GUN CONTROL/LAWS/2ND AMENDMENT Chat. Your thoughts?

GUN Control/Laws/2nd Amendment Chat reposted Add your Thoughts

Terry I’d like to know what people think regarding the 2nd constitutional amendment on the right to bear arms in the USA. Absolutely for or against, somewhere in between, and WHY. C’mon, what else is there to do on those 3 minutes of boredom when you check in, hoping for something to

Dan i would trade my gun for some betal nuts ANY day!

    •  

Wendy Is that the one about housing soldiers in a civilians home w/o their consent?? Or cruel and unusual punishment, because I’m all for that one. 😉

    •  

Terry Sommers no. citizens’ right to own and use weapons

    •  

Wendi Gregory Simmons I KNOW! It was a joke!!!

    •  

Terry Sommers i wasn’t sure. You are from oklahoma, ya know

    •  

Wendi Gregory Simmons But I’m the smartest damn okie ever!

    •  

Terry Sommers ahem*** “I’d like to know what people think regarding the 2nd constitutional amendment on the right to bear arms in the USA. Absolutely for or against, somewhere in between, and WHY. C’mon, what else is there to do on those 3 minutes of boredom when you check in, hoping for something to chew on?”

    •  

Dennis Dz I’m for it.

    •  

Dennis Dz Why? Because I think in a healthy society, guns are only useful tools. There are plenty of shootings b/c our society is sick. Taking away guns won’t change that at all.

    •  

Ada Clementy thats some bullpucky there Dennis Dz, taking away guns will stop shootings. Stop watching Faux News

    •  

Terry Sommers how do you qualify ‘bullpucky’?

    •  

Dennis Dz Sure, taking away guns might stop the gun violence, but it wouldn’t address the fundamental causes of gun violence.

Please stay away from the easy assumptions. You don’t know me at all.

    •  

Melanie Dawn Coldewey I think I’ve always felt this way. But even more so since having a child. I feel one should have the right to protect self, family and property. Guns are on this earth, like it or not, and in lieu of striking them all from this place I’d like to at least know I have a somewhat equal defense to malicious intentions.

    •  

Melanie Dawn Coldewey Though I also think people should have some sort of general psychological examination before legally obtaining any!

    •  

Terry Sommers and lately, the DHS has ordered about a BILLION rounds of hollowpoint ammunition. Hollowpoints are illegal for use in warfare according to the geneva convention, but apparently Homeland Security thinks it needs to be able to tear apart people from the inside.

    •  

Peter McAinsh I put mercury in my hollow point rounds and sealed it with beeswax. Not just acute lead poisoning but heavy metal too for those home invaders. When the bullet hits it opens like a cluster bomb. Fabntastic!

    •  

Terry Sommers unless you become the more likely statistic, which is that people are more likely to accidentally shoot themselves than shoot an actual person in self-defense.

    •  

Terry Sommers ‎, Peter McAinsh.

    •  

Ethan Kegley

The right to bear “arms” and protect one’s body and property from unlawful confiscation, harm and or death.

Until the constitution changes, then people do have the right to purchase, possess and use (lawfullly) those aforementioned arms.

What I do think is silly is for one person to own more than one gun. While I could see the argument for a rifle being different then a handgun, therefor one of each should be owned. This would be one for hunting, one for self defense. I don’t think people should be able to have more than one hand gun… possibly not more than one hand gun per house…

It sounds like I am arguing to uphold the second amendment. In fact, I think guns are, while fun, quite nasty things. It is true, society is sick, but do we need to make it easier for people to kill other people?

I think a comedian said it quite well. Yes, if that fellow had not had a gun he probably would have still tried to carry out an attack with some other weapons…. but you just cant kill as many people with a crossbow, swords, etc. than you can with a semi-automatic rifle or machine gun for that matter.

I do think that licensing should be much more strict, i think people should have to renew their license every year with a class and a demonstration of safety knowledge.

A gun is a tool of death, it can be used for little else.

