About the letter on Right to Job security

For those who were hoping for a very detailed letter, sorry. This letter was going to be my first about at using the Blogger app. I finished a long first draft, but then when I went to proofread, it was gone. It's very disheartening to lose something that a lot of work was put into and I don't think I can write it as well as I did before as my mind wants to focus on other topics.

So instead, I'll briefly describe what I had drafted. If you wish for more details, feel free to ping me on Twitter.

For the piece that explained the importance of job security, I went backwards and first examined the consequences of not having good job security. The first negative I examined was racism, particularly how whites were racist against other whites until the cheap labor force were Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.

Next, I planned to examine the impact on our happiness. I referred to Sergeant Indie's video on ikigai. I also pointed out that we associate good jobs with stability and friendship. Recalling the cycle of happiness being triggered when an imperfection occurs, we can see that to lose a good job would have a serious impact on our happiness.

The letter ended with a plea for leadership to place a higher importance on job security than the whims of investors who do not care about the workforce. Layoffs should be a last resort to saving a business. If we place money higher than people's happiness, then we cannot say we are making progress.

With love,
N. D. Moharo

Pursuit of Happiness: Misunderstandings

"What is the meaning of life" is a question you may hear. While I have given an answer and even specified it on three levels, it is understandable to still be confused. There are a few meanings given by the world, including what I have promoted. However, the general confusion stems from trying to reconcile all of them.

So in this piece, I will briefly address the different ideas for what the purpose of life is. I might go into greater detail on individual ideas another time, but I think it is good to at least recognize them for now

Misunderstanding: the meaning of life is to have fun

From before we can even remember, we associate happiness with fun. We of course want to be happy so this actually makes sense. Add in that society and even our parents encourage this philosophy. Toy marketing is a plain example of this. Many clubs and organizations will also try to attract people by creating events for people to have fun. Parents will ask their children if they had fun for almost everything they do. It is not uncommon of a tale to hear of parents trying whatever they can to have fun with their children.

With all of this, doesn't it make sense that children and teenagers would think the point of life is to have fun?

Fun isn't a bad thing. It's good to have fun occasionally. However, when we pursue it like it's our goal in life, we end up hurting others. Things eventually stop being fun for us and we seek new areas of fun.

Something we can do to help prevent this misunderstanding is to emphasize to or children that we can feel joy through love. We can encourage positive behavior with praise and love. Have them acknowledge how good it feels to do a good deed and know it is good. My father would often say he was proud of the good deeds I would do. This sort of praise can help a great deal.

Misunderstanding: the meaning of life is to receive praise and honor

To receive praise can be addictive. It feels good. This is likely related to having an external confirmation that we did something good. Another reason is that we feel liked and maybe even wanted when people praise us.

However, just because someone praises us doesn't mean what we did is right. It's also dangerous to have a lot of attention on us lest we start to feel entitled. This can result in good deeds not having a proper motivation behind them and people just treating life like it's a game.

While it is good to speak our appreciation, we should also note to our children that hunting praise is not a good intention. It might be good to remind them occasionally that we love them and that it is through good deeds that we show our love. When we praise, we are admiring the show if love we see.

Misunderstanding: the meaning of life is to be free.
Freedom is certainly one of the most important rights we have, but we must understand it's purpose. Freedom for freedom's sake is pointless. However, freedom does have a purpose and it's to let us grow. It also serves to be a protection against those who would prefer to make us do evil.

Misunderstanding: the meaning of life is to experience
It's not unreasonable to think that life is meant to be filled with experiences. After all, can you experience anything without life? Can you change unless you experience events? People often say that experiences make them feel alive. People even make lists of the things they want to do before they due. And then there's the saying, "You'll never know if you like something until you try."

However, experience for the sake of experience is not a good way to live. It's fine to let experiences happen, but to chase them without a purpose is not going to make you happy. In fact, there are some experiences that can make you permanently unable to enjoy what life has to offer. It's also generally impossible to do everything that you want to do. In addition, some things can be over-hyped, leaving to a great disappointment.


Misunderstanding: the meaning of life is to fulfill our desires
This is easy to see. We want to be happy. We desire what we think will make us happy. Therefore we think what we desire is our meaning in life. This is encouraged in many movies as well when they focus on emotion. They place so much attention on how big the desire is that we feel sad if they cannot obtain it, even if it's something evil. However, that fact showcases why this isn't the meaning of life.

We all know truly that we have not only good desires, but also evil ones. The villains in movies are always going after what they want strongly. They are the ones following their heart. And if you have ever experienced over-hype, then you know what we want can also severely disappoint us. We have also learned that our desires can easily be corrupted.

When we understand these truths, then we can see why people who limit their desires are the ones who are happier in life.


Misunderstanding: suffering is the greatest evil
As someone who has suffered intense pain on multiple occasions, I can understand the feeling that it's horrible. The pain would be so bad that I couldn't sleep nor think. It is certainly good to try and relieve someone of their pain, but if we get incredibly upset over the smallest of sufferings, then we'll never be perfect. It is possible to suffer and still be happy. Love really does help.


Misunderstanding: there is no meaning to life
Since happiness is almost impossible if not impossible to obtain, and disillusionment is too common, it's understandable that some might just think that there is no purpose. This can also be a result of thinking we're in a world where our actions have no real effect.

However, if we consider characters in a book, while their actions don't affect our reality, they do have impact on our reality. They may not be able to be with their God, but they can still inspire us. We should not forget that the nature of man is to love. When we remember that, then we can see we always have a purpose.

Pursuit of Happiness: The Rights to Free Speech and Censorship

My dear child,

Society can be quite a confusing place. Some people are quite vigorous in fighting for free speech while condemning censorship. Others may be the opposite. However, they are actually two sides of the same coin. The perfection of one depends upon the perfection of the other. The purpose of both in the long run is to help us grow.

You are aware of how honey is good, right? It tastes good and has some health benefits. However, do you know that if given to a baby in their first year, they can became gravely sick? As your father, I not only have a right, but I also had an obligation to prevent you getting honey until you turned one. Instead, I must give you food that helps you grow so that your body was mature enough. Then you could enjoy the goodness of honey.

Why do I bring this up? Because this applies to more than just food. I must also protect you from some ideas or things that can be dangerous for you. I must do this until you become mature, that is when you can handle them. Until then, I have a duty out of love and as a parent to raise you with good things and ideas. Then when you have a good foundation, you can endure the evils you may come across.

You also have a right to personally censor things that you cannot handle. A recovering alcoholic should not be receiving advertisements for beer. Likewise a man struggling with pornography should been allowed to avoid corresponding materials. And if someone is worn out from discussing a topic, he should be allowed to rest, though he should be honest and open to conversing later. The noble purpose of censorship is to protect an individual so that he can mature.

At the same time the noble purpose of free speech is to grow. The freedom to speak is deeply linked to the freedom to think. We should be allowed to speak about what's important to us. We also must speak up when we notice areas of concern or improvement. These help us protect our rights, see that our needs are fulfilled, and help others. This right is indeed quite important and must be cherished.

In order to achieve perfection of either right, both need to be in harmony. Can a tree grow if it has little room and access to water? Will not a tree grow weak and maybe even die if given acid? Must not the roots of a planted tree be contained so as to not cause destruction to surrounding infrastructure? So too censorship and free speech must be. The key to understanding the proper limits is love again.

