What punishment do YOU deserve? When you punished this person for robbing a space from someone and being thoughtless- and now you did the same? Would it surprise you to know- of the many dishonest men I’ve encountered in my life: a common sentiment of many is that when they do bad things to “innocent” people- they don’t mind because they have learned in life that there isn’t such a thing?

But- you’re also an asshole now. Not for what you did to them. You might think that’s fine. An eye for an eye. But- and I speak from experience- what about people with small jalopy cars who aren’t scared to share what’s left of that space with the car? What about people on motorcycles who may enter a busy parking lot and see there is an open space next to that car- more than big enough to safely park their bike inside the lines next to the car, and since it’s so small it’s open and they can use it. Then the “parking lot Punisher” comes along and plops a shopping cart in in and now the one person who could actually use the space can’t- not because of bad parking McGee- but because of your thoughtless petty actions.

Yes. Not only could it very well be that someone else parked crooked and they had to park that way to fit- then the others left; but there are other things too. But you may as well just key the car or something if you do this. The zip tie will likely scratch or damage the paint when you tighten it, or when/if it rubs the handle. The car may roll or be blown by the wind and PROBABLY won’t dent the car, but may also scratch it. So why go to all the trouble? If you’re gonna scratch their car up for parking poorly then have the stones to just do it. Likely you don’t think the transgression is worth the hundreds or thousands of dollars that even minor scratches and dents can cost to repair- so then why do it at all?

Tl:dr- there’s always a reason with humans. There is often a reason the human themselves doesn’t understand. if you communicate clearly the first time there is no misunderstanding. If I say: “dog hat dhdjdje” what does that mean? I’ve left lots of room for interpretation and the fact I meant “I like cake” doesn’t matter because I wrote it in a way you wouldn’t get that from it. If you are a clear communicator- that will cut most interpretation out of things.

It matters because we read into sports. We interpret them. They have meaning to individuals that go beyond just a game for points. Teams represent pride in ones home or blah blah and so forth. Something is what it is but it means what it means to us.

You’d be wrong to say “this is what the author meant..” or “this is what this is about...” but you could say “this is what this means to me...” We all do it every day. Sports are what? Let’s say football. Two teams, two goals. Beat the other guys. Get more points. Win. That’s it. But- what if all the romance around sports? Ideas of team work or fair play or how this sport is like life because blah blah and so on? Why do we drug test if the point is to beat the other team? If you do it in the rules of the field what does it matter what you do off the field?

You may be “wrong” in the sense the author did not intend that symbolism. The author might have meant it as a metaphor for something else. Or for nothing and the guy is just a drunk. The fact you can read that message into it however means it may fit intended or not though.

Now- if I say “freeze” in this context you could say this or that about global warming or an ice pack or some idiotic thing. That is clearly foolish hopefully. Context included there is no reason to think I’m talking about those things. If I wrote a book though- contextually literature is rife with metaphor and symbolism. Thinking a characters alcoholism is symbolic of some social issue or whatever isn’t moronic- it fits in context.

Part 2: is that regardless of wether interpretation is meant- context is critical. If we are walking in a mine field and I say “freeze!” You should hopefully understand that I mean- wherever your body is at that exact moment and however your Wright is distributes you are to hold it there. If I say “stop!” That would more communicate to cease your current action. But if you are mid step- does that mean return your foot to the previous position, or stop it where it is mid air? “Freeze” is the more appropriate action.

While sometimes it is the case where the receiver of the message lacks the comprehension necessary to get clear meaning or that conveyed through established conventions- often such miscommunications are the fault of the sender- who’s job it is to compose and transmit the intended meaning. So we have part 1: the failure of the message originator to adequately convey the message clearly.

I get an uncomfortable feeling when I think about incest. I can’t envision thinking of a relative or even close friend in such a way. It feels wrong to me. But... the interesting part to me is, like many it seems as though I can’t say WHY. what practical reason I have to say “this is wrong.” Why? If those two conditions above are satisfied- do so many still feel it is wrong?

