Arguing a point and a reason is valuable, factors into high ground established. A point or reason accepted does not equate to arguing the point in the first place was the right choice, that the point is guaranteed to be right.
Defending arguments is sometimes necessary. Defending arguments is also non null time costs. Extra time costs are not always higher value added. What is accepted as right and wrong in law has potential to be set to like a game, winning teams and losing teams. Law that sets Precedent, Historic Precedent delivered and compounded upon by people that desire to profit has potential for establishing less than ideal truth less than ideal capacity to divest at critical times.
The fight is sometimes right, sometimes enjoyable, factors into fighting is always right. I want to prevent the indefensible, yet I do not want to defend the indefensible might be hard to ideally clarify.
Less requirement to fight, peace in advance is valuable in not fully appreciated ways, yet also might lead to less practice. What is most valuable might not always equate to what is valuable to all parties.
Reinforcing laws is in by default in our society – yet determining if they were delivered on ideal ground, in ways that benefit all parties is unlikely to be fully entertained at times.
Claim system like a game, for profit, for win or loss ideals Love and Golden Rule? Justice and Judgment in men’s courts might be non-ideally equated to same in God’s court. I am not God, my perception of assessment and judgment is based both on The Bible and men’s laws, teaching around reasoning and logic. Our Justice system fully brought to Justice at the end of time?
Fee spin is ideal truth compounded upon? Hard to assess equates to factored out yet unlikely to be ideally factored out. People that practice arguing might have more capacity to assess which problems they want to divest from in advance to save time – value likely not always pondered in Time Management.
Reminder I am not a lawyer, I use the term fee to represent make it harder to claim at times, like saying fight it yet in toned down terms (fighting brings a greater level that might not equate to ideal peace established)
People that know I might call out their less than ideals might be more unlikely to call out my less than ideals and vice versa. Mutually assured destruction might not always lead to problems called out in ideal ways. Less argument out on one particular issue might lead to less argument in on another particular issue. What might be beneficial to Lawyers or Teams might not always be ideal truth established. Agreement facilitates gains and profits, potentially in non-ideal ways.
You sin and I sin but we agree not to call out each other’s sins because who is a sinner to judge might not lead to ideal divestment from sin. What sin has to be fixed first up to debate in a system that is far less than all sin out? Come back to me when you fix all the other sin is a perfectly acceptable conclusion that might amplify less than ideally.
Society amplifies less sin based upon practicality. I don’t want all the women at beaches wearing two sweaters to reinforce modesty. Bathing suits less than ideal sin reduced, a known that is in by design in USA Society. Forced to wear 2 sweaters on a hot summer day is not how I would wish to be treated – should be set to sinful to require in my opinion. Fee Society ideals sin out, we would want to live in a society that delivers more ideally on ideal sin out, or at least is perceived as delivering more ideal sin out (to who, who judges and assesses)?
I know the sin is in by design, I know it less than ideals, I know it causes problems like adultery in society – which is far from all problems reduced, yet fixes have shown precedent for delivering less than ideally. Know the police that arrest people, the Judges that judge people, the politicians that create laws and public policy, the preachers and ministers are all reinforcing a system that is both more ideal and less than ideal in ways that leads to real sin? Sin that is factored out as inconsequential? Under the law not really under the law factors into Under the law less useful, desirable.
One example does not equate to all examples. Math and Greed, very real and in by design. A see sin reduced? (A like in a Grade). Might be less people in Jail if we all put away the stones (John 8:7-11) and gave helping hands instead. Perception and comprehension of sin in by design or not in by design factors into valuation of last sentence.
I might ask one to tear down the statue of David before requiring women to wear more modest clothing at the beach. Big rocks before small rocks. I like art, I am not gay, I don’t really desire the statue of David torn down – yet reminding others that less-than-ideal sin out is in by design and reinforced and some not all areas are highlighted is important. Not fixing big rocks first factors into single out, less than ideal punishment and justice delivered – which should be a crime, a crime worthy of punishment! (sarcasm sometimes useful, hard to tell in reading at times)
Sometimes greater levels of punishment are reinforced to deter others from punishing, having capacity to punish self. Can’t punish me because they are too busy being punished is useful. It would be better to divest from all being punished in advance. Punishment pursued might lead to undesirable time costs, and is thus reinforced less than ideally. Turn up a system that is reinforced less than ideally?
I could punish
or
I could give Free Starter Content
The above image is Free for others to use and compound upon, preferably by those that put down the stones
Reminder I am a Christian, I am not a minister, preacher, or priest
My Tech Blog 