Censorship and free speech are two important rights that help us achieve perfection. They not only serve to help and protect us, but others as well. When these two are put under the guidance of love, they may reach their harmonious perfection.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P. S. "Hate speech" and bullying are evils and abuses of these rights. However, you must be careful to limit what you consider hate speech. I say that it it be limited to only words where the intention is explicitly that they hate you. If you must infer the hatred, then it's safer to assume the hatred is really on your side. E.g. Dialog where someone says he doesn't believe siblings should be married to each other due to beliefs is not hate speech, but where someone says he wishes them to die a horrid death certainly is hate speech and should be condemned as such. Falsely accusing something to be hate speech only promotes hatred. Let's promote love and not hate.

Pursuit of Happiness: Right to Life

Dear society,

Life is an interesting right. Without it, the others are worthless. However, it also can be confusing as to what it's purpose is. Now I pretty much covered this in the right to be good, so here I will focus on addressing it's immediate purpose and why it's important.

The general purpose of life is ultimately to be good, which includes true love. The specific purpose of your life is something you find that corresponds to the general prepare. Now the immediate purpose that aids in both of those is to grow.

Unless you are alive, you cannot change. At least that is the philosophy I've interpreted from Thomas Awuinas, Aristotle, and Buddhism. So the purpose of life is to change. Now if we are idealistic in thinking everything has a positive purpose, then life is so that we can change positively, that is to grow. And this purpose covers both physical and spiritual growth, though some philosophies will argue that the spiritual growth is the primary reason.

You might wonder if this means those who cannot grow therefore do not have a right to live. This is not the case as they still maintain the right to be loved and their life brings about many opportunities to love. The moral growth of people who take care of the infirmed and handicap is far superior to those who do not have the opportunities to show this love. Remember that no action is to oppose our purpose of loving, and that means every single person. Otherwise we venture into the realm of selfishness in which we are bound to choose evil.

In the original Spider-Man movie, the Green Goblin gives Spider-Man a choice between saving his love and an elevator full of children. His choice? Save all of them, even though it leaves himself vulnerable to the attacks from his enemy. His choice is instantaneous and he pulls it off thanks to the people of New York. It's not a question of numbers or even status. Every life is worth saving because our nature of love has declared it as so. And if we die in the process of saving others, then we have fulfilled our general purpose of love.

It may sound counter-intuitive, but perhaps the people who need to live the most are the ones who are the most evil. While we certainly need the ones that are good heroes, it's really the wicked that could use the inspiration and opportunity to change. If you believe in a heaven and hell, this is especially true, which helps explain why some religions advocate for abolishing the death penalty.

Life is extremely precious, but in order to understand why, we must the various purposes it has. It's ultimate goal is to be good, the individual goal is the specific purpose that you as a person can fulfill to aid being good, and the most immediate goal is to grow. This purpose of growth stems from that we need to live in order to change. We will change until we die and whatever our state is then will be how we will be for eternity.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Pursuit of Happiness: To be Good

To society,

In order to be happy, we must be good, but what does that mean? I'm sure that most people consider themselves to be good in general. However, others may disagree with our personal evaluation. What does it mean in general for something to be good?

When we say something is good, we tend to mean that it fulfills a purpose we have in mind. A good screwdriver should be able to screw in screws. If the handle breaks as soon as I try, then the tool is not good. A good textbook likewise is supposed help me learn about a subject. A bad textbook would make the subject even more confusing. We can therefore infer that for us to be good means that we fulfill our own purposes as well.

Like all things, mankind has a general purpose and can have many specific purposes. The general purpose is to love, as I mention in many of my letters. The specific "purpose" is something we generally search for ourselves or feel called to. These can be our careers or a passion we do outside of work. For some people, it's simply partaking in the general purpose of love and applying it to their everyday life, such as parenting.

In addition to purposes, we also judge things based off requirements that help aid in fulfilling those purposes. For example if the binding of a book easily breaks, I would consider the book to be bad no matter the contents inside. How important each of these requirements is varies, but they exist nonetheless. When it comes to being a good person, we can find hints in the form of fundamental human rights.

Rights help us understand the various needs of people. They help us move toward fulfillment and therefore perfection and happiness. Understand that I do not consider power and rights to be the same thing. Even if you can do something, it does not mean you should. Just as different books don't share all the same pieces, so too different people don't necessarily need all of the same non-fundamental rights, we just try to make sure they have access to them in case they need them, unless said right contradicts their purposes.

Does a cookbook need a prologue? No, but a novel could benefit from it. Likewise, one man may need to marry, but it might be best for another to refrain from all romance. There are books that instruct how other books should be formed so as to aid in their purpose. Similarly, when we claim someone does not have a right to something, the best arguments are those that show how the right ultimately contradicts their need to need to be good.

An example of this would be when someone is in need of medical treatment. It's good to want to help, but if there are professionals there already treating, then the good thing is to let them work and simply be available when they need your help.

We should note that our specific purpose and rights should never interfere with our general purpose of love. If there is ever opposition, then love should win. Otherwise we are sure to commit some evil, which is the opposite of good. Can we truly say we are good if we willingly choose to oppose good?

Being good is intrinsically linked to our perfection and therefore happiness. When we fulfill our purposes and prerequisites, then there's nothing more we can do to obtain happiness on our end. So let's choose good and work towards becoming happy.

With love,

N. D. Moharo

Pursuit of Happiness: The Right to Religion

To society,

When it comes to man's happiness, I previously showed that love is man's perfection and therefore key to obtaining happiness. Now, I intend to explain one of the fundamental rights pertaining to that love; the right that early American settlers valued dearly: the freedom of religion.

Simply speaking, religion is about rendering what is due to God*. The focus is not on us, but on God. Religion falls under the realm of Justice, but in doing so, we show our love to God.

Of course, there are many religions and it can be difficult to say which is true. However, this is not because of religion itself, but rather it's relationship with faith, philosophy, and morality.

Faith and religion are not the same, but they are very much connected. Faith gives us premises to build our logic. Most of our knowledge and ideas are based upon faith. We exercise this in science when we trust that prior scientists did everything correctly. No one has time to prove everything that others have proven before, otherwise we would make no progress. We also have faith in our own experiences, which in turn affect our philosophy.

Philosophy is the way we view how the universe works. If we say science is how things are, philosophy is the logic for why. Religion and philosophy play a give and take game as philosophy influences religion, and faith gives premises for philosophy. Morality then is applying that knowledge to how we should act, of which religion is part.

The reach of morality is largely dependent upon the scope of faith and philosophy. For example, Christianity in general has "love your neighbor as yourself" as it's second greatest commandment. It also heavily teaches that God associates himself with each individual person. As a result of this world view, it has a huge stake in preaching how we should treat others. At the same time, you can see how each denomination differs in how it treats God based off their differing philosophies.

Now, since it is difficult to judge which religion as they are matters of faith, it is important to recognize them for what they are. By understanding that religion is how we are to give back to the Divinity, we can see why it's important to be free from political powers. History and modern times are filled with persecutions by politicians who see religion as an obstacle to their selfish ambitions. While I will not admit all religions are good, there is good in the nature of giving back as it is our nature to love.

With love,

N. D. Moharo

* for the definition of religion, I took from the catechism of one of the world's largest religions. If Catholicism cannot have a say in what religion is, then I don't know who can. However, I think it's fair to say that when we say religion today, we mean the whole package of faith, philosophy, and morality.

