• Aesop once said, in more tasteful words: When bad things occur, we blame it on luck. When things go our way, we steal all the credit...

    No, scratch that.

    Uh...

    Y'know, throughout life, we're influenced by many factors. At a young age, we learn many common things that just seem evident as we grow older. Whether through religion, experience or teachings of elders (parents), we learn not to steal. About manners and feelings of others. Sharing and caring for others.

    We also learn a lot about Justice. How those who commit crimes or wrong-doings. Get punished. That lying will only seek out the truth and the truth will come to "bite us in the a**" so to speak. I'm not sure where to start. Do I start about the underlining about truths and the power it contains? Or talk about Core Beliefs that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy delve into a lot throughout it's methods.

    Let's begin with the basics of it all. In court, often times we see in movies and during sessions how lawyers are able to twist and bend the interpretations of laws. The line that everyone follows in order to cooperate and fundamentally live off each other, with each other. How at one viewpoint: this law could mean X, but according to this case and so on, it could mean Y. Y and X clash and so it comes down to the jury. Common people who interpret the laws as they were made, or so that's how view or interpret them to be.

    When viewing in a larger scale and maybe a fantasy-like one. When Superman fights against another "evil", a typical one that wants to dominate the world and control it, we often root for Superman, no? I use these " " punctual marks because it's according to our interpretations that Superman = Good and The "Evil" he fights is typically bad. But how so? Not only are Superman's methods unorthodox (a.k.a violence. Is that how we teach or "punish" wrong-doers. With "some of their own medicine" (Cliche right there.)). They may seem necessary when comparing to the wrong doer's ways of erasing and recreating this world he dreams of. But, not once do we see him consider another way of stopping the bad guy. Solely by crushing him and oddly, we are filled with glee that we are "saved" by the good man himself.

    To avoid risks of danger and corruption, you have sacrifice the main thing people take for granted: Liberty. Let me give you an easy example; People have car accidents everyday, maybe even more than once a day (no surprise on my part). How can we get these people to drive safer? Straight off the bat, the evil-doer might say "Well, let's take away something that raises the probability of car accidents" and there's only one thing that has such a risk of causing an accident: Yourself. You control everything on your car. The speed it goes, the direction the wheels turn and when to step on the brakes. Everything has perfect reaction. You step on the brakes, car stops. You turn the wheel left, the car goes left instantly. The only that isn't in sync with the car and other cars on the road is you and the other drivers. The evil-doers who control the cars and cause destructi-- Okay, bad correlation, but the point is. If we removed your car-driving liberty (Blasphemy!) wouldn't there be less, risks? Less deaths? Less accidents? Why yes, I believe so, and I hope I inclined you to agreed with me.

    Consider the world a car, a gas-guzzling polluting car and the evil-doer was in the position to make it how he wants. He wants to dominate it, to control it. Thus taking away your liberty. No liberty means less factors or probabilities for mistakes, for accidents. Ugh, I'm circling the point like a shark, I can't get to what I want to say. Damnit.

    Notice how in the future (movies and such), everyone dresses the same. Why is that? Hum... need I say more?

    Still, if less risks or mistakes or accidents occurred, less deaths there would be and possibly we'd be overpopulated. Last time I checked , that's not good. Without an evil-doer, there is no Superman. Without Satan or whatever anti-God you believe in (or God for some), there would be no God or need for one. We only create what we need or what we're influenced to need based on our environment and how we interpret what would be needed to keep it a better, easier and safer world. Cleaner, whatever. It all depends what your priorities and values in life are. Godliness next to ____ (P.s Fill in the blanks).

    There is no light, because there is no dark to light it up. You see what I am getting to? Despite the bad in our lives, it's essential for us if we want to appreciate the good. If nothing but good happened, it would be ignored or taken for granted (Didn't I mention liberty earlier?).

    Am I the only one getting a headache here?

    So how do we distinguish the good from the bad? What if I told you some things can be both, or none at all.

    I'm going on another branch now... the truth. After this post, I'll post a previous thought I wrote about the truth back in '05-'06.

    The truth, will always be objective. Truths based on opinions, will never be the truth unless we interpret them that way. I think you get the point. From one viewpoint/ view/ interpretation you get the light side of things. Head over and you get a contrasted version. So for something so objective, why does it hurt so much? Why does it pain most people to lose their love of their life? (By the way, Science proves that love is a chemical reaction in your body/ mind. The teacher didn't really elaborate, but that's what he said :3 Naturally, I'm inclined to believe he's speaking the truth based on his past truthfulness and knowledge. Knowledge is power and authority. I'll get to that another time.) Despite an objective and modest truth, the motivation could be a question of your interpretation.

    An example? Why yes, I do have one.

    Michael has been in love with Ayesha for years. Whenever her lips braze lightly over his fragile and sensitive cheeks. He timidly giggles and grasps his hands in her's. Knots them and vows never to let go.

    On an average day, like any other, filled with happiness that reflects in her eyes and burns eternally in his heart. She tells him she loves him. As always, Michael proves the same mutual feeling. But later in the evening, when their meet-up has become a recent memory of a marvelous never-ending day. Michael catches Ayesha with another man across the street.

    Hurt, he slits his wrists and vows never to dabble with love again.

