#morality vs law

[randomleafoflove]

Lan Wangji’s point of view of Wén Wuxian and the year during lectures.

-

Unlike what Wén Wuxian thought, Wangji was not a repeat student of shufu’s lectures.

It was sect policy that main family disciples do not attend the lectures early (or late), but with their age group. That is, the lectures that have more prominent disciples from other sect during the two years they are eligible between the ages fifteen and seventeen. This policy allowed Nie Huaisang a repeat year without damaging his reputation (too much). In polite society, his failure the first year was ascribed to being too young for the lectures.

But while Wangji had not sat in on shufu’s lectures, he had read the material covered during the lectures.

Honestly speaking, Wangji had not paid Wén Wuxian any more mind than any other guest disciple (even if he was a Wēn) until he’d argued with shufu about the proper method of dealing with resentful ghosts and been punished for it.

And then the irreverence he showed when talking about the rules he copied under Wangji’s watchful eye. Like the rules weren’t there for a reason!

It seemed like Wén Wuxian was just like his disrespectful Wēn sect compatriots.

Then he painted Wangji a picture, a portrait of Wangji himself. For some reason, receiving it made his heart beat fast. And instead of leaving it crumbled in the wastepaper basket to be burned, he smuggled it to Jingshi, smoothed it out, dated and wrote down who’d painted it, and put it in the same flat box as the small paintings his a-niang had sometimes slipped him. When he was a child, Wangji hadn’t known to date his mother’s paintings, but when he was ten, he’d written his mother’s name in the back. They were a small reminder that his mother had existed outside the anonymity of Madam Lan, wife of Qinghen-jun, mother of Lan Huan, Xichen, and Lan Zhan, Wangji.

Wangji didn’t think further on it, even if he found himself watching Wén Wuxian much more often, offering aid to a young widow in Caiyi, across their shared table in the library, when he was so lost in thought he forgot where he was.

It was getting harder to ignore Wén Wuxian and walk away when he called Lan Zhan! in that excited way of his. But he was a Wēn, and xiongzhang had said that Wēn Ruohan had been acting aggressively lately, taking over the smaller sects around Qishan. Xiongzhang had said Wén Wuxian was likely a spy. The servant who cleaned the guest disciple dorms had found a weird talisman outside Wén Wuxian’s door. She’d copied it, and the copy had been give to the talisman master of the Lan sect to analyze. He couldn’t give a definite answer as to what it did, other than spout out a number.

Giving him bunnies (his favorite animal) because he hadn’t expressed his opinion on animals had been a coincidence. Giving him black and white cutsleeve bunnies could not be a coincidence. (The Lan guest disciple uniform may have been white, but Wén Wuxian always wore a long, black, sleeveless robe over them.) It made him wonder if maybe Wén Wuxian actually meant it when he called Wangji beautiful and pretty and cute and handsome. It was nothing he’d never heard before, even if Wén Wuxian was the first to say it to his face.

Wén Wuxian, for better or for worse (probably worse, said shufu’s disapproving voice in his head), was his… something. Had he been anyone but a Wēn, he’d have at least allowed himself admit his fascination with the other boy, and probably had xiongzhang’s approval, but Wén Wuxian was a Wēn. Wangji was resigned to rooting out his feelings for him (after the lectures, please let him enjoy the strange warmth he felt whenever Wén Wuxian smiled at him until the end of lectures, he’ll go back to only feeling filial love and filial piety for his family, he promises). Xiongzhang didn’t approve of Wén Wuxian, shufu even less so. But they hadn’t seen Wén Wuxian playing with bunnies or argue passionately for women’s right for self-governance.

Wangji remembered reading the law books Wén Wuxian had collected for their references for the essay shufu assigned for while he was away. He remembered connecting the dots with the laws and his a-niang.

Sometimes he wondered if his a-niang had come back as a ghost and the elders had just exterminated her spirit, to keep anyone from figuring out what had actually happened.

Because Wén Wuxian had him questioning the narrative he’d been told time and again as a child: a-niang was a bad woman because she’d murdered one of their senior teachers.

Even if it all had culminated in a-niang killing one of the Lan sect’s senior teachers, what were the circumstances leading to it? The woman he remembered wouldn’t have killed anyone without reason.

