Protection

There are people smarter than me, there are people stronger than me, there are people faster than me, there are people luckier than me. Reason and Logic is not always a nice system. Arguing a point is not always all feelings spared. Winning an argument does not guarantee right or ideal clarity. God puts us on ideal grounds to defend ourselves? He didn’t put eyes in the back of our head. He didn’t give us ideal resolution – Microscopes, Cameras, and Telescopes are a requirement for a reason.

Defending self has potential for not sufficient defense amplified.

I will be the best arguer, debater for reasons for and against my points of view? Unlikely.

Test everyone has a blind spot, or factor it into risk mitigation by default?

The question is always who is right and who is wrong? Or the question is should the conversation be started in the first place? Is the conversation presented in the right context, at the right time, to the right audience? Is the conversation the right level of importance, does it adequately factor in other higher priority debates? One person right, one person winning and both people losing is a possible scenario.

I think generally people would consider it a win to postpone an important item for a critical item, yet do not always know what items are critical over just important. Time and where it is spent matters. Critical item might equal to much stress to effectively talk about important yet less critical items. Deal with critical items might lead to weeks of saved time, yet sometimes people invest time in important items out of lack of ability to accurately assess and classify.

Important items have potential for being starved for resources by a continuous stream of critical items. Never gets talked about is a possible system, possibly useful to some to maximize profit. There is value in less discussion, in what topics are raised as relevant, possibly not always in ideal ways. Hard topics can increase stress, stress is not always all value added.

A shocking news story might lead to heart attacks. The news should not be posted? The heart attacks are of no consequence? Ideal gray reduced? Legalistic levels of liable vs not liable should be claimed as adequate for love your neighbor?

People ideally understand impact and consequences of their words and actions? Full implication of value added and subtracted? Unlikely. I might pay my electric bill because I like air conditioning not because I want 200 children to be electrocuted each year. Yet investment in electricity equals a distribution network with High Voltage, a report said there are 1000 electricity related fatalities a year 20% of which are children. Some of the deaths are from lightning, God adds deaths or people could add more lightning rods and training about the danger of High Voltage?

Motivation matters. Intent to fix the problem or reliance on the imperfection as acceptable factors into culpability. Numbers matter, and are unlikely to be perfect yet society upsells to 100%, not a problem, ideal truth delivered at times. People set low to 0, and that is not all legalism reduced. Less than ideal system sets levels of inadequacy to 0 allows some parties to throw stones at the great expense of others equals ideal?

Guilt amps less than sufficiently, Responsibility amps less than sufficiently, Grace amps less than sufficiently at times.