P.s. it can be an act of love to allow people to practice their religion. Even if we oppose a religion, we must make sure there is no hatred and no desire to harm anyone, otherwise we are more likely to be the agents of evil

Pursuit of Happiness part 3: The hierarchy of rights

To Society,

Human rights are essential to society, but we have a tendency to not fully understand them. People fight over the rights of free speech, religion, marriage, etc. all of the time. However, for any debate to really take place, Rights need to be define. After that, we need to properly understand the hierarchy of rights and what their goals are. With this understanding in place, we can better understand if something is a right or an abuse.

A right is simply something that allows you to seek perfection, honored by society. When we argue people have natural rights, we are arguing that these are good and required by nature. Examples of rights are Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to defend oneself and family, the ability to rest, the right to an education, the right to security and privacy, etc. If you examine each of these rights, you should find that they allow men and women attempt to be the best they can be.

Another thing about rights is that they must adhere to the Philosophical Moral Code. They must exist because they allow men and women to reach perfection. A right can never be to promote selfishness or inhibit the ability to love. For example, to enable someone to sue someone for saving his life would be a violation. This is because it promotes selfishness and limits our ability to love each other.

Now you may already know where I am headed with this. The absolute basic right of man is the Pursuit of Happiness. It is from there that we can philosophically explain the other rights. To help with that, let me present to you a model. Now this is not a complete model and there is room for debate, but this is what I will refer to as I show how the different rights point towards Happiness as it's goal.

For now, I will simply leave you with this diagram so that you can ponder it. I hope to cover every branch in some way or another in the near future. I intended to to it all in this piece, but it was already getting too long and complicated. However, I hope that this diagram itself will help encourage you to think how things are ordered and help make sense of the world.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

The Pursuit of Happiness Part 2

To society,

Continuing from my previous letter on the pursuit of happiness, I would like to present a model that I think accounts for most actions we perform.

The cycle of the pursuit of happiness starts with us recognizing an imperfection. This prompts us to make a decision about an action to take. Our goal is to reach a state where we are satisfied or content with the results. Our motivation here is essential as it reveals why we might act or not act. An example for why to act is to stop a suffering. This is common when you want to solve a problem. An example for not acting is that you might suffer more for acting than not. In this case, you've decided you are satisfied with tolerating the problem than create a worse one for yourself.

After we make a decision based off our reasons, we take our decided course of action and evaluate the results. If we are satisfied with the results, we are content and move on. If not satisfied, then we pick another course of action until we are content.

When we are content, we have a taste of happiness. This is because one of the effects of happiness is that you don't want anything because you are fulfilled. We want to be in this state because to want something indicates we are not fulfilled. An old definition of the word want is to lack. You can see how it reached it's current definition of to desire something. When you lack something, you feel a sort of pain. Therefore you feel like you need it in order to be complete. As a result of this need, you desire it.

Our life is primarily spent in this cycle. This is because man has many needs and the capacity to want is infinite. However, once all our needs are fulfilled, then we finally exit the cycle and reach the state of happiness. In my next letter on the subject, I intend to examine what those needs are and how they relate to each other. Until then, I hope you find that this model actually helps you understand more about how your psychology works so that you may better find the true path to happiness.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Q&A

Now I'm sure you have some questions. In this section, I shall try to anticipate then and provide what I believe to be the answers

What are our reasons for acting and not acting?

I cannot give a complete list because the completeness is dependent upon how deep you want to go, but I can say what I have identified, though there will be some overlap.
For not acting, there is

1. Fear of greater suffering
2. Incapability
3. Not seeing benefits
4. Action is contrary to goal
5. Lower priority
6. Not Understanding
7. Moral opposition/hatred
8. Not fun
9. Change

For acting, most if not everything can be said to fall under some sort of suffering. Here we have

1. Fear of suffering
2. ‎Desire for completion
3. ‎Possibility for improvement
4. Fun

What accounts for our other actions?

In all cases, I believe happiness is the cause of actions. For the pursuit of happiness cycle, it's the goal. However, once we obtain happiness, it's the fuel for our actions. Consider when a woman finds a man she falls heads over heels in love. Does she not try to help her single friends find love as well? I remember that I was so happy by finding a job that I asked all of my friends that were searching if they tried the same website I used.
‎
If I don't want anything, does this mean I won't do anything anymore?

As mentioned in the previous answer, happiness actually makes us perform actions. This is because man's nature and perfection is to love.

Also need to be careful about the word "want." When I said that "when you are happy, you don't want anything," I was referring to the old definition described following that statement. So in today's terms, it is probably best to say, "When you are happy, you do not need anything in order to be happy." This does not exclude desiring to help people. When you are happy because of goodness and love, you will act because it's your nature to act out of love.

Consider the example from before. Whether or not my friends actually used the website I used to find a job doesn't affect my happiness. I acted out of love for them, but their response has no effect on me.

Some people say that God wants us. Does that mean he's not perfectly happy?

I included this question because I'm certain some people are going to ponder theology based off this model. Some people might reject this model because they feel like it threatens their theology. Other might try to embrace it by saying that it proves theology is wrong. That might be true, but you can't really debate on this because there are a few things to consider.

1. What is the nature of God?
1. This relies on theological premises. If you can't agree on the premises, then you can't really argue and therefore it doesn't really concern this model.
2. Perfection for Man is not necessarily the same as Perfection for God
1. while I argue what the perfection of Man is, I cannot say the same about God unless God tells me.
3. What do we mean by the word perfection?
1. Could it be that the original meaning of perfection is akin to how a lover thinks his beloved is perfect because he desires and admires her so much? Or is it that God is truly perfect in that he is complete?
4. Which definition of "want" should we be using?
1. If we are using want as in "he needs us in order to be happy," then God isn't perfect in that sense. However, if it's simply "he desires us as something nice to have," then that's a different story. For example, there are many games that I "want" to play, but I don't need to play them in order to be happy. In this case, they are simply nice to have.
   Logically speaking, if you accept the premises that God is Love and that being with God is essential to us being happy, then of course he would desire us to be with him.

What relation do external sources have with our happiness?

While the model I presented doesn't show it, because it's a model for the actions we take, external sources play a large role in the cycle. They can make use dissatisfied, change our reasons for acting,  and even give us happiness.

An unfortunately common marketing tactic is to create a need where there is not one. The makers of Listerine coined the phrase halitosis in order to sell their product. On the more positive side, external sources also point our our imperfections so that we can indeed improve.

For the second point, by debating with us, an external source might make us decide to act or refrain. They may even do what was needed and therefore you don't need to do a thing. As a result, you can also say external sources can make us content.

On the last point, there is room for a little debate. While we can say that external sources can make us feel happy, can they actually make us enter the state of happiness? I argue yes.

Man is a social animal and needs some external help when it comes to obtaining his perfection. One thing we desperately need is true love. When our love tanks are full, we are filled with joy and become the best versions of ourselves. We need love not only because it's our precious fuel for being good, but also because it is our perfection.

One philosophical argument about the nature of God stems from the argument that God is the source of all that is good. Everything that man needs to reach perfection is a good. Therefore God can fulfill Man's needs. Now this doesn't prove that God exists. It is simply logic to show why people can believe that God is essential for happiness. Personally, I like the notion that God as a source of infinite love makes it so that man's love tank is always filled. It's a nice idea but is not proof of any sort.

Why do we brood?

Brooding is an action that doesn't bring us to happiness but instead makes us miserable. Yet we choose to brood. This was actually a reason why I held off on presenting my model for a long time. However, I have two ideas about this and the result is that brooding actually follows the model in a corrupted way.