There was a disconnect between the laws of the land and the morality Wangji had been taught. For example, rape, while morally reprehensible, was only punishable if the victim was of a higher social standing, while those of “equal” and lower standing got maybe a slap on the wrist or suffered no consequences. But women were never equal to men in the eyes of the law. And if there were reparations made, they were made to the woman’s familial guardian to make up for the woman’s lower value on the marriage market. The only exception was the rape of a Buddhist nun, which always lead to execution, at least on paper. Wangji was learning nothing was as simple as the books and sect rules made it seem.

During their bunny filled afternoons, Wén Wuxian would pose Wangji moral dilemmas and then they’d debate about the proper answer. The first one had been a hypothetical about a poor man with a sick child stealing medicine from a wealthy apothecary. The following one had been about ladies of the night. Then preemptive punishment.

Wén Wuxian had thoughtful answers for each of his own questions, and eventually explained that they were questions his shijie had asked him over the years of his studies.

Wēn Xiachen was a frequent character in Wén Wuxian’s stories, filling the role of mother, sister and teacher all at once, and if he was to be believed, was an incarnation of Guanyin.

Shufu and xiongzhang’s opinion on Wēn Xiachen couldn’t have been more different, describing her as ruthless and cold, deadly with a sword and accurate in her archery. Polite, yes, but frostily so. Which was better than her brothers Wēn Xu and Wēn Chao, who were barely within the parameters of good manners, but less amiable than Wēn Qing, Wēn Ruohan’s medical genius niece and an all around pleasant if reserved individual.

And after all this, Wén Wuxian had the nerve to earnestly make a promise to stand with justice and live without regrets, all the while looking like Wangji’s spring dreams come to life. And then turn around and ask Wangji to spend the evening alone with him on a picnic watching the lanterns journey up and away. How was Wangji supposed to say no?

Shufu saw them and decided to assign Wangji more work. Not punishment, just involving him more in the running of the sect.

Wangji saw Wén Wuxian mainly at the lectures and the occasional free afternoon. His free time was eaten away even more by his self-assigned punishment for his lustful thoughts and frequent spring dreams featuring the other boy.

Winter brought new challenges, like Wén Wuxian’s pink nose and red cheeks.

Then it was over. Spring festival over and done with, closing ceremony had been held, the guest disciples were packed and departing in droves.

Wén Wuxian was one of the early departures because of the length of his journey. He had given Wangji one last painting and a wistful smile and flown off.

Wangji announced his desire to enter secluded meditation.

It was time to root out his feeling for Wén Wuxian.

Dedicating his life for his sect was enough for shufu. Surely it’d be enough for him too?

[invye]

So @kacievvbbbb asking about modern AU headcanons had me revisiting my 'modernised' MiShanks AU I thought up a couple months ago.

I call it 'modernised' because it is more of a medium modern AU, where I keep much of the base OP lore and history, but shrink the 'active' world down to just a few islands. The overall tech level and societal developments are much closer to what we have now and I do away with most of the political plot. I haven't yet decided if Devil Fruits still exist, but if they do, they are much more rare and are kind of a thing of legend most people don't believe in. Only very select few people would know about them and the curse associated with them.

So lets get into it, I've got plenty of thoughts on Mihawk, Shanks and how their relationship plays together in a more modern world. (And because Rosinante is also one of my favourites, and I can't seem to not smush them all together, there is a CoraMiShanks bit at the end too.)

- Mihawk -

Basic weaponry is a bit more in line with modern expectations in this AU, but that will never ever stop Mihawk from being a swords guy. Mihawk is the authority on fencing, especially in historical context. He's basically got a PHD in swords, identifying them, maintaining them, using them. He's filthy rich, not just because he won every fencing tournament there is, but also because he straight up inherited that half maintained castle outside of town along with stupid amounts of money from an uncle everyone thought already died decades before Mihawk received his testament.

These days Mihawk only competes in the highest level tournament once a year to defend the title (his 'rivalry' with Shanks makes the news every time) and otherwise spends his time at home, reading, drinking, occasionally taking small sailing trips with his beloved Hitsugibune, and of course training his swordsmanship. Everyone thinks he's just living it up big in Kuraigana castle, but the people in town know that he just wants to raise his kids in peace.

