Talking Don't Come Easy, Now. The Words Get in The Way.

RANDOM FLIGHT WRITE -

Once again, I'm flying. Sitting inside a little pocket of oxygen and several Carbon based life-forms, I fly - a fragile existence; but, thankfully, a temporary one.

I cannot but help but think of the canine face of my near-most precious companion. And it bothers me that she can make me feel so incredibly guilty for going to do something that I have to. My parents - I miss them, but it's understood that I have to leave. They make it easy for me to go. Ria? No chance. Not a single one in hell. She ignores me until I leave. And it hurts. It truly does.

To someone who isn't a dog lover/pet owner, and even some who are, this might seem an odd kind of statement. All said and done, we ARE discussing a dog. A creature. As someone's being going to great lengths to point out, a non-human. Yet, I cannot but love her. And it hurts to leave her. It just does. Some part of it has to do with the way she makes no demand of me other than some attention, for which I'm adequately repaid. And when I say a little attention, I mean a large portion of time spent with a sock worn over one's hand, moving it about to present a target for her, so she can growl, bark, and mock bite it - all the while, her tail wagging so fast it could probably run half a city.

The point I'm trying to make here - there are simple joys, and simple pleasures in life. These come from simple creatures with simple wants, and desires. Yet, their simplicity does not make them any less valuable. In fact, it makes them more beautiful; for there is no deception. In some ways, they are more selfless and loving than any human being. My mother and father have expectations, and wants of me. My dog only wants a biscuit, now and then.

What does that say about human nature? I don't really want to get into it. That's something to be decided by those whose opinions matter. Because I've come to realise over numerous pointless debates online, that there isn't any such thing as a cogent, open argument that can be found. People just wish to be heard, and wish for their points of view to be accepted. I have nothing to gain from such an exercise.

Consider - I say that stray dogs be neutered and resettled outside the cities. The argument given against this? Rapid urbanization means that eventually the dogs will be back. To which, I say, keep them FAR from the cities. To which, again, the argument given is that the city will continue to expand.

Now, what does one say to this? It's retarded. The problem of shrinking natural spaces needs to be tackled, and is being so. People are working to find a means of co-existence. Taking a current problem, and assuming it into the framework of the other as a tool to predict the non-applicability of a suggested solution is ludicrous, at best. This is like saying that since we'll eventually urbanize the entire Earth, we might as well go and fill up the Canyons, dam the rivers, and destroy nature now. Or, at least, stop attempts to preserve these things.

I will no longer raise my voice. My voice, and the way I present it, is honed by an active participation in debates to be LOGICAL. Whether or not it always manages this is another story - but my goal in making any argument is to show that my conclusion and my stance are based on some rationale that I believe in. The attempt is to reduce the assumptions and beliefs as much as possible, such that the solution can be appreciated from the largest collection of starting points; that is, present a solution that logically deals with all the facets of the problem, such that they be solved to the maximum benefit of all parties involved.

For example, my idea of a solution to say, traffic congestion - better public transport. Why? For a bus, carrying 50 passengers, occupies much less space than, say, 12 cars, carrying four passengers each. If we improve public transport, people will no longer feel such a great need to use their personal vehicles, provided they travel in enough comfort in public transport. If the bus can get them there, save them fuel costs, and comfortably enough, they won't need to take the car out of the garage as often.

That's a logical solution. It's not a model - I'm not suggesting HOW to go about improving public transport. That's entirely separate. I'm just showing how logic can be made to endorse a belief. However, arguments are swiftly turning into "... in my personal opinion, I think we should do this. Why? ". What use is logic in the face of dogmatic belief and grandiose statements? It's easy to forget that all of these problems have been created in the same manner - an illogical consideration of an existing problem.

I no longer consent to my participation in that which is a futile exercise in self expression. That's it.