The Internet: A Blessing Or A Curse?

Personalized internet filters are a great way to provide only the content each individual prefers. This seems very convenient and fairly innocuous concerning somebody's favorite types of movies and music. But what about tailoring an individual's news sources (most of which today is merely opinion and rhetoric) only to those that are preferred? What is bound to stem from this?

People become so identified with their chosen perspectives which only further reinforces the polarity of today's society. How then are we ever to settle life's most pressing issues?

In this regard, though we may exercise our freedom by listening only to those "news" sources that appeal to us, what does this systematically lead to? Enslavement to very narrow-minded perspectives. In this case, our freedom to listen to preferred news sources becomes a paradox in itself: ironically it leads to enslavement.

An interesting corollary to this is that one's perception of reality seems to become more “real” than reality itself, in turn exacerbating the already existing polarity causing more resentment, more hatred, more suspicion and other such destructive thoughts.

What Is The Greater Good For Society?

By honoring the brave men and women who fought and died for "our" country, might we simply be perpetuating resentment and conflict? By not honoring these brave men and women, might we curtail the sowing of resentment and conflict and as a result progress toward world peace? What if history stopped being taught?

Aside from the "immorality" of not honoring "our" brave forebears, what other detrimental consequence might result? Perhaps ignorance of history? But does not much of history seem very subjectively written (especially by winners of wars)? Might we be wise to question whether being taught history actually does make us less ignorant if much of it is overly subjective anyway?

Imagine Palestinian and Israeli kids no longer being taught (perhaps indoctrinated with might be more precise) their vile history. Might they become amiable to one another? Is this more or less a societal priority than honoring "our" brave forebears which seems to, among other things, perpetuate resentment and conflict?

What is the greater good for society?

What Is Excess?

Many vociferously claim "Pastor David" shouldn’t live in a $2,000,000 house and own a $100,000 Bentley! Well then, what house or car is acceptable for him to own? A tenement in the slums and a Ford Pinto perhaps? 

Starving kids in Africa won’t likely see the difference between a $2,000,000 mansion and my humble $100,000 abode. To them, these houses are in the same class. Both have a stable roof (I think?), clean running water, heat, air, etc. Yet here, many people resent what they see as “excess”. But what constitutes “excess” is so relative it renders this whole argument frivolous.

This resentment is ultimately grounded in envy. Many will retort something to the effect that they are not jealous of one who has a big house because they don’t even want a big house. Then why would they be so upset that somebody has a big house? Probably because they don’t think anybody should have a big house! This is envy. Again, why do they care if they are not jealous?

One should also question the implication that the pastor should not have a house considered excessive. Are not or at least should not all “followers” of their respective religions essentially be pastors as well? Why should the standard(s) they live by be much different than the standard by which the pastor lives? He or she is just a human being like the rest of us, right?

Again, keep in mind the fact that we don’t even know what “excessive” means. It means a thousand things to a thousand people. The point of my rambling is to expose the sheer absurdity of this argument!