In the case of fantasy- there is both no risk of reproduction, and no violation of familial privilege. It’s no more a violation of trust than it is to fantasize about anyone without their consent- a model or celebrity, a person you work with or go to school with, an ex romantic partner, a friend etc.

But where such abuse cannot he said to take place- such as two siblings not raised together, or those who discover they are related in adulthood without ever knowing they had a sibling- the first prohibition seems not to apply. So then... if two people did not grow up “as family” and had no intention or lacked the ability to have kids- what would be the prohibition, the actual reason such a pairing should be forbidden?

However- oral intercourse or anal contain essentially no risk of reproduction as is the case with manual stimulation. Non penetrative sexual activities such as kissing also do not risk reproduction. So then- these actions in theory should not fall under the second taboo on incest- leaving only the issue of abuse of trust.

There’s a danger. But fossil fuels are dangerous. Breathing those in for 40 years will run you cancer and health risks that aren’t identical to radiation but still can kill, make ill, shorten life, harm reproduction. Most produce and commercially processed food has a cancer and reproductive danger. Should we go 100% nuclear? No. Not with current technology. But it’s a good supplement to other alternative energy and we just need to take it more seriously.

So the most immediately deadly radioactive elements decay relatively quickly- but the rest, 10 million years or whatever number we want to say isn’t important. They’ll be here longer than recorded human history up to this point- and we have no way to tell that people in thousands of years will understand the danger or our writing. We use symbols for that reason- but several lost source nuclear incidents have occurred because locals didn’t understand the symbols for danger on radiation sources. So it’s not so far fetched that those far in the future wouldn’t of people today don’t.

But solar- solar is a mess of very dangerous elements. Cadmium and others, polluted water and dust and contamination of the environment and workers. The care required to be 99% (as safe as possible) in such processes is so great and would hinder production and increase costs so much to be impractical. Lots of places to outsource to though that wouldn’t put those burdens on people. That’s a long term economic disaster. We can argue wether contamination of the environment or being a destitute and impoverished country are worse- but people tend to care about their own quality of life above what happens after they’re dead.

We can’t say nuclear waste is ever safe. Missing one single square meter worth of land, not accounting for one of 100 zillion variables that could or could not occur over time- any of it could cause nuclear run off to ground water or other issues. In America a site in Nevada used for nuclear storage has polluted many millions of gallons of drinking water and is creeping into the water table. It can happen. Acts of human ignorance or malice can happen.

Nuclear power is rife with causes for concern. But RADIATION scares the crap out of people- tell them about cobalt or heavy metals present due to everyday things like machines, cars whatever- the chemicals in batteries, etc. etc. and meh. Maybe mild concern. Mention RADIATION!! Even the smallest amounts- and people tend to get very scared. But- dead is dead wether it’s lead or uranium in your water- drinking large amounts will kill you now. Small amounts risk death or illness later. Chronic exposure to low levels are bad over time either way.

Lol. I’m not by far the vet some users are. I was an actual guest for a year or two before I created an account though. But no fight here from me. I’m not looking to call anyone out or start any fights- just clearing up a possible misunderstanding.

So, here I have presented an extra dimension to the meme for discussion should anyone care to discus or simply read. Akin to how perhaps the briefcase in Pulp Fiction is just a mguffin, or had mundane riches. But those inclines discuss at ends the symbolism etc. of the film and speculate to what they see- wether it was the intent of the artist or their own perceptions.

Likewise- I appreciate your reply even if the overall tone is negative, your opinions are valid as any others. I also appreciate you took the time to voice your objections. That said- if one doesn’t wish to engage in such discussions or thoughts, one is likewise not duty bound to even read a comment. They can start a new comment on a thought which entertains them, or skip the comments they do not wish to entertain.

This is called critical thinking. We can if we like- view a meme on a superficial level, chuckle, and move on. Of course- we know that if you find yourself in the comments of a meme then you are in fact, interested in more than that as for a self evident and momentary distraction there is no reason to go to the comments without just scrolling by.