Amid the plethora of pessimistic fervour, nothing passes the eye of critical scrutiny. But the enthusiastic observation is not about critique of the issue for better outcomes, it is rather about who says what. And the critic has a narcissistic obsession fixed on the target.
There is no chance for a genuine proposal, there is always something wrong with. The problem is, the target is not about the issue, but rather about the character. When certain media characters come to mind, we know what they are about. They kill the opportunity for objective progress by drawing attention to the person if not to themselves.
Such is the public debate of issues; the topic is decided, scrutinised and promoted by the media in favour of themselves. We are familiar with misinformation of grassroots groups and pseudo-science; now we can predict media characters and their rhyme.
That basically nullifies any objective role of the media, but in so doing provides an opportunity for independent individuals for reasonable debate.
And with a little censor and monitors, there is a good chance to rely on social media for a fair public debate of issues without characterisation or personalisation.
But before we engage in a decent debate, there is a logical note to be aware of. I am a positive person and the language I use characterises that positivity. Progress for example suggests moving forward. That means everything is right and proper to propel a forward movement. If some elements are not right or out of place, we cannot be moving forward. Instead we are either stuck or moving backward. Keeping that in mind, it is not valid to say we are making progress when in fact there is something wrong.
Then again, what is wrong for one may be not for another, and we are merely opening a can of worms or so to speak. This is why debate is exciting when it's not about someone's character or personality, but the context of issues in their appropriate framework.
So let's discuss Smoking. 'Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases and problems of the immune system, including rheumatoid arthritis - Internet'. Really, smoking stinks.
A few years ago, I was involved in a research debating Smoking or Not. I argued against smoking on the grounds of health, second hand smoking, addiction and finance. While I got stuck in subjective reasons why smoking is dangerous, my opposition got stuck on me as a person.
It reminded me of media tactics that if they don't like your argument they'll attack you instead. But it didn't stop me. I continued that their so-called freedom or right to smoke is not a valid one because they are under the spell of addiction. Their mind is overwhelmed and corrupt by the feelings and senses that prompt the desire to smoke. In their right mind of logical reasoning, they would not make a decision to smoke.
How could a parent care for the children when his/her second hand smoking is inhaled by them? That's priming the children for future addiction and illness without their consent. And a child's right to be healthy is violated while trust is out the window.
So, is it the difference in personality or political affiliation that's in the way of health and welfare of future generations? Does it matter who you are or what party you are affiliated with when it comes to the health and welfare of future generations? Shouldn't it be a bi-partisan issue?
Well, Smoking is a major health issue and further down the line, its success would add glory to the party which championed it. So you can understand that National and Act are right wing parties in favour of the business private sector and as long as poor folks are addicted, smoking is an economic demand.
The addiction is very powerful. Satisfying a fix or desire precedes reasonable decisions. Therefore it's difficult for addicts to quit. But by making small portions of the substance available at a time is like weaning them off rather than going gold turkey.
In so doing, the business is survived by supplying a partial product, the same time the addict helps him/herself wean off the stuff. The next step is total ban of the substance.
Will National and Act come around to support health and wellbeing? They could share in the glory of success. But if they were in office, do you think the right wing parties would sacrifice the business private sector for health and wellbeing of the poor?
I know one of those Specialised Discount Dairies opened on Easter to feed addiction and make a profit. Think about it, those dairy owners are making profit by slowly causing illness and diseases on you and your family. It certainly qualifies it a suitable topic for discussion on social media.