Where did the kids come from? No one knows. They're definitely not his though. Anyway, turns out that Mihawk is really good with kids, so it takes barely a couple years for the whole town to load off their kids with him during holidays and days off school. (Look, Zeff runs a busy kitchen, and as much as Sanji tries to help, he's still too young for the holiday rush. Garp has to leave on Marine assignments at the most random times, and his bum of a son has vanished to who knows where years ago, and the grandkids are friends with Zoro and Sanji anyway and can do with burning out their energy running around the woods behind the castle. Bellemère has to leave on those assignments with Garp most of the time, so Nami joins the fray while Nojiko mostly plays with Perona. Mihawk usually leaves the teen girls be on their own, especially since Robin showed up a while ago to join them [she seems to stay on her own, and Mihawk keeps an eye on her in case she needs additional help, but Crocodile seems to have that sorted already]. Usopp's mom is still sick, and she's grateful to know her son is out there having fun with his friends while she tries the next medicine with horrible side effects.)

The kids love Mihawk. Mihawk loves the kids too and to much of his dismay, the kids know it. He is a figure of authority to them, but also a person of trust, who they can approach with problems and worries when their usual parental figure is unavailable or out of reach. Given that Mihawk is pretty much always around, he begrudgingly accepts his new job as free childcare provider for the town (Garp tried to pay once. They all realised very quickly they get much farther by paying in favours, food, or doing little odd jobs because that old castle always needs something done).

Mihawk promised to teach Ace and Sabo to sail this summer, and with Luffy insisting to bounce around them, he already plans on doing more swimming and child fishing than actual sailing.

- Shanks -

Shanks is still a pirate, but it's all on a much smaller scale. He's still got the 'Red Emperor' epithet, but his reputation is much more Robin Hood of the seas. The Red Force gets into small tussles with other pirates more often than the Marines, and really, as long as they have food and alcohol on board they are all perfectly fine just sailing and enjoying their freedom. No one ever knows where the Red Force is at any given time, but they are known to show up when natural disasters strike, not to plunder the remains, but to help the people rebuild long before the Marines get around to offer their help (once the Marines show up on the horizon the Red Force clears out, a couple shots are exchanged, none of them ever hit). Garp tried to yell them into joining the Marines more than once, really Shanks could even stay captain and keep his ship and crew, he just needs to fly the Marine flag, but they all simply laugh and wave as they go off again to who knows where.

However, there is one week every year, where everyone knows exactly where the Red Force will be. Shanks won't ever miss his chance to duel Mihawk in the grand fencing tournament a couple islands over from Mihawk's home. As opposed to Mihawk, who has his fixed position as defending champion, Shanks fights his way through the other contenders every year. He leans into the pirate reputation, taunting opponents, refusing protective gear, tiptoe-ing the line to breaking the rules. The people love to hate him, it's a spectacle every time. The grand finale inevitably is a duel between Mihawk and Shanks, even after Shanks lost his arm (he sat out for a year and people thought that was the end. They were very relieved when Shanks made his over the top entrance again the year after).

They have long abandoned the actual fencing rules and equipment during the finale. People clap and scream when Mihawk steps on stage carrying Yoru, the black blade just as legendary as his own reputation. Shanks never fails to grin and deliver a witty one liner (the people's boo is part of the performance) and then they lunge. Watching that fight is exhilarating. No protective gear, real blades, and two absolute masters going at each other with a force that would leave less competent fighters with the gravest of wounds. It's every bit as real as it is a performance. Everyone knows Mihawk will win before they even start, and the people can recognise a small collection of moves that they build in every time, the more flashy and wide swipes that could easily be punished but never are. It's not simply about Mihawk winning and Shanks losing, it's about witnessing a piece of history being brought back to life right in front of their eyes.

The fencing tournament has always been held within the context of the summer solstice, and with Mihawk and Shanks putting on their show its become a part of a bigger festival that focusses on celebrating history and old rites, the origins of which aren't always known anymore. Every year after the finale they throw a huge feast, traditional food all over, as historically accurate to a long past pirate era as it can get (Mihawk makes sure of it, that history PHD has to be good for something), dressing up accordingly is very much encouraged. Shanks and Mihawk keep carrying their blades and play up their daring villain and chivalrous hero act and no one thinks twice about drinking with the Red Hair Pirates (they have amazing stories to tell). Usually Mihawk ends up in the middle of a group of kids and answers all kinds of history questions, all professor like, but in his full on historical get up. Shanks catches a glimpse of him and sighs dreamily and all the people he's jokingly been flirting with and threatening to kidnap as part of his role know that they're talking to a very much taken man. They enjoy his company anyway and talk to him about what it is like to raise a kid out at sea as they watch Perona and Uta tease Zoro in the distance.