    •  

Terry Sommers Timothy Mcveigh supposedly killed over 160 humans with a u-haul truck, diesel fuel, and agricultural fertilizer. That’s why I don’t have any fertilizer in my home – i let my snails turn my table scraps into nutrients for my planter beds.

    •  

Ethan Kegley Yeah, bombs are another matter, and poison gas could be another, or broken government policy that leads to starvation and disease. But I think we were talking about the second amendment to the constitution of the USA

    •  

Terry Sommers I’m getting ahead of myself.

    •  

Terry Sommers tho i was commenting on your comment about finding another way to kill people without guns

    •  

Ethan Kegley true, and I agree with you. There are numerous ways to dispatch a soul from its mortal coil. Sorry, I was just taking your lead in reminding us what we are discussing.

    •  

Ethan Kegley Let’s look at it from this perspective. Whole industries exist because of the second amendment… are there other amendments to the constitution that have created whole industries built up around the continuation of that “right” though I would call it a responsibility (when it comes to treating the gun carefully to the nth degree)

    •  

Boston Paul

Gun Laws are awesome… the government takes the guns away….

No guns!

Except for the Criminals…

I can see it now:

GUNS LAWS ENACTED. THIS IS AN AMNESTY. CITIZENS TURN IN YOUR GUNS.

Mafia Boss: Oh No! I have to turn my gun in! The Government says so!

Street Thug: This is Terrible! We’re not allowed to have guns, we have to hand them over to the authorities! I’ll get right on that!

Gang Member: Shit Man, I just bought this Mofo Glock from Billy BagPipes yesterday… government says I need to turn this shit in because of some amnesty thing. I’m on it!

Serial Killer: Looks like I’m going to have to change how I kill. I must turn my gun in. Maybe I can just bludgeon them to death with the leg broken off a piano bench now.

Crooked Evil Cop: I get to keep mine!

Law Abiding Gun Owning Citizen: Well I guess our streets will be safer now from the Mafia, Street Thugs, Gang Members and Serial Killers, because we ALL have to turn our guns in.

God Bless Amerika!

(Lucky there was no gun control in 1776, eh, would have been tough kicking England’s ass with Bows/Arrows, sticks and stones)

Gun Laws only affect those that can legally own guns.

Here are some Quotes and Historical facts on Governments that control guns for y’all:

* “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” -Adolph Hitler 1938

*The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 — one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany — new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

*After the Christian Tutsis had been disarmed by governmental decree in the early 1990s, Hutu-led military forces began to systematically massacre the defenseless Christians.

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”
— Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840

    •  

Terry Sommers anyone willing to spar with Paul?

    •  

Terry Sommers http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#1

US Constitution–Bill of Rights–The First Ten Amendments

www.ratical.org

The following is a transcription of the first 10 amendments to the United States

Constitution. Called the “Bill of Rights”, these amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791. Each amendment’s title is linked to a set of detailed annotations presented on the Findlaw website.

    •  

Boston Paul Noah Webster, 1787:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”

    •  

Ethan Kegley

according to wiki:

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the tota

l 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6] In 2009, according to the UNODC, 60% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[7]

30 percent non fatal injuries are accidental and more than 50 percent of gunshot deaths are suicide

I agree with paul, we cant just say we are going to take the guns away and expect violence to go down… but it does seem that the Gun is the weapon of choice in most things death related.

    •  

Terry Sommers convenient packaging, la

    •  

Ethan Kegley and isnt that what the gun really is, but a more convenient way to kill something?

    •  

Terry Sommers c’mon!!! someone take on Paul’s arguments!!! Aren’t there any verbose gun banners out there?

    •  

Ethan Kegley I thought I kind of did a little

    •  

Terry Sommers I’m saving my comments for last, but so far Paul’s statement seems the most convincing. What ever happened to death star Adam?

    •  

Ethan Kegley What about Japan as an example, low levels of gun violence

    •  

Terry Sommers and low levels of guns, but by our standards, a high level of kiddie porn

    •  

Terry Sommers i don’t wanna compare the usa with japan, two totally different cultures

    •  

Boston Paul

Dennis Dz: Sure, taking away guns might stop the gun violence, but it wouldn’t address the fundamental causes of gun violence.

