Logical Reasoning I thought I would share
Wiser to say everyone’s hands only 80% clean.
Reasoning
- Working with chemicals in a lab is hard even with great training
- People are not trained ideally
- People are not all health problems out
- Society works with chemicals frequently
- Society is not a lab, Society does not have lab training on how to always deal with and clean up chemicals
- Throughput of safety messages like washing hands and washing eyes thoroughly after chemical spills has far less than 100% impact and throughput
- If you get chemical in your eyes, are you immediately thinking about what door knobs you touched after spending 15 minutes rinsing them out in water?
- Add in Health Problems
- Add in Curveballs like Fire Drills
- Add in Evil and Miscommunication
Washing door knobs not always looked on kindly in a World with chemical and biological weapons, people seen as potential for caught red handed and a World that turns up judgment and accusations
God chose not to eliminate health problems from the Earth, sets precedent for 100% clean hands not In By Design at least in 2023 and years before
People could invest in chemical scanners with their hard-earned money and scan every surface each time they open a door, but they choose not to. Throughput is valued over costly protection. Time valued over right, a bit of a precedent for that in our World.
I am a Christian, I don’t understand everything about The Bible and I am not sure what do with the following
Matthew 5:48 “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Not everyone agrees with what is perfect, what equals blameless.
Held to legalistic standards has potential for protection in certain cases and far too heavy a burden in other cases. 500 obstacles to jump through before someone saves you is likely not always a fully pondered thought, standards that add value have the potential to take value away, stifle and bankrupt companies reducing throughput to zero. And if that company saved lives, less throughput seen as ideal value is wrong, and the combination of it all happens on the common. Call a World that allows that by default as pure, blameless, and perfect?
Going against The Bible set to sin? Perfection unachievable, thus all sin. Sin leads to death, thus all die eventually due to inability to achieve perfection?
Man that thinks they are perfect has potential to think they are God, thinking you got it right might equal lack of humility which equals you got it wrong?
I don’t like the idea level of persecution determines your reward in heaven. Everyone has to be nailed to a cross to get better rewards in heaven and on earth seems like less than sufficient value amplified over time. You reap what you sow set to those persecuted valued higher, thus persecution is a system worth investing in? Persecution as a requirement seems like less than all evil out, as a system that generates rewards seems like less-than-ideal comprehension amplified. All words in the Bible set to same level seems to amplify comprehension less than sufficiently, at least personally. Golden rule, treat others as you wish to be treated, just trying to amplify their rewards in heaven gives insufficient keys to oppressors?
People that have hard times and are persecuted given better times in Heaven sounds nice. To say persecution valued does not amplify in our World that way in non-ideal ways would be wrong. Hazing makes people better, stronger, commit less crimes? I think it has potential to conform to the reiterations of more manly that do not always amplify sufficient evil out. People do not always value gifts they do not have to pay for has shown precedent for less-than-ideal amplification over time at least in my opinion.
If one has to work hard, spend months for a win, they are likely to value the win more than a gift that is delivered free of charge many times. I think the combination amplifies ideally, no. Has potential to make everything harder in non ideal ways. They don’t value the meal after working an hour for it, make them work a day, two days, a week? The combination drives things forward in insufficient ways that are hard to fully combat.
A man that immediately gives you their time to help address a problem versus a man you have to wait a year to talk to for an interview that might be iffy at best? The first man has a historic precedent for creating more value and at the same time being valued less. People like challenges and claim to want their time valued. People do not always value appropriately, a bit of historic precedent for that. Potential for time losses that those without sufficient wisdom and experience might fail to see, and to say I am above it have been above it at all times in my own life would be incorrect. Sometimes will and perseverance equals going against established norms in not fully appreciated ways. What amplifies interest does not always amplify time savings. False carrots are a common and useful system in our World, combating them is hard, iffy at best at times. “But you need to think better of the one that makes you wait a year for an interview, isn’t that how they wish to be treated?”, is how they wish to be treated what is best for them? Turning up precedent for a society that waits is ideal throughput for others, what about how they wish to be treated?
