An Interview

Remembering how I mentioned that I was wondering how a 4 by 4 by 4 rubik's cube mechanism works, the next day my dad bought this 'DIY Rubik's revenge" with assembly instructions. Unfortunately, the screw was screwed on too tight for disassembly. Days later, my brother somehow managed to twist the thing apart without unscrewing it, and I took 2 hours to put it back.

Firstly, the pieces will not stay in place because the interlocking reinforcements have yet to be added, which means that a construction platform is needed for temporary support.

Secondly, I could not follow the instructions, and had to tackle this with my own approach, as the instructions did not have a section on "How to assemble the cube if you managed to disassemble it without unscrewing it"

In the end I fixed it, only to find that it couldn't be rotated about one axis because an interior component was loose and dropped out, so I had to crash the entire thing and build it all over again.

I would compare it with Lego Technic (C), only much more boring.

***

I saw this.

Had some bullshit mercy relief talk in the morning, seriously, i wanted to ask that person this question:” Why do these people, who’s life worth so little such that it is counted in numbers, deserve our help, when we who are living in a higher society, can’t even help ourselves to the fullest?” Many would agree with js, and say that i 没良心, however, if you look at all those great people, each and everyone of them, do not depend on emotions. To do great, one must most importantly, do what benefits everyone, or at least, the main portion of people the best, instead of wasting time and resources feeding these pathetic beings, who i don’t think they even deserve to be titled human anymore. Fine, some people finds this offending, so i’m cancelling it off. Not that it matters anyway :P

And I decided to 'interview' this person, before expressing my opinions.

I say:
why do u say that Why do these people, who’s life worth so little such that it is counted in numbers, deserve our help, when we who are living in a higher society, can’t even help ourselves to the fullest?
and To do great, one must most importantly, do what benefits everyone, or at least, the main portion of people the best, instead of wasting time and resources feeding these pathetic beings, who i don’t think they even deserve to be titled human anymore. Fine, some people finds this offending, so i’m cancelling it off. Not that it matters anyway :P
He says:
ok

I say:
ignore the sticky tongue at the end
He says:

those ppl that mercy relieve r helping
they dont deserve our help cause
their life are already so worth less
that its nth more than just numbers on paper
so mercy relieve shoiuld use their resources to do btr stuff
than helping worth less ppl

I say:
y r their lives worthless?

He says:
their lives are screwed alr
y bother helping
keep only the btr once on earth
wipe out the rest

I say:
ok...
He says:
thats the main logic behind it :)

I say:
ok
can u de
can u define 'better ones"?

He says:
ppl in cities

I say:
so do u think mercy relief should help people whose city get struck by earthquake?

He says:
nope
once they quake is too bad

I say:
but like you said they are in cities

He says:
beyond speedy reapir
leave them to die
once the citiy crumbles
its not a city anymore
its just a scrapyard

I say:
your point is, don't bother helping people which are beyond hope?

He says:
yup

I say:
then what do you suggest that we transfer this 'help' to?

He says:
ppl in proper cities
which need help

I say:
like wat?
wat help?

He says:
financial
housing?

I say:
social needs you mean?
He says:
yup

I say:
would you count helping orphans constructing houses and shelters, in the city
a social need
or one of those 'not worth helping'

He says:
errm
if they are in cities
yes
if they are in rural areas
no

I say:
what is the difference of a city and rural?
that causes that line to be drawn?

Then it stopped, because he was too lazy to answer, or it was just a case of Reductio ad Absurdum

First of all, something non-controversial, the statement that Great people are all independent of their emotions, which I presume means that they are strong, is ridiculous. There is a fine line between being proactive and being nonchalent. Great people are more of the former. They take charge of their emotions, and not let them get the better of them, but that does not mean that they do not exhibit compassion. Exhibiting compassion and extending help is not a result of emotional crumble, but rather a result of going for what you believe your conscience tells you.

Labelling names is a trivial matter, so I will not go after it.

Secondly, life is equal, and there is no such thing as one life being less worth than another of its kind. We can possibly say that the worth of their contributions vary from soul to soul, but life itself, is equal.

Lastly, he clarifies that resources should not be spent on what is beyond hope. He thinks that help should be given to 'life in the city'. This point, I think is someone practical and reasonable, that we should spent more time on what we can save, rather than salvage something that is beyond hope. Therefore, I would not distinctly classify this as 'selfish' like some people would.

However, argument towards the end started becoming ridiculous, as 'better people' referred to people in the city. Then I gave a case where there are urban and rural orphans, which should get shelter first. And he replied urban, simply because, they are 'better'.

In this specific case, I believe that both should be placed on equal importance, because here, neither is 'beyond hope'. There is discrimination against geography and social class. On the other hand, some also believe in the notion of karma (Or reaping what you sow/cause-and-effect), and placing the case of natural disasters and social plight as a variation of Noah's Ark. If this is the case, then neither urban nor rural should be given any help.

It voices down to "Help should either be distributed equally, or to none at all."

Then again, the name 'mercy relief' does suggest something about its purpose.