I wish I could highlight the last 10 words of this sentence.

Fundamental Causes.


Why are schools in many US cities more violent than most other so called ‘First World’ countries?

What are the fundamental causes of any kind of violence in the first place?

Prescription Drugs for children who are ‘hyper-active’ …

… shite diets (parents giving junk food to kids before the age of 5 – IMO child abuse).

Child having a bad day, as we all do, and parents/teachers sending the kid to a shrink to ‘work it all out’…. perhaps doing more harm than good… (?)…. complex much?

The Media glorifying guns, a life of crime?

The Media Branding the Youth – where kids beat up or even kill for not just money, but slave labor made Nike shoes.

What is it about American ‘culture’ that breeds violence especially violence with guns?

Dennis DZ hit the nail on the head… Fundamental Causes.

The problem is not going to be solved with gun laws per se. The problem with violence in the US has been festering since World War II (ish) ….or perhaps the Industrial Revolution? Maybe since 1776?

Why is it that there are lower crime/violent rates than the US around the world?

Other countries, like those in the UK, don’t have many guns, other countries like Switzerland, males over 20 years old all keep a gun. In Switzerland then, there is a gun for every household…

Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Picked this up on-line:

The Swiss:

“Whatever the effect of Swiss guns abroad, they are not even a trivial crime problem domestically. Despite all the guns, the murder rate is a small fraction of the American rate, and is less than the rate in Canada or England, which strictly control guns, or in Japan, which virtually prohibits them. The gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The suicide rate, though, is almost double the American rate. Guns are used in about one-fifth of all Swiss suicides compared to three-fifths of American and one-third of Canadian suicides.

It is not Switzerland’s cultural makeup, or its gun policies per se, that explain that low crime rate. Rather, it is the emphasis on community duty, of which gun ownership is the most important part, that best explains low crime rate.”

Your thoughts?

Gun politics in Switzerland – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a peoples Militia to defend their country. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training…

 

    •  

Boston PaulTaking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”
— Peter Venetoklis

    •  

Boston Paul Some other interesting Tidbits:

If strict gun control could actually disarm that criminal element in America, there might be an argument for gun control. But as Josh Sugarmann, former communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (NCBH), wrote in The Washington Monthly: “handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns.”

Sugarmann and NCBH favour gun control not to disarm criminals, but because they believe that non-criminal Americans cannot be trusted with handguns. The coalition’s political affairs director, Eric Ellman, has said that “the majority of gun owners are not responsible.” Yet a look at the facts shows that more than 99% of American citizens who are not professional felons are just as suited for gun ownership as any Swiss militiaman.

Ordinary American citizens use guns competently. Every 48 seconds, someone uses a handgun to defend himself against a crime (according to Florida State University’s Gary Kleck, using data collected by liberal pollster Peter Hart in a poll paid for by the anti-gun lobby).

Regular American citizens do not shoot each other in moments of passion; the vast majority of such shootings are perpetrated by thugs with a record of violence and substance abuse.

And contrary to the claims of the anti-gun lobby, Americans are not so careless that they cannot be trusted with potentially dangerous objects like guns. Gun accidents account for less than 2% of the nation’s 92,000 accidental deaths annually.

***Suicides have little to do with gun availability. Japan has no guns, while Switzerland is deluged with every gun in the book, and both nations have the same suicide rate.

Of course the more that U.S. governments can do to make gun use in America even more responsible, the better. Switzerland shows how successful governments can be in promoting responsible gun use.

Elementary schools in America should have gun safety classes which teach children never to touch a gun unless a parent is present, and they should be taught to tell an adult if they see an unattended gun. The NRA actively promotes this idea, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police endorses it. But Handgun Control opposes this reasonable, sensible safety measure. Has HCI gone off the deep end?

