselves may come up with.
So enough with the mystification, and on to the meat of the subject. My question is simple:
If people can argue that they have no choice in deciding whether or not they are homo-sexually oriented, would it be a fair argument to say that murderers, thieves, and other lawbreakers are unable to make the decision to be law-abiding citizens, and that their choice to act upon those urges are absolved from law?
I just want to make sure that it is clear to all who read this, that I am not speaking against, or advocating for homosexuality, nor criminal actions. I am simply bringing focus to urges, or actions some say they have no choice in controlling. This is a focus on the ability to choose, or the lack thereof. If one person, or a group of people claim to NOT have the ABILITY to CHOOSE what their behaviors are, and we allow for the absolution of actions resulting from the declaration of the inability to refrain from such actions, Wouldn't we have to make a ruling across the board for the same claim for EVERYONE who makes such a claim?
To my understanding, the topic of discussion is regarding sexual orientation, and the ability to choose, or the lack of ability to choose which orientation is followed. I have my opinion on whether or not people can choose who they are, as well as having my own opinion as to whether or not orientation is a choice in itself (I believe both subjects are separate, though can be argued they are one and the same). I am not here to discuss my opinion, but to present to everyone a question that, hopefully, will garner some thought, and allow people to contemplate the vastness of ramifications, of the answers which they themselves may come up with.
So enough with the mystification, and on to the meat of the subject. My question is simple:
If people can argue that they have no choice in deciding whether or not they are homo-sexually oriented, would it be a fair argument to say that murderers, thieves, and other lawbreakers are unable to make the decision to be law-abiding citizens, and that their choice to act upon those urges are absolved from law?
I just want to make sure that it is clear to all who read this, that I am not speaking against, or advocating for homosexuality, nor criminal actions. I am simply bringing focus to urges, or actions some say they have no choice in controlling. This is a focus on the ability to choose, or the lack thereof. If one person, or a group of people claim to NOT have the ABILITY to CHOOSE what their behaviors are, and we allow for the absolution of actions resulting from the declaration of the inability to refrain from such actions, Wouldn't we have to make a ruling across the board for the same claim for EVERYONE who makes such a claim?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)