What people don't know, is that the Red Force winters. Pretty much everyone aside from a volunteer skeleton crew leaves the ship for home during the winter months.

No one in town mentions to outsiders that the Red Emperor stays with the Strongest Swordsman up in Kuraigana castle. Why would they? They're great with the kids. And Uta singing with Brook during the Baratie winter solstice celebration sells out the house every time (the townsfolk get a cheeky 50% off that day, it's a community event after all [except for Mihawk. His filthy rich ass can pay double and wouldn't notice {he does pay double. He does notice. He does not care}]).

- Rosinante & Law -

Because I can't help myself and I love thinking about Rosinante together with MiShanks, this story's active events that would make up a proper fic make it a CoraMiShanks story, which starts with Cora-san and Law arriving in town. (Rosinante is genuinely a situational mute in this one, and Law's illness is a bit less horrifying, and potentially cured/managed with medicine.) They're on assignment from Doflamingo who heard that there's a spot that has gone unfilled in the island's underworld and wants to take full advantage of the opportunity to weasel into Crocodile's operations.

Little does Doffy know that: a) Corazón accepted the assignment so he could get away from him; b) Corazón insisted on taking Law because he's still working on getting Law's illness cured; [c) {depending on if Devil Fruits exist} Corazón may have secretly taken the Ope Ope no Mi on his way out;] d) Dracule Mihawk personally checks out every newcomer in town and seems to know much more than he reasonably should; e) Dracule Mihawk loves kids and bonds with Rosinante in a single meeting that included him pulling Law out of a lake; f) gods damned Dracule Mihawk directly protects Crocodile's operations in a infuriating 'someone will do it so I pick the smallest evil' mindset and Crocodile is so damn smug about it; g) fucking Dracule Mihawk decides to keep Rosinante and Law under his protection; h) and WHERE DID THE FUCKING RED EMPEROR COME FROM???

Doffy is seething at his plans foiled. Crocodile laughs at him, tells him to go pound sand and uses the opportunity to poach a couple of Doffy's operatives. Doffy has no choice but to retreat and plot his vengeance for later.

[mossytines]

"Agent Milton was just doing his job" STOP SUCKING HIS DICK OH MY LORD. I DON'T CARE IF HE WAS HONEST OR FAIR HE STILL DID THAT BULLSHIT IN LAKAY IN CHAPTER 5 WHEN HE KNEW ABOUT JACK'S PRESENCE, ACTIVELY PUTTING A CHILD IN DANGER FOR SOME RICH GUY MONEY.

HE STILL.. IS A PINKERTON. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOTORIOUS FOR BEING CRUEL, I WON'T REALLY RESPECT OR TRUST ANYBODY WHO'S IN SAID SOMETHING.

DOING HIS JOB OR NOT, HE DOESN'T HAVE A RESPECTABLE JOB.

[blue-lantern]

Far from the first person to say this but I would pay so much for a minimum 12 issue solo series focusing on Starfire as a liberator of enslaved peoples in space. I’m not the most creative person so what that would look like specifically eludes me. But. Explore her trauma and how it channels into righteous anger more in depth! Completely remove her from earth for a little bit so writers can’t bog her down with relationship drama! Have the story parallel human slavery and politics!

[hussyknee]

In one of the 647968 posts going "What You Like Says Nothing About You" (broadly agree) the first comment in the reply section was, "well I'm never going to apologize for being a Swiftie and a Reylo and Destiel shipper and Snape fan and loving ACOTAR and LOTR and Hamilton and B99" and I'm like, actually being this much of a pathological white liberal makes you the exception to this rule 😭😭

[nando161mando]

This. All of this. Every word.