High schools and colleges wishing to offer target shooting as a sport should be allowed to do so. Unlike football or swimming, scholastic target shooting has never resulted in a fatality. The anti-gun groups oppose the sensible step of allowing the schools to offer students the safest sport ever invented. Have they gone off the deep end’? Finally, local governments should enact reasonable zoning laws, which allow the construction of indoor shooting ranges (properly ventilated and sound insulated) in urban areas. In some cases, governments should subsidise the building of ranges. At target ranges, Americans can take lessons in gun responsibility, and practice safe gun handling skills. As you might expect, the anti-gunners oppose this simple safety measure too. They’ve gone off the deep end.

What have we learned from Switzerland?’ Guns in themselves are not a cause of gun crime; if they were, everyone in Switzerland would long ago have been shot in a domestic quarrel.

Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a nation’s crime rate. Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of armed crime. Young adults in Zurich are subject to minimal gun control, but strict social control, and they commit almost no crime.

What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun use even stronger.

End Chat (for now!)

 

 

Published in: on August 18, 2012 at 8:41 PM  Comments (11)  
Tags: , , ,

What is a Friend… Really?

Family Love Friend

 

UPON GRADUATING FROM UNIVERSITY WHERE they saw it fit to award me with degrees & certificates, my Journey Path brought me to a Wonderful Island Paradise.

New Country. New People. New Culture.  Taiwan is rife with friendly people – several of whom would eventually become my friends.

Within a few hours of stepping onto Taiwanese Soil, I secured employment in a very Taiwanese bar with a very American name called 9th Street Pub. It had a 30 foot Masonic Statue of Liberty out front that looked down on its Guests as they sauntered through the entrance.

My days working at The Pub are a bit of a blur, but a few synapses have fired up and I bring you these Reflections armed with hindsight & thought.

I was the only foreigner working at this disco pub. My duties consisted of dancing, drinking, occasionally mixing drinks behind the bar, and door person.

For most of the time, I was kept quite busy drinking with the patrons.

A diminutive but significant parley happened with a particular patron one evening, that after a considerable amount of consideration, I’ve realized greatly influenced the way I look at words in my Mother Tongue – particularly how the word friend is used.

That evening, after a few drinks with a group of business men, the loudest of them (with limited English skills) – surrounded by satellite sycophants – put his arm around my neck in passive aggressive fashion and introduced me to newcomers at our table.

My new friend!” he exclaimed.

While I sat there (my neck fixed in the crux of his forearm and bicep, suffering the tugs & jerks in rhythm to his repeated use of new friend) it dawned on me that the meaning of the word friend had lost its significance.

Growing up, I believed a friend meant extended Family. A friend was family without the blood ties… someone you could depend on any hour of the day – or night. Someone who got your back. Someone quick with advice or at least a little bit of sympathy or better yet empathy.

I asked my new acquaintance to lend me $1000 dollars.

He stopped jerking my neck and released me.

Said he, “1000 dollah? Why?”

Said I, “We are friends. Friends help each other in need. I also need a ride home when I get off work at 4AM. Can you wait for me?”

Said he, “But I leave soon. My wife want me home by 3!”

Said I, “Could you call your wife and tell her you are helping out a friend?”

Said he, “But she do not know who are you!”

Said I, “I am your friend! I need your help. Friends help friends.”

Said he, “But first time just meeting you!”

Said I, “Ahhh, so we are not friends then?”

Said he, “More whiskey!”

The terms Friend & Acquaintance are as confusing as the words Love & Infatuation. Interestingly, as I will explain in a moment, the words love and friend are related.

But I am obliged to digress a moment and offer a cursory meaning of Love.

Specifically:

Love At First Sight (LAFS)

We hear of people having LAFS all the time.

In one’s Lifetime, is it possible to have a few LAFSs?

My Answer is a simple but resounding NO.

Without delving too deeply into the semantics of love… no one loves anyone at first sight. It may feel that way, but often words are not a good medium to describe feelings… are they?

Indeed, when Paths cross and one encounters someone new, one may initially like what they perceive. After all, almost everyone exhibits their most favorable side – especially when a First Impression is involved.