First is that brooding is an action we instinctively believe that brooding will get us toward happiness. Babies cry until they get what they want. When they become children, they still try this tactic with some success. Even adults use this to some success where they "play the victim." Brooding is the act wallowing in the belief that we are the victim. We use this to help us feel justified when we take another action that otherwise would be condemned.

The second idea stems from the claim that brooding is a selfish action. While it does not bring our good nature towards completion, it does grow our ego. That ego always wants to grow. Therefore, while it may not truly bring us towards happiness, our ego believes that it will bring it to completion. However, this is not reality. Instead, it makes us even more miserable and we in turn act to create misery for others. Brooding is a fuel for bullying.

__________________________________

I hope these answers help give answer your questions either directly or indirectly. I contemplated having them in a separate post as this got really long, but I figure it was best to keep it together with the main piece. While some questions can certainly be their own piece, I felt it best to address them now rather than later. Perhaps I will share them again individually so that I may expand upon them.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Timing of Feedback

To Critics,

Feedback is an important part of our society. It's when we convey what was good, what was bad, and what can be improved. However, if you truly wish for your feedback to be positively effective, timing is off the utmost importance. Specifically when the recipient is ready to receive it.

Perhaps the best example to illustrate this is taking care of a child. Everyone has different opinions about how to raise children. This is a combination of exposure to ideas, experience spent with children, and your own personality. The stereotypical story is the working father doing something and the housewife instructs what he should be doing. This does not work. People do not want to be doing what they think is best only to be told that they are wrong, especially while they are in the midst of struggling. Instead, they would more likely be willing to receive help and, after things calm down, discuss what would have been the best method.

I think when people are having trouble, they don't want advice unless asked for. Instead, they want to see signs that they are cared about and appreciated. When they think they did the right thing also isn't a good time to critique. Instead they need to doubt first that they were right. However, you probably don't want to knock them of their horse right away either. If it can wait, let them enjoy their pride for a moment or they might start to think every conversation with you will be to criticize what you have done.

When people know they did something wrong, this is a bit more tricky. Some want consolation while others want to know how to improve and others want to try and fix things. Also keep in mind that some may want a break. It could be to reflect on their own or maybe they are tired of thinking about the subject. After all, constantly thinking about something you cannot do anything about is a big cause of stress. Therefore it is important to consider many variables such as time, gravity, appearance, and personality before giving feedback.

Another reason to ponder timing is that you might not be ready to give feedback either. If you are angry, you'll likely be unable to avoid personally attacking in your critique. If you are upset, you likely won't be clearly logical in your argument. Even if you are logical in your head, you'll likely neglect to mention certain key points, making it difficult for anyone to follow your line of reasoning. In addition, they might be distracted by the emotion in your voice leading them to think more like, "How can I get him to calm down?"

Feedback is an important thing as it allows us to praise someone for their work or advise on how to improve it. However, in all cases, we should be patient and consider when is the best time to give it.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

The Pursuit of Happiness part 1

To Society,

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are three fundamental rights listed in the United States' declaration of Independence. When the founding fathers wrote this document, they swapped the right to property with the pursuit of happiness. While this does not mean they did not believe in the right to have property, it does mean they brought attention to the basis for all other human rights and the driving force of humanity.

Happiness is the ultimate goal. There is no reason to be happy except to be happy. The characteristics of this ultimate state is that it's perfectly fulfilling, cannot be lost, and blissful. Since happiness is the perfect state, we can say it is the pursuit of absolute perfection. While you are not guaranteed to obtain happiness, it is indeed the fundamental right.

Consider what the purpose of liberty is. There is no other benefit for freedom except to realize your full potential. That is why it is so precious and yet sometimes must be sacrificed. When you realize this purpose, you understand that when you can only improve by sacrificing some freedom that it is actually the best choice. Babies have no bias towards a language, but if they wish to grow and mature, they must take up a language and follow its rules. This logic can also be applied to security and privacy.

It can be said that life is the state of constant change. While some things appear to persist, everything that is living is constantly changing in one way or another. Death, on the other hand, is the setting of a person's final state. There is nothing more that person can do to change himself. Therefore, if someone wishes to progress towards perfection, he must live.

Now one thing I must address is that even though we have the right to pursue happiness, not all of our actions are justified. If you seek justification, then you must consult the key to morality, which is true love. If you do, then I would think you have a great chance at obtaining happiness.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P.S. Next time I address the pursuit of happiness, I intend to present a model explaining the cycles of the pursuit of happiness and how various situations fit in it. However, I need more time to polish it so that it is easy to understand. Please be patient as I work to polish what perhaps accounts for all of our choices.

Three Purposes of Anger

To the enraged,

In today's society, showing displays of anger is frowned upon. However, there are times when it is appropriate and effective to be angry, but you need to control it rather than let it control you. In order to get it under control, it is helpful to know what the three purposes of it are and how do deal with them.

The first purpose is to show what is important to you. This can be tricky because you might not realize what is important until you get angry and even then you still have to play detective. For example, my wife told me we got a mosquito in the house and I got very upset. It was not so much that the mosquito was in the house that upset me but rather the fear of having to wake up on the middle of the night to find it after it bit me awake. If the mosquito was killed beforehand, then I wouldn't mind.

In order to control this and make our anger more effective is to identify what is most important and explain it. For example, when my child cries with no way of calming him down, I would get angry for second, but then identify that he is more important. This love for him helps make it so that I'm in control. Limiting the number of things that you consider important will also make your few occasions more effective. Otherwise everyone will think there is no satisfying you and they will begin to ignore you.

The second purpose is to demand a change. I believe the ultimate goal of giving negative feedback is to encourage some sort of change. A good customer service sees what upsets it's customers and tries to avoid that in the future. However, since there are so many improvements to make, seeing the obvious signs of anger can help promote which improvements are done faster.

The help for dealing with this is to develop a sense of acceptance. While things can be improved, there is nothing that can be done about the past. We might do things to help recompense, but we should avoid aiming for compensation as that encourages selfishness. If we accept that the offending parties did not mean to offend us and that they tried their best to help us, then we can suggest improvements in a calmer manner which can lead to a productive conversation.

Another help here is humility. The smaller we see ourselves, the less offended we feel. We can still suggest improvements, especially if it will help others, but at least then we can show we are not acting out of selfishness.

The third purpose is to simply to be an outlet of emotion. We are emotional people and sometimes we need to vent our frustration in order to feel better. This is a tricky thing to control as the more you vent, the less effective it becomes, both for you and those around you. This is why the intensity of expletives grow the more you use them. However, someone that never uses expletives can be even more effective than those who do. This is because expletives give a shock and offensive structure, making the recipient upset and angry with you, but those who are angry in a controlled manner might be empathized with.

Even though this last purpose is the first one seen, it is based upon the other two. If we can handle the other purposes, then this one becomes weaker. I cannot say that it will be eliminated because this is the reaction caused by your brain's emotional center, which happens before you can be rational. If you have the rush of adrenaline, it might be 20 minutes before you can be rational again.

While people claim various methods for dealing with this such as stress balls or hitting something, you probably notice that these lose their effectiveness after a while. When we act on our emotions, it becomes harder to control them. This is especially dangerous when your output is to hit something as that will likely turn to hitting someone. Again, your emotional center acts before your rational. You cannot guarantee you won't do something unless you place a hard limit on everything that would build up to it. One thing I would suggest instead is meditation though it certainly is difficult at first. Therefore, you need to practice meditation before you get angry so that you won't become even more frustrated.