#RoeVsWade

[plutoslvr]

tims new identity should be him giving into his mad scientist personality like im talking bombs, chemicals, weird tech the whole thing and i think his costume should have like yk the white labcoat with insane amounts of patches on it, goggled and gloves with a face mask (not like the covid ones like one jason had)

[eviltomb]

Ironwood is interesting because he’s a orzhov (White/Black) who thinks he’s Azorius(White/blUe)

I guess you could call him Esper (white/blue/black)but the WB definitely overshadows the U. Treating it as the means to an end.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Hume's Guillotine

The "is-ought problem," also known as Hume's Law or Hume's Guillotine, is a fundamental philosophical issue that addresses the relationship between descriptive statements (what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (what ought to be). The problem was articulated by the Scottish philosopher David Hume in his work "A Treatise of Human Nature" in 1739.

Key Aspects of the Philosophy of the Is-Ought Problem

Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Statements:

Descriptive Statements (Is): These are factual statements about the world. They describe how things are. Examples include "Water boils at 100°C" or "Humans need food to survive."

Prescriptive Statements (Ought): These are normative statements that prescribe how things should be. They reflect values, ethics, or duties. Examples include "People ought to help those in need" or "One should tell the truth."

Hume's Formulation:

David Hume observed that many philosophical arguments attempt to derive prescriptive conclusions from descriptive premises. He argued that there is a fundamental logical gap between statements about what is and statements about what ought to be. According to Hume, you cannot derive an "ought" from an "is" without introducing some additional normative premise.

Implications for Ethics and Morality:

The is-ought problem has significant implications for moral philosophy. It challenges the notion that objective moral truths can be derived from purely empirical observations. This has led to debates about the foundation of moral principles and the role of reason and emotion in ethical judgments.

Responses to the Is-Ought Problem:

Naturalistic Fallacy: Some philosophers argue that attempts to derive moral principles directly from natural facts commit the "naturalistic fallacy." This term, popularized by G.E. Moore, refers to the mistake of defining moral terms in purely naturalistic terms.

Moral Realism: Moral realists argue that there are objective moral truths that exist independently of human beliefs or feelings. They seek to establish a rational basis for bridging the is-ought gap.

Constructivist Approaches: Constructivists propose that moral principles are constructed through rational deliberation, social agreements, or cultural practices, rather than being derived from natural facts.

Virtue Ethics: Some ethical theories, like virtue ethics, focus on the development of moral character and virtues, arguing that moral principles can be grounded in the nature of human flourishing.

Contemporary Debates:

The is-ought problem continues to be a central topic in meta-ethics and the philosophy of language. Philosophers explore whether and how normative statements can be grounded in empirical reality, the role of human psychology in moral reasoning, and the nature of ethical language and meaning.

Conclusion

The philosophy of the is-ought problem challenges us to carefully examine the foundations of our moral and ethical beliefs. By highlighting the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive statements, it invites ongoing reflection on how we justify our moral principles and the ways in which we connect facts about the world with our values and duties.

[secondstar-acorn]

just finished the dark phoenix saga

I loved it

[tinkerbelldetective]

Michael Cutter: *opens his mouth*

Ben Stone, shutting his office door: Absolutely not.

[torchickentacos]

FIGURING SOME SHIT OUT RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!

[dropespeon]

i Need to write something about dcmk because i just have so many thoughts and nothing i've read has done it for me but I do not know what. But I need to write Something

[nando161mando]

Arizona's Supreme Court revives 1864 law banning nearly all abortions | ...

[hedgehog-moss]

I went to a restaurant with a friend yesterday and upon entering we saw these splendid blueberry tarts under bell jars on the counter and we made jokey small talk with the waitress like oh, people will fight over these if there's not enough for everyone, it'll tear families apart, are you making more later? and she said no, I'm afraid that's our entire stock for today, but there are 18 slices, it should be plenty! It was a small village restaurant with only one menu du jour so there weren't any other dessert options but they don't usually get that many customers—but then a couple of large groups arrived and most people noticed the tarts like we did, and went ohh blueberry tart, it's been a while, I can't wait, and it became clear that when we'd get to the end of our meal there would be winners and losers in the blueberry tart rush

But later as we were about to order dessert I wasn't hungry anymore and I was like well that's too bad but someone else will be glad to get 'my' slice of tart—and my friend said yeah, me :) You should order it anyway, I'll eat both! At first I thought she was joking, but no. I said, there's not enough for everyone, you can't take two, and she said, we were going to order two slices, what difference does it make? and I was baffled that she couldn't see the ethical difference between two people eating one slice of tart each vs. one person eating two, when there's a limited quantity of tart. I felt like we were in a simplistic social justice metaphor it was so obvious, but there was no changing her mind. When I said "it's just... not nice" she said "okay" with a shrug, and what can you say to that. She added, you don't know any of these people and I was like, why are we reverting to tribal dynamics in a non-apocalyptic setting, how would you feel if we'd arrived a bit later and seen others ordering two desserts knowing you'd get zero? And she said, I would think that's their right, and I felt kind of amazed.