Presented is the new acquaintance’s utmost politeness, wittiness, and even tastes in clothing – perhaps flouting their plume not unlike a peacock. We are attracted to the pretty wrapping on the gift-box. A good First Impression, after all, is of the essence in a first meeting, isn’t it?

When such charms are flaunted, it is no wonder we like what we first observe, but it is hardly love.

When Mammalian Urges & Impulses are ablaze, however, and those three words (those three words!) are uttered (often in the heat of passion) what is being experienced is not love, but infatuation.

Infatuation may fade as Love is nurtured, just as fat withers as a regularly used muscle develops.

When homo-sapiens meet for the first time and ‘make love’ how is there real love involved? Aren’t they just have a mammalian f*ck? Merely Copulating? Having a Mating Moment? How then is a joyous one night stand defined?

We don’t fall in love in those early moments, we fall in like. We are infatuated…or maybe just horny.

But we humans need words to convey our feelings. We search for words in our heads and often blurt out what we think we feel in that moment – often without considering how what we say is perceived by the listener.

When engaged in wonderful conversation, a first outing, sexual congress or chance meeting, who hasn’t felt Passion Fascination, Obsession, Fixation, Ardor, Excitement, Delight, Enchantment, Pleasure, Amusement, Delight (did I say delight already?), Enjoyment, Gratification… and so on?

With that in mind, I don’t believe in friends at first sight either.

 Which brings me to the use of:

Friend

 

Etymologically, a friend is literally a lover. The relationship between Latin amīcus “friend” and amō “I love” is unmistakable, as is the correlation between Greek philos “friend” and phileō  “I love.”

In English though, we have to go back about a thousand years before we see the verb related to friend.

As most of us know English has some of its roots in the Germanic.

The word frēond, is the Old English word for ‘friend’ and was simply the present participle of the verb frēon – to love.

The Germanic root of the verb was ‘fri-’ which meant ‘to love, or be affectionate to’.

We can still see the remnants of this verb one day of the seven day week- Friday or ‘day of Frigg’ is devoted to the Germanic goddess of love – Frigg.

Friendship is one mind in two bodies.  ~Mencius

Why is the term friend becoming a nonspecific word used simply for someone another may be acquainted with? What has caused the decline of the original meaning?

 One of the culprits is indeed any one of these social networking sites on the internet. I propose that these sites – though they have their advantages – have turned the word friend into a generic expression that is becoming ever more ambiguous.

The word friend is now tossed and bumped around the social networking lexicon and used without much thought about where the word comes from and how for a millennia has enjoyed quite a meaningful status… until now.

 

 

I read a comment on a more popular networking site that asked, “who de-friended me?”

I’ve heard statements like, “I’m going to unfriend him because he doesn’t like my posts..”

I would have LOLed if it wasn’t so painfully pitiful.

I’ve also heard it said that ‘so & so is a bad friend!’

Bad Friend?  What is that?

Forgive the digression while I get Oxy-Moronic:

 How can anyone have a bad friend? .
A bad friend – is this a serious joke?  Or is this a real fantasy some people have? When I hear this, my brain bubbles with silent screams so deafening, I can’t hear myself think. It’s a sweet kind of sorrow having a bad friend – like having a friendly enemy or a Holy War! The concept is just simply complicated in its simplistic complexity.  Having a friend who is bad is like having a war that is civil… that’s Military Intelligence for you. The Simply Confused users of the term bad friend should be shot with a Peace Keeper Missile while eating Vegetarian Meatloaf. For the term belongs in a TRAGIC COMEDY!

 

Ahem… Moving right along…

And what about these websites that post how many friends you have? Has it become merely a popularity contest? Or a place to find like-minded game players?

These social/connecting sites have a variety of functions. Some use it to meet new people; others play the ridiculous time wasting games & quizzes; for others it is a simple networking or PR tool… but how many real friends do you have on these social networking sites?

 Something I find especially entertaining – and significant – is when an actual long time friend or a family member adds me to their friends list.

The website posts that we “…are now friends” on my Cyber-space corner for all to see.