One thing I can suggest in the meantime until you can practice meditation is to convert your frustration into sadness. This will at least prevent you from harming anyone. This is not perfect as it can lead to depression if you are not careful and therefore I suggest meditation and everything else I've mentioned. Once you obtain that state, you will find that your anger is more controlled and far more effective.

In summary, if you want to control your anger, you have to identify the three purposes; conveying importance, demanding change, and output of frustration. The keys to dealing with this are the same for being patient; love, humility, and acceptance. Now that you know this, I hope you can better use your anger for progress and not for destruction.

With love,

N. D. Moharo

Concerning the Universal Basic Income (and Change in scheduling)

Hi All,
    I'm sorry this is starting to be a habit, but perhaps I should make it official. Instead of trying to get one post every two weeks, I'm going to do one every three or possibly four weeks. If I can make the bi-weekly schedule then I'll do that, but family duties, work, and so on make that difficult even when I have a topic. For instance, last week I intended to share more thoughts about economy, but I couldn't get my thoughts organized in a presentable manner. I have a few points, but the flow was not there yet so I cannot share it. However, here is a piece I wrote today on a related topic utilizing some of those points. I hope you find this enlightening.

N.D. Moharo


Concerning the Universal Basic Income

Dear Society.
I read a Vox article recently encouraging the Universal Basic Income (UBI) where everyone receives a basic sum of money to help with their lives. I found it interesting as I had not given much though to the topic, but I also thought it was ignoring a few realities. The article's focus was on two arguments against the UBI: Work Critique and Cost Critique. Here is how they described the two in the article:

1. (Work critique) Giving people cash will cause them to work less, hurt the economy, and deprive them of the meaning that work provides in life.
2. (Cost critique) Providing an income floor set at a reasonable level for everyone is unaffordable.

For the work critique, it claimed that it wouldn't really make people work less. Depending on the amount of money given, I would agree. Even if it did reduce the "labor force", it would potentially be for the better. For example, if you give enough to help make it so someone doesn't have to work 4 part time jobs in order to survive, but instead only need 2 jobs, that gift of time can provide the golden opportunity to find a better job. At the same time, since 1 person isn't taking 4 jobs anymore, that opens up jobs for more people, actually increasing the labor force by allowing more people to work. These are the people that would be helped, at least temporarily.

For the Cost Critique, it shared a point that that giving 300 million people $10,000 a year would cost the country $3 trillion a year. For some reason, the article believes we can afford that and believe that it will wipe out poverty entirely. That is incredibly idealistic but also unreasonable because it doesn't actually address why poverty exists in the first place and how people would respond. For the few cases where it would seemingly help at first, it would be a complete waste and very destructive for everyone else.

What happens when you give a homeless man $100K? People actually tried this and you can get the short form from Today I Found Out. The very short form is that the guy ended up back on the streets despite the benefactors being generous, providing means of turning his life around, and family trying to help him get a job but he refused all of their efforts. The points made are that there are people who do not want to work or people with poor money skills and therefore they would be in poverty despite how much money you give them.

Also consider how to keep track of who gets the money and if they actually did. People die every year, but a family might not report it to the government so they can get a few extra $10K a year. And what about the illegal immigrants? Will they get money too? If they do, then we'll get more illegal immigrants and they'll try to get the money too. If they don't, well then there will still be some people on the streets and poverty has not been eliminated. 

Then there is the often forgotten consequence of everyone having more money; inflation. That's what happens every time there is a surge in wealth for a country. Gold loses it's value when there is so much of it. The only reason why diamonds are still "expensive" is because they are artificially limiting supply. Have you ever wondered why making a product overseas and then shipping it to the US and paying the tariffs is cheaper than making the product domestically? Why does such a low amount of money make it so a person can have an education for a week/month when it costs more than that just for a sandwich down the street?  I've heard stories about how foreigners are told not to shop when visiting family in third world countries because the prices skyrocket when they do so, but even those prices foreigners will find as a "good deal."

The market tends to regulate itself, but when money suddenly appears, greed acts even harder to get it all. If people suddenly have more money, then they think they can afford higher prices and end up doing so. Since there is no regulation on prices, as evidenced by how high the markups can get especially for medicine, and that's one reason why the U.S. is not ready for universal healthcare. Even college education has similarly increased dramatically with data from collegeboard.org showing that college costs 3X as much in 2016 than it did in 1976 even after adjusting for inflation. Also, more money you have, the more taxes you have to pay. The result is that the initial $10K will work for an instant, but then there will be greater debt and it'll take years for the economy to stabilize even to the point we are at today and be probably worse off.

How will you fund such an expensive program?  Increasing taxes as suggested by the Vox author is not an answer because that lowers the value of the money given. And if you exempt the amount given, then you don't collect as much in taxes to pay for it. Sure, it could possibly substitute for medicare and other social security programs, but those people would likely end up getting less money than before when it's already not enough. As a result, we would be harming more people than helping. Accumulating debt would not work either as that also causes inflation and there is no guarantee that future generations can pay it off. Considering that more families have both spouses working in order to provide for less people than a just father did a few decades ago and I think we can agree we are not wealthier than before.

Lastly, what affect would such a stipend have on our paychecks? Would employers claim they no longer need to give us raises or bonuses? Would they instead try to make paycuts using the stipend as an excuse? This is a dangerous possibility that needs to be considered and regulated before a UBI is put into place.

While I partially agreed about the vox article's opinion on the work critique argument, the cost and realities around the Universal Basic Income show that we have more to lose and very few have anything to gain. Instead of trying to figure out how to give everyone more money, we should instead examine what are the causes of poverty and try to control that. If we do, then we can finally make true progress.

With love,

N. D. Moharo

Let's Fight for Women's Rights!

To Society,
    There has been a war on women for far too long. Women are our mothers and sisters and they deserve respect. They are not objects for another's pleasure, but human beings. They are precious and beautiful. They are worth fighting for to protect.
    What should we be fighting? Anything which takes away from their dignity as human beings. We should fight against corporate greed which targets their insecurities. We should fight against abuse of the innocents and against abuse entirely. We should fight against the political ideas that try to keep them enslaved. We should fight against that which takes away their innocence and virtue.
    I was saw a tweet about telling women to a stop being polite. This saddened me deeply. When women in general stop being polite, who will be left to teach others how to be respectful? No, society depends on women being polite and teaching men to be the same. It is common knowledge that violence only brings about more violence. Unless someone stops the chain, suffering will only spread. Women are good at this because they have historically had the reputation of loving the most. And the people who love the most are the greatest people, not those with power.

    The great everyday heroes are mothers. After all, how many times in our childhood have we told our moms that we "hated" them, a woman who has sacrificed so much out of love? But they endure it and still love us. I know I don't want to hurt my wife, but it will inadvertently happen, because we are human and hurt even when we intend to help. If it wasn't for that quality of enduring love in women, society would be lost. If a woman only cries and then forgives, she is truly the strong one.

    A woman's heart is precious and should be treasured. Therefore we must fight anything that threatens to demeans them. I am opposed to the many TV shows tell boys that they need to sleep with many women to be a man. That is not the case at all, especially since that is a huge disrespect to the great woman's heart. Women are people, not sex toys. A real man certainly loves many women, meaning that he cares about them and their rights, not having sex. Sex is a very precious thing, something that should be treasured with one person only. My wife told me that she knew I loved her because I was adamant about waiting until marriage before having sex. A man can show that he is really able to love, but saving everything for one woman and show that she is precious. 