I pointed out that if she didn't think it was a wee bit wrong, she wouldn't ask me to order her second piece as if it was for me, and she said yeah maybe we don't need to do that, there's no law preventing me from ordering two desserts. What about Kant's categorical imperative Okay I guess you're not breaking any laws by taking more than your fair share of a thing other people also want, just failing a kindergarten-level morality test. I felt embarrassed for sounding like an annoying preachy rigid person so I dropped the issue, and as she ate her two slices she'd smile at me every time we overheard someone order coffee without dessert—like "See? There'll be enough, no one will be deprived of tart because of me!" as if that cancelled the fact that she didn't care in the first place. I guess it was one of these tiny issues that can still significantly alter the way you perceive a person. I tried to tell myself not to be so bothered about this small thing but I was! so bothered. And I felt like writing a letter to some agony aunt like "should I end a friendship over irreconcilable blueberry tart ethics"

[stitcherofchaos]

Philosophical Thought of Human Nature

I just had a thought, a very minor thought that whispered in the back of my mind as I pondered how people perceive other people and how people actually are.

The thought being: how can you make assumptions about the nature of a person despite only seeing the side that bloomed from nurture?

Like, when a convict is taken to prison due to some terrible crime, society only sees the part of that convict that was nurtured but they will never look deeper to try and figure out the nature of that convict.

I comprehend that most convicts have done horrible things, but there are also some who have turned themselves in and accept the consequences of their actions.

There is an undertone agreement in society that "the crimes evils that a convict committed or done in their past will always define their character moving forward, and thus, the actions they complete in the future will not redeem nor change their character."

Yes, I do agree that there are some crimes against humanity that cannot be forgiven. In most of those cases though, that convict does not wish for mercy, forgiveness, redemption, or atonement because they know what they did; and most of the time, are proud of it or do not regret it. Or, they believe what they did was too far and won't even seek repentance- they will continue and push on until they d!e.

That brings up a whole other topic of redemption and the meaning behind it. I mean, in what society where morality is suppressed for comfort and riches has what right to decide someone is 'irredeemable'? Every human being on this earth is not perfect, so does that mean that even their minor mistakes are irredeemable to their character?

It basically creates an oxymoron, where an everyday person- to say, had cheated on their partner but is not repentant or apologetic of said action- is forgivable but a m*rderer- who is desperately repentant and guilty of said action- is unforgivable; are both irredeemable?

What does the word 'redeem' even mean? The dictionary definition is 'compensate for the faults or bad aspects of (something).' but what are the standards of which a person is morally redeemable?

That really narrows it down to morality again doesn't it? This society/world has an unspoken set of rules of things that are objectively good and evil whether anyone wants to accept/see that or not. A person can walk through life minding their business and not correct one's behavior due to it being 'their business' but will upturn their nose in disgust when they see an atrocity reported on the news.

Going back to nature and nurture- when someone's past actions are 'too awful' to be redeemed. They return to society- torn apart from their consequences and do everything in their power to gain approval or forgiveness from society; their hard work and actions of (objective) good is then deemed as 'not good enough' for atonement.

How can we give that person a chance to 'bloom' into their nature if we cannot even give them a chance to? Where is the line? What are the standards? How is atonement possible if no one is even bothering to see the nature of this person?

Remember, a person is "nurtured" from infancy- whether it was from an ab!sive household or a regulated on- to one day become a member of society- they will either conform to its standards/principles, or they will turn away from it and go on to commit crimes.

What both of those possibilities have in common is that both people have objective freedom but one is doing 'what they ought' and the other is doing 'what they want'.

It's a very interesting and intriguing thought and I would like to offer an ear to thoughts or debates on this matter.