    Why didn't Ayesha tell him that she found someone else? Why? WHY?
    Simple, she couldn't. Or she didn't want to. Depending on your interpretation (light, dark or in the middle) it could be the following: 1. She doesn't give a s**t of Michael and was simply bored. Abusing him for his money and desperation. A side-dish when her real man is away.
    2. She couldn't bear to tell him that her lust for him has dimmed to nothing but a suffocating smoke. Breaking his heart that is so feeble and devoted to her would cause her torment and guilt (this is somehow a selfish approach). She just couldn't bear to see someone she cherishes and adores (in other ways evidently) hurt or angry. She stills wants a future that includes his presence. 3. Forced and held hostage to still seeing her ex-lover. She's provoked to stay with this man because of his sexual attraction and needs. Neither wanting to hurt the man she truly adores and wants something meaningful that most guys never consider or wanting to cease a sexual desire she is too scared to seek elsewhere to quench, she stays with both men for different and debatable reasons.

    The truth: You tell me or rather Michael. Convince him that his interpretation of the situation, of this love triangle is nothing but a unjustified opinion.

    Justification: That is up to you to interpret.

    Even simpler, you say "This cat is black"
    Another man, colorblind says: "Yes, indeed he is"

    Yet, his black is your blue or rather your black might be his blue.

    So is the cat black? or blue? or maybe both?

    The answer is that the cat is indeed black, for both gentleman, they are black. We're only inclined to agree with the first man because we have the same or similar color scheme as he does. Thus influenced by the same truth or pressure of that truth. (So that leaves the question, are we colorblind or is that man I just said was colorblind, actually the one seeing the true "black" wink . So, now we just determined that a "turth" can be determined by it's pressure laid before us. Depression anyone? A man with authority like say a teacher has about 20x (off-hand number) more influence over you than a 3 kids. So if he calls you stupid, you're inclined to believe so. Especially when the context is right. Put that insult on repeat and add 2-3 years of it and you'll soon believe you are stupid. Believe that this opinion is now the truth. At least that's your interpretation. You can say "Life sucks, I am a total failure" and I could refute: "Life is how you make it and failure is nothing but an event, never a person". Who are you going to believe? If I elaborate more, I might be caught going in circle and creating a circular logic. What's implied is usually self-completed by your own deductions.

    Publicities play a lot on truths or half-truths. "This Ford Caravan is the best van of 2008".
    - Well, is it?
    - You bet it is.
    - Best in what?

    Ah, that's when they keep quiet. It could be the best car when talking about safety, but could guzzle a gallon of gas every 5 miles. None of it is specified. They leave it up to you to do your homework because more than 75% of the people watching that commercial won't even bother reading up on it and they know it, I know it and I hope you realize it. Truths are only what's told, according to the justice system. During a commercial, you see two trucks racing, as in any commercial, one car beats the other: The Ford Explorer, is held in lights and cameras flash it's glory.

    If we learn that what we saw is false, that the caravan chugs like an old steamboat and we pursue that car company in court. Who do you think would win the case? You bet, your pessimism is usually realistic (or so we're lead to believe. Did you know that gas has no actual smell. Petroleum or whatever has no smell. When your Bar-be-cue would be burning, most people don't smell anything. If we gave it a good smell, they'd ignore it and soon their noses would adapt to the smell (that's why there's those Lysol plug-ins that change smells every 30 seconds, because your nose adapts to atmosphere's smell overtime.) They actually implemented a smell to gas so people would associate it with something burning and like a burn toast, it smells ******** bad.) the company would win. Solely because nothing was said in the commercial, they never said it was a faster car, it just so happened to beat that heavy-duty truck (because that truck was in neutral, but they don't tell you that!) on factors that no ones knows a bout. They leave it on our interpretations of the situation to conclude that the van is faster. Nice trick, eh? They could just simply state or justify the reason the van was faster was because the driver in the truck wanted to go slower. That's not said, nor is it usually seen / viewed or interpreted that way.

    Comparing these two examples, we can now assume that we think for others. Why would Ayesha not tell Michael that she was seeing someone else. Why would Ford show a van losing to another competitor's truck? That's not their goal. We view commercials as trying to sell us something, no? I think you get the point. Next time you watch a commercial, think about it.

    To correlate and have any relevancy with my provoking title. Just how mature is this lounge? I made my own interpretation based on asking other members of their opinion and viewing past threads to assume the tone of this "maturity" that this lounge feels it deserves. Didn't I mention these factors somewhere in my wall of text?

    Happy Hunting

    Edit: I'd like to note that although may be both, some things will always be opinionated.

    "Perfection" is a fine example. Didn't Hitler find perfection in a being if he or she had blue eyes and blond hair and was German?

    Do you find that someone to be perfect? Here's the definition of perfect according to a popular online dictionary: (naturally, I am bent to use this as publicizing the truth or facts of words. Like believing in what the teacher says. I usually believe in what he or she says simply because I can't find any justification for her not to be saying something truthful. I won't go further on xD): "1. Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind.
    2. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen.
    3. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient.
    4. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation:"

    I like #4 a lot. It states exactly what I wanted to say. If someone was perfect for that situation, would they be perfect for another? Chances are, they aren't. Considering they are made or suited for another particular situation. Thus in this current situation, he or she or thing wouldn't be so ideal or perfect. Thus not generally perfect. Thus, there is no actual truth of perfection, solely in the context, but even then... who would evaluate the context to it's perfection? Someone above perfection?

    Is being someone even the start to being perfect?

    Okay, now replace all the words with the word "failure".
    Same Merry-Go-Round.

    Game, Set and Match.