    I am similarly opposed to shows and movies that convince girls that they need sex to feel loved. There are five love languages and sex alone just falls under one of them. What we should do instead is teach boys and girls these love languages and how to interpret which is needed. No one should ever feel like they are not loved because they don't have sex. In fact, there are lots of testimonies of Natural Family Planning saving marriages because it forces couples to remember that loving does not require sex.

    Likewise, why should a woman feel like she needs makeup if she is a member of the fairer sex? If we convince a woman that she's only beautiful when she is not showing her true face, how can that be good for her? It is totally unnecessary especially when I look at my wife and admire her beautiful face without makeup. I have always thought that she looked good without makeup, but it took her years to be comfortable without it around me. It's the same with glasses. Some women look really nice with glasses, but the typical beauty makeover movie says no.
    Speaking of beauty, today's society appears to have confused sexiness with beauty. We appreciate art without desiring to have sex with, why should women be any different? However, the current trends for fashion are to try and make women as sexy as possible. Why is it that women should show skin and wear makeup to be considered beautiful when men do the opposite? Shouldn't we instead encourage modest dress? I have yet to meet a man who told me that he respected immodest women more than the modestly dressed.

http://www.esquire.com/style/mens-fashion/g1931/golden-globes-best-dressed-2014/?slide=4 

    On another front, Women need to be able to earn a just wage. Not every woman is meant to be married. I know plenty of single women, especially from my father's generation, who never married but are perfectly content. Their joy still comes from being apart of their families, or even other families as one of my neighbors is with mine. I see them as perfectly loving in giving their time and energies helping others and that is just great. However, these women therefore need to be able to earn a living wage. Society should not assume that women are all going to get married and be provided for, especially when it's becoming increasingly difficult for one person to provide for a family. If we are in a society where it is common for both parents to work, then that means it is not acceptable for women to be earning less for the same work, especially single mothers.

    We are in an unfortunate society where many pregnant women are single. These women need to earn a living wage, but the current situation makes it difficult to also raise her children and work. When maternity leave is so short, it's makes having children feel impossible. In cases like this, I feel like the U.S. should adopt standards like Japan where mothers can get long maternity leaves, even if it means that they receive only 2/3 of their salary paid for by health insurance. I heard that one company allowed their employees to take up to two years for maternity leave.

    One issue I have had with the Pro-life movement is it's nearsightedness. It wants to dismantle Planned Parenthood because of it's heavy push for abortion, but they haven't pushed a good alternative to replace everything else associated with it. I definitely agree that if a woman cannot kill a two-year old because of economic hardship, mental disabilities, or because of a traumatic event, they should not be allowed to kill an unborn child whom I see as a human being as well. However, the pro-life movement only seems concerned with ending legalized abortion, not addressing the issues which drive some to have abortion whether safe or not. We need to understand, because through that, we show we care about both the mother and child.
    I see no reason why we should be forcing poor women to feel like they need to kill their children. Don't women have a right to have their children? Can we truly say that we are progressive if we make people feel like they cannot have as many children as those who went through the Great Depression? We should be helping them with their situation. We need support shelters to save women from abuse, better pay and environments for working mothers, and governments, insurance, and businesses that put people back at the center and not money.
 

There can never be true peace as long as a single human being is violated in his or her personal identity.

— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) January 16, 2017

 

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P. S. I found the following two videos interesting. I found it interesting to watch Cameron Russel go from a short black dress with an open back (fairly sexy) to a dress and sweatshirt (beautiful). She also talks about the difference between the photos in the magazines vs real life

The second, because these are people who have received comments about the confusion between beauty and sexiness and give an idea about why that may be. However, take note that they are speaking to a very specific audience

The Gender Neutral Pronoun we've been using for ages

To the Politically Correct,
    Language is a initially a complicated matter, but as society creates demands for change, it becomes even more so. This becomes a big problem as it becomes harder even for natives to master the language, which in turn creates even more complications. This also makes it very difficult for foreigners to learn the language and may even result in the death of a language. However, perhaps the saddest result is that newer generations will not be able to understand us or our ancestors rich literature.
    It is difficult to satisfy both requirements of simplicity and change, but if the changes were to make the language simpler, then perhaps that is the best route.
    A recent movement that makes things complicated is the idea of gender neutral pronouns. English, like every language I have studied, has historically used the male to represent both genders. However, a lot of women are annoyed that they may be excluded or an after thought due to ambiguity.
    There have been attempts to introduce a gender neutral word, but to find a good word and convince people to use it is too troublesome. I recall an article from a long time ago where a country tried "hen" which has a lot of problems. Why call someone a bird that is also female? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Add a bonus fact that the same word in Japanese means "strange/perverted" and we have irony. Another method was to add female words to clarify, but to add "or she" to every instance of he is tedious. Next attempt is to use "they" even when it's singular. That just adds another complication and is grammatically incorrect.

   So my proposed solution is as follows: use "It". The issue for this was that "It" is for objects, not people. Except that this is not entirely true. We have had the complication of using "It" as a gender neutral pronoun for ages. Here are some examples:

Who is it?
It is I
It's a girl!

Since we already use it for when we don't know the gender and sometimes even when we do know the gender, let's just expand its role. That's simpler and removes complications.

N. D. Moharo

Justice and Fairness

To the Afflicted,
    Some of today's society believes that Justice and Fairness are the same thing. However, even the usage of the phrase of a decision being "Fair and Just" indicates this is not the case. They are certainly related, but they are definitely different.
    An old and essential definition of Justice is rendering what is due. When we argue if someone's case is just, we argue whether or not they deserve something or not. When putting someone on trial, we are trying to argue what sentence they deserve to get. However, the question becomes "How to determine was is just?" That is where fairness comes into play, by which I argue to be "judging by the same standard for different people/things."
    An apt analogy for Justice and Fairness is that Justice is paying someone the correct price for an item while Fairness is using the same scale to determine the price for different people. If we measure some tea leaves and I pay some amount, but someone buying the exact same amount of the same tea after me is measured to be charged more, that would be considered unfair. Another example would be when someone cheats in a game, that's unfair because he's not playing by the same rules. One more example is a just decision would be to send criminals charged with the exact same crime to jail, but if the sentences are different lengths, then it can be considered unfair but not unjust depending on circumstances (for example two different judges, different levels of remorse, mercy, etc.).
    Why do we often consider unfairness to be the same as injustice? There are a few reasons. One is that we believe it is due to us to be judged on the same standard we perceive. This is common when it comes to siblings. If one child gets something, another may assume he should get it too because they are both children of the same parents (perceived standard), not necessarily because of something he did or need (actual standard). Another reason is that unfairness can lead to injustice. When someone cheats in a game, his opponent is not receiving his due respect in fair play and his due prize can be stolen from him.
    Now even though a standard is how we initially judge justice, we must be careful of the standards we use because they may be unjust. How is this possible? It's due to the nature of higher standards. Perhaps the best way of thinking of this is in terms of what justice is most often associated with; Law.
    According to a local law, punishment may be due to someone, but if that law contradicts a higher law, such as the constitution, then that would be opposed to real justice. This is important because lower laws often eliminate mercy and goodwill. I argued before that Mercy and Justice get along because Justice cares about order and balance. If someone is willing to forgive an injury, the relationship is put back into proper balance despite the perpetrator not paying restitution. Likewise, if a shop owner decides to give me a discount because of goodwill towards my father for some help he gave, it could be a fulfillment of justice. Of course, this idea of justice is dependent on using Love as the high standard.
    I argue that Love is the standard we should prioritize. I have written about the multiple definitions of love before, but in this case and pretty much every time I mention it, I'm referring to the caring definition by which "one wills the good of another." When you judge by using the standard of Love, then you judge based off the perfection of man that I argued for before in proving the universal moral code, and in doing so, you help advance the perfection of others. I like to think that that would be both fair and just.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

 

Ideas for Innovation: Sewer Generated Power

Sorry for the late post. I had to take a family member to the hospital and been taking care of that. On the good news, the patient is good.


