First the bad news: I'm
ending Reset very soon. There are just a couple of weeks before
the one year anniversary of Reset, and just a couple of episodes
before the 150th. But, like Pokemon, I intend to have 151.
The last three won't be short, everyday episodes like the old static
ones. No, indeed. They will be flash animations, each huge
in scope and a work of art in their own right. It's not going to
be easy, but I think I can do it.
So I hope to have the first
animation done by the end of this week. *fingers crossed*
As the weeks go on and we approach the end, I'll go into more detail
as to why I'm retiring. Also, I'll be presenting guest rants all
this week. I hope you like them. :) Now on to the
rant area:
I received this rant in an
email a couple of days ago, and liked it well enough to put it up
here. It's another response to
this rant
as well as yesterday's rant
by Joe. This is
pretty long, so I used a slightly smaller font. I hope you don't
mind. Also, I don't edit rants except to copy, paste and change
the font. All spellings are per the original rant author.
Without further ado, here it is:
To say that deception can only be uncovered by
further deception is a false claim.
Take for instance any situation where a man is cheating on his wife,
and he is caught without deception. For arguments sake, lets just say
that the woman caught a phone call for her husband from his mistress,
or she see's them together.
Her discoveries are not through deception.
I belive what you were trying to say is that deception is often the
best tool to uncover deception. For example: the same man's wife has
an idea that he is cheating, so she decieves him that she is going to
her mothers, and follows him instead to his mistresses house. This is
deception.
BUT it is VERY important to consider that this deception is not caused
because they want to hide something. This form of deception is a
un-trusting deception.
It is not directly deception because the cause is that the wife
doesn't trust her husband.
His deception is a completly different one, in which he decives in
order to hide.
Another distinction is that in her case, she is only purposfully
decieving for a time, while in his case, his deception is without end.
His plan is for her to never find out.
He is lying, decieving
She is also decieving, but only for a time.
To say that their deception has varisimilitude is false, because
intuitivly, lying for one week is less-bad then lying for one year.
Lying is quantifyable. In fact any "Sin" is quantifyable to humans.
Killing one man is less often punished by death, than killing 5.
It isn't that lying is ever more exceptable because of the amount of
lying or time of it, but rather that the amount reveals the nature of
the person. Someone who is willing to lie for years, as the man is,
wills to decieve. That is his intent. The womans intent is to clear
her consious, and often, to fix things in her marriage.
Your saying that you hate people, in part, because they decieve you to
make themselves feel better (i.e. to get attention via a pity party).
This is no different than you decieving someone for the good of
yourself or your friends. Do you see this? Does everyone see this?
People only decieve in order to gain something, something that is
happiness when its stripped away to its minimum essence, or wabi (as
the japanese refer to it). So they decieve to gain pity, pity that
makes them feel good or gains attention, which all in turn, make the
person happy.
As Joe said, "sometimes you have no choice but to deceive. I know
there are times I have to, either to help myself, or a
friend...Sometimes for personal gain its good, like when no one can be
screwed by it. But when you lie, and someone who doesn't deserve it,
or even if they do, gets screwed by it, that's wrong."
This statement, along with the earlier example of deception usage to
gain pity, do not compute, but rather clash.
It is Joe's opinion that he is not "screwing" anyone when he decieves
for the "good" he speaks of. It is also the opinion of the person who
decieved him that no one is really getting screwed, and she just wants
pity.
To conclude this part, deception cannot be objectivly known as
"screwing" or not by the deciever. Whether or not the intent isn't to
screw has no effect on whether or not the person is actually screwed
by it, in the case of the girl who wanted pity.