Special has the potential to drive time losses, but their ivy league, but they are a billionaire. Society values the wrong things, reaps what is sows? Way I have written factors into comprehension because it is not always picked up by society. The more direct way of saying it is we have high potential for turning up our own time losses and creating division, less inclusion based upon what we value and turn up as special. $100 or something in a box that won’t be opened for a month. Imagine you only live for a week?
Church is not all of that out. A trip to the neighborhood Church or the Vatican? Never produces jealousy? Be perfect, blameless, all sin out amplifies ideally? But changing the way it works would be throughput losses, and changing the way it works would not guarantee all sin out. Designed in a way that is less than ideal sin out is a chink in the armor. Maybe Chink not the best word, structural deficiency? Potential for words to be turned up that mean other things that equals less than ideal forward momentum with some words. People ideally categorize and classify words to be used seems to deliver less than ideally.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chink
Thought it was a derogatory term
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Chinks
People that are new to the country, just learning English will have awareness raised ideally?
I wonder how many lawyers salaries have been funded by separation of Church and State
Time losses just another name for Opportunity?
Government and Church actually in cahoots? Separation is less than ideal yet call it blameless? Sentences can be read in more than one way, likely not fully pondered and reflected upon.
People have biases and people will ideally know what to do with those biases, what words to use and not use seems to amplify less than ideally. All people to less than ideal bias out seems like thinking the best in others?
Philippians 2:3
https://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/PHIL+2.html
Politicians that complain and argue more with each other or less which each other? Tough subject matter never discuss might equal less arguments, not sure that is less blameless.
Consider others better than yourself or men are not angles. Should politicians think neither or both? Presidential debate with no argument? Politicians thought better of are always leading by example?
Thinking less of others not all sin out, thinking better of others not all sin out. Those words amplify more ideally than Don’t Argue or Complain? Maybe not, but don’t argue about it, converse don’t argue, assess don’t judge? Iffed meaning on complexity reduction likely not fully pondered. Words iffed feel gotcha legalistic in not fully appreciated ways. Politicians to Bible camp? Better value equals ideal separation? Oppression reduced is less than value I would like, would like to think The Bible might amplify less, thus Politicians promoted to read it more sounds like it might be good. Legalism and work arounds might be less than ideal value comprehended. Document to useful, meaning comprehended to useful drives comprehension in both ideal and non-ideal ways. Politicians to reading the Bible more ideally should produce results closer to what I want to see in the World, can’t say from my own comprehension it would deliver ideally. More sufficiently possible does not equal currently delivered. Men skilled at reading documents should ideally deliver better value and less evil based upon what they know about The Bible.
What I want to see in the World might be more ideal, more ideal for all parties? Maybe. People More Blessed and Less Oppressed sounds good, is it really what people need? I feel like there are deep rooted systemic problems that amplify by default in our society at least as I have seen it through my lifetime that have high complexity costs without easy answers. Time as a requirement for valued is likely one of the more complex and difficult problems without an easy way to assess and address, example I talked about earlier is one of likely many facets with profound implications, things that drive valued also have potential to drive value in the wrong ways. Jealousy is cute sometimes. Cute is valued. Jealousy to iffied valued not ideal. They care if I talk to someone else they don’t care if I talk to someone else and relationships? Interest factors into sales, thus interest is always valuable potentially less than ideal.
A result from a laptop might save the day in an hour yet a result from a week of work on a supercomputer is likely to be valued higher because more was invested in it. Science and truth is free from adulteration? Needs to mean more has potential to lead to means more by default in non-ideal ways and is unlikely to be fully divested from. More time, energy, and resources usually mean better results defaults to means better results in non-ideal ways that factor into less ideal projections. Mitigating the risk does not equal ideally mitigating the risk, money and time spent equals valued in non-ideal ways is both a real risk and is likely in by design at least in some cases, if not many cases.
Something means more equals more food on tables, more people able to pay their rent thus it does mean more at times. That is all value out? No. That is all value in? No.
A man that invests 1 million gets same result as a man that invest $10 in a certain case. Yet many are paid by that million dollars equals it is ideal to turn up high cost for a result that might require only $10? Another man that only has $10 now has to pay 1 million to get the same result? To say either is ideal seems unwise. 10 people with $100,000 less to feed their families, say it is nothing? Others to having to pay similar prices, say it is nothing?
My Tech Blog 