Now for the idea. Take the power generators used at dams and place them in the sewer. That way, the tons and tons of gallons of water going down the drain can potentially help power the city's electric needs. Of course strategic placement would be necessary, but I figure that even if it can't power all of the homes, it might be able to power all public needs such as street lamps and traffic lights.

The background for my idea of sewer generated power was a result of considering the necessity of dams. A lot of power is generated by dams, but they ruin ecosystems and sometimes cause home-displacement. However, if every city with a sewer system could use all the water that goes through it, would that be more than enough "clean energy"?

N. D. Moharo

Ideas for Innovation: The Compass Walking Stick

For the next month or so, instead of my usual philosophical pieces, I'll be sharing ideas I've had that I think we can use in the real world. I don't know if anyone has come up with them already, but if not, then these ideas are a contribution to society to use for the good of man and not to profit. In other words, I don't want to see people create a patent with these ideas (especially if you got the ideas from me). I would instead like to see people take these ideas for free and implement them for the good of the society.

The first idea is the Compass Walking Stick. I've heard that it's sometimes best to leave a blind man alone or not guide him somewhere because he may lose his orientation and sense of direction. The simple idea is to implement a compass-like device on the handle of the stick so that he can know which direction he is facing.

The tricky part is making it so the compass is touchable without erasing the position. If it's electronic, then maybe it can use an electric compass and then pop out the symbols of the directions in the proper place.

Now, while the goal is to make it so that blind people can use it, A simple design with a compass on the hilt for those who can see is good as well. In the city, it's quite easy to lose sense of direction, especially when emerging from a subway. At that point, even with a map, I had trouble identifying which direction I needed to go and my phone did not help due to the tall buildings surrounding me. I think this will benefit the elderly a great deal especially if they are using a walking stick anyways.

N. D. Moharo

Listing why a Person Might or Might Not Believe There is a God

To the Atheists and Apologists,
    The debate over the existence of a god is a very interesting one. One reason is that not everyone have the same reasons for his or her belief whether there is a god or not. There can be any number of reasons and those can determine how firm one will stand when debating. To help, I've compiled two simple lists and done my best to provide a brief explanation. I won't address the flaws or either here, but perhaps another time I will try that.

Realize that these lists are not what all of either side hold, but instead are compilations of various reasons individuals might have.

Note: If someone has a strong opinion, it means they have deep concerns. We need to listen and figure out what they are.

Why someone might not believe in a God

1. Problem of Evil: If God is so good, then why does he let us suffer?
2. Parents: I knew a girl in college who surprisingly converted to a religion. Her explanation is that her hatred of religion was not her own, but her mother's. When she realized that, she found she liked religion after all
3. Hypocrisy: seeing people who preach some values only to act against them.
4. Doesn't Make Sense: Cannot grasp the various concepts of God and how they can tie together. How can a God of Love punish eternally? How can God be Infinitely Just and Infinitely Merciful? If he is all-powerful, doesn't that mean he can create something he cannot lift meaning he is't all-powerful?
5. Misunderstanding of positions: Sometimes people have a hard time grasping one concept and once it's explained in a logical manner, they convert. For example, perhaps they were assuming a different definition of justice which opposes mercy completely.
6. No Encounter: Don't believe to have had any miraculous events in their lives
7. No reason to believe: Burden on proof are on the claimants, not the doubters.
8. Evolution: 
1. I'll be honest. I can't explain this one. I just know some people use it but I don't understand their explanation. So if you know how to explain it. Please share and I'll update this list
9. Education/Indoctrination: Someone in a position of authority said there isn't a god
10. Having to change my life: Realize that if they truly believe in a God, they have to change their ways and they don't want to.
11. Too many wars because of conflicting Religious ideas

Why someone might believe there is a God

1. Family tradition: one's parents promoted belief from an early age and to consider people you trust to be wrong on something important would make you question your whole life
2. Can only see despair in a world without God: With all the evil and suffering in the world, they would only despair if there was no paradise.
3. Too many coincidences: Seeing how one major event would have never happened if anywhere in a long chain turned out differently encourages belief there is divine intervention.
4. Prayers: Might be marked as coincidence to some, but the fact that some people get what they prayed for makes them believe there is a God who is listening.
5. Poetic Justice: In our world, too many criminals are able to get away with their crimes. A God who is just could issue perfect justice in the next life
6. Someone they love is dead: They want their loved ones to be eternally happy and the idea of paradise is consoling
7. They have heard or witnessed miracles concerning trusted sources: If you witness a scientifically impossible fact, like a 15-pound tumor disappearing within a night, an easy explanation is that there is some being who has power over nature
8. Stories of saints inspire them: the testimonies of people who are highly regarded to be wise and virtuous act as highly trustworthy material. Since many of them cast away many worldly desires such as fame, fortune, and even sexual pleasure, they are not considered to be corrupted
1. Some modern examples include Mother Theresa
9. People with real faith become great people: The people who believed so much that it inspired them to act with great love and become saints act as a testimony to goodness. People who want to become better themselves see these saints and work to imitate them because they see their actions as good.
10. The Martyrs, especially early ones: The death of people close to the time of the "revelation" because of their resolve in faith in their god makes people wonder about if it's true. Since they were willing to die for their god, there must be a strong reason why they believe it to be true.
11. Evolution doesn't cut it: The idea that a single organism evolved into everything we have today is a bit far-fetched. Perhaps the biggest kink is the separation into sexes. Why go from self-replication to requiring a partner? Some things which became necessary had steps of evolution where it there was no point. An idea that there is design makes more sense to these people
12. The universe is ordered: For physics and science to be possible, there needs to be order. For the variety of life, objects, and forces, things work pretty well together to the point that we can understand them
13. Why believe Scientists?: It takes faith to believe what scientists claim is true, especially with the long track record of being wrong. Since they don't fully understand everything that's inside our own universe, how can they make a claim about something outside?
1. Even the science community is at odds because their "discoveries" don't matter when it comes to proving there is a god or not. Hence some scientists believe there is a creator while others don't

These lists are not exhaustive and could use better explanations, but I hope they do help in some regard. If you have something to add, please comment below or tweet @ND_Moharo 

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

Examining a Root of Racism toward Blacks

To the world and blacks,

Recently there's been a lot of attention directed towards the black community regarding shootings and racism. It is important that we analyze how we got to this situation and where responsibility lies. This is because, unless all parties take responsibility for their actions, the issues will never be resolved. So in order to cover this, we should consider experiences and the emotions played in various encounters. In this case I will describe my various encounters with black people and my initial impression, as that is the most likely to be biased and therefore the biggest hint we have towards racism.

Scenario 1 : big black guy with muscles in gym clothes. Here I am amazed by the physique and not really afraid.
Scenario 2 : black guy with piercings in his but also tight fitting clothes. Again I am not afraid and even though he is muscular as well
Scenario 3 : black youth in a uniform. Again no fear
Scenario 4 : black youth with loose-fitting clothing with A diversity of friends. Also not afraid
Scenario 5: black youth with loose-fitting clothing by himself or with other black friends with loose fitted clothing. Here is where fear starts to appear.

As you may have no might have noticed I am not normally afraid of black people comma nor am I suspicious of them. I know quite a few of them over the course of my life. I've met them in high school where they wore uniforms and became my friends. In college I met more and even though they dressed in loose clothing, the friends they were with were diverse and giving the impression of being nice people. I also encounter a random black people on the streets or at work but I have no fear from them. This is because they dress in tight clothing in which you might see their muscles, but they are in gym clothes. Also if they talk properly then there is nothing to fear as well. The parts that anyone is probably most likely to be afraid of is the black youth with clothing hanging around other blacks with loose clothing. This is because this is the image of a gangster or someone and who might shoot you. Whose fault is it's for this image? I argue for two parties primarily: the media and the black community itself

I blame the media because they are the ones that give us the impression that a random black person we encounter and loose clothing is someone to be afraid of. Often in shows if you encounter a black person and loose clothing they are likely to eventually shoot someone or become gangsters. While a white person and loose clothing is most likely to be a drug addict or someone who isn't cool. In fact, according to the media, even the white guy will shoot you if he doesn't have his drugs.

Now for the Inconvenient Truth that will probably make the black community not listen to me, but it is true nonetheless. The people who think black youths dressing in loose clothing is cool are gangsters. That's how they dress and gangsters are criminals. Therefore, a reputation that a black kid will be a delinquent or criminal comes from dressing like criminals. It's not because of skin color and I can prove it.

A black guy who dresses well and talks well is not often considered a criminal. The exception are scam artists, but that applies to whites as well. Consider Motown. They dressed in suits and were well loved. Consider Morgan Freeman, Denzel Washington, James Earl Jones, and even President Obama. They are highly respected so that only the low of society would be racist toward them. The same applies to some great athletes as well. Calvin Johnson, Michael Jordan, etc. These people don't walk around or talk like gangsters but well dressed and clean speech. So if talk or walk like a gangster, then you will be suspected of being one.

There is actually another scenario were I really felt afraid. It was when I was in Bahamas and rode into a poor neighborhood and someone came up and talked about how the place was the drug capital of the area. I was afraid of being kidnapped. The fear wasn't so much about color as it was about the area being so surprisingly poor next to a resort. To clarify, it's not so much the poor to fear, but desperation. People go to visit the poor all the time, and in places isolated from civilization. However, I will argue that poor who are away from civilization are far less likely to feel the desperation that people who constantly see rich tourists.

This is actually a reason why I hate the hashtag #blacklivesmatter. It takes issues that apply to so many people and focus them on a small group on the claim of racism. Many of the injustices I see claimed stem more from gangster imitation or poor vs rich than skin color. I also see them applying stereotypes in a hateful manner, which is just as bad as racism.

I argue that black lives due in fact matter, but that's because #LifeMatters. Not only that, but the way you live your life matters. Dress well, speak properly, and act properly and there will be improvement. Then let's work together to address the injustices where celebrities get away with crimes. Especially to the point that they can get away with crimes and still run for president.

#LifeMatters,

N. D. Moharo

Life Matters

To society,
    I've noticed that the slogan Black Lives Matters appears to be marketed as the current civil rights campaign. If the goals are for justice and to stop the shootings of innocents, then I will agree those are good. Someone even tried to explain to me that the slogan implies a "too" at the end, which changes the impression you should get when you see it. However, there are so many problems with the slogan that it's actually slowing down progress rather than helping it. Intent may be good, but just as someone might say a racist word without realizing it is offensive, promoting "Black Lives Matters" will result in so much unnecessary conflict, tensions, and death.

   Here are the issues I have with BlackLivesMatter as a slogan (and why it'll never gain full support)

1. It sounds so racist: Someone explained that the slogan implies a "too". Why isn't that too explicit? Otherwise it can (and has been) interpreted as "Black Lives Matter More"
2. It's easy for extremists: Black Gangsters who want to simply murder can use the slogan and it's hard to anyone to disassociate with them. They act with what people understand to be the slogan's meaning.
3. It's associated with crime: Again with extremists. That's the impression in the mind of people, especially the cops. How often when an innocent cop is shot do we see the same people who say "Black Lives Mater" say "Cops' Lives Matter"?  More so, since it's associated with crime, cops will not support it. If both parties can unite, then there will be peace.
4. It sounds so black-centered: Why should other minorities support this? Why support a slogan that sounds like it will die as soon as the blacks are covered? I often saw that when the same things happen to other minorities, they don't get the hashtag support from the "black community"
5. It accuses people of stupidity without giving them a reason not to: Someone said that this is a point of people being judged on looks and how people aren't looking deeper. If the audience is stupid, why make it harder by making things implicit instead of explicit? Why make things complicated when they should be simple?
6. The slogan will result in more shootings: The blackLivesMatter slogan is always said against cops, which strikes fear of retaliation into innocent cops. This fear only increases the amount of innocent shootings because they are now rightfully scared for their lives. Even more so in gang-ridden territories. Hence the name is having the reverse effect
7. It won't win: Civil Rights won because it was a name all could fight under. As Black power, it failed epically and only divided the nation further. 
8. Refusals to change the slogan reinforces the idea that it's black-centered and not about real justice: It should be easy for them to usurp the slogan "All Lives Matter." Since that gets attacked, those watching the issue only see that the blacks don't care about others. 

    The solution? A new slogan that takes the point and makes it invulnerable against extremists. As long as extremists can take a slogan, the cause can be easily destroyed, but if they act against the slogan that can't be violated, then it's easy to disassociate with extremists. The proposal: Life Matters

Reasons:

1. Someone explained that "All Lives Matter" has the reputation of being used by people who want to ignore the issues they are trying to bring up. I don't believe that was the origin of the phrase. More so that it was to make that too explicit. But since the black community won't believe that explanation, a different slogan is needed
2. Life Matters takes the core of what someone can expect to be good about Black Lives Matter. It makes it specific as well by saying each life matters, therefore don't kill. Cops should not shoot innocent blacks and blacks should not shoot innocent cops.
3. By making it specific and general, no side can claim to adhere to it while murdering another
4. It's easy to condemn extremists and identify who is truly for justice and who is for malice
5. This is a slogan everyone can unite under and the cause doesn't die.
6. It's simple yet powerful. It's true.

The rest is up to the community. What is best for society? Stubbornly using a slogan that only creates conflict and is easily used by extremists? I see some twitter feeds that promote hate and use the hashtag #blackLivesMatter. There is certainly fear in innocent cops that some blacks they come across will shoot them. That fear is deadly. Using a bad slogan will only slow progress and result in death for many parties (especially blacks and cops). Is that good? No. So let's adopt a slogan that is rooted in peace, life, and love. Any refusal will show that you don't care about society and justice because now I have shown why BlackLivesMatter is an evil slogan despite any good intent. Good people want peace and progress to be as soon as possible with deaths avoided. Let's march on that.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

#LifeMatters