What was our relationship before that then?

Can it be stated – tongue in cheek – that no one is a friend until the Corporate Entity ( AKA they) says so?

 On the flip side, if someone whom I find interesting and knows some of the same people I do, adds me to their friend list, we are now friends though we have never met in person – and perhaps never will.

What is our real relationship then?

Are the masses self-esteem so low that they look to a social site to give them that warm fuzzy feeling a true encounter with a real friend may have given them – had the opportunity presented itself?

Friends, friends, friends.

Who needs them then with all the politics involved?

Perhaps it is because of the murky meaning and the looseness of the usage that many of us do not see eye to eye with what a friend actually is.

Thus the confusion.

The Buddhist Monks may be right: shave your head, give up family & friends and go meditate in a cave… Unless… unless we take back this word and give it its meaning back.

What is a friend?  A single soul dwelling in two bodies.  ~Aristotle

 

What the hell is a New Friend then??

So if it is agreed that we should take the word friend and give it its original meaning back – what then exactly is a new friend?

When does a friend become a friend?

When do we make the cross over from acquaintance to friend?

Cultivating relationships takes time. Trust must be built. If one is first an acquaintance, when does one become a new friend?  Perhaps I should have put the word New Friend in the Oxymoron section of this essay, eh?

Food for Thought!

 

                                  Friendship in B.C.E. Rome

Cicero (January 3, 106 BCE – December 7, 43 BCE) had his own beliefs on friendship.

Cicero was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, political theorist, and Roman constitutionalist. He is widely considered one of Rome’s greatest orators & prose stylists. He is now appreciated primarily for his humanism and philosophical & political writings.

Cicero believed that in order to share true friendship, one must have complete honesty & trust. Friends do things for each other without hope of remuneration. If one friend is about to make a mistake, the other should explain what is evil about the action, and help to do what is right.

 

Newspeak

The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.
Philip K. Dick

 Has the English usage of the word friend gone the Path of NewSpeak in Orwell’s 1984?

For those of you unfamiliar with Orwell’s Newspeak, instead of adding words to the lexicon, words were taken away or meant to mean several things but taking away from the original meaning. The objective of Newspeak was to remove all shades of meaning from language. In Newspeak they took pride in the Destruction & Elimination of Words. Synonyms & antonyms were at the outset expunged. Adjectives were also some of the first to be eliminated.

Bad becomes ungood.  Something really bad becomes double plus-ungood.

Thus in Newspeak nothing could be bad.

 The underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can’t be thought then spoken; subsequently, it can’t be considered.

How can we communicate the need for Freedom or organize a Revolution if we don’t have the words for either?

“The limits of my language mean the limits to my world.”
Ludwig Wittgenstein

 

If we cannot think it – at the very least in our individual Reality Boxes in which we all individually reside –then it cannot be.

 This seems to be what is happening to the English language.

Inaccuracies abound because often our random thoughts are inattentive, careless and inconsiderate (Public Education may be the culprit for that) thus the lackadaisical route English has taken makes it easier for foolish thoughts to flourish.

One hopes that this careless process is reversible.

 A word is just a sound with no meaning until it is given a meaning through experience, association and a general agreement throughout the general population.

There’s lots of gray area there, and within that gray area, we are mired in semantic confusion.

Perhaps we should keep Newspeak in mind when talking about the meaning of the word friend.

 

Clarity

 The language of friendship is not words but meanings.
~Henry David Thoreau

 

Webster’s describes Friend as: a person whom one knows well and is fond of.

One can hardly describe a perchance brief interaction resulting in the beginning stages of a relationship – a real friend. Especially if one digs deeper than the dictionary.

The Meaning of Friend, Its Associates & Some New Acquaintances

I’ve listed the original meanings of words discussed in this essay. I have also constructed a few acronyms that may be useful in describing what relationships are and with hope that by using these acronyms we may keep the original meaning of our ancient, beloved words.

I propose we make good use of the these words in regards to relationships. I also propose that some of these social networking sites change their use of the word friend to one of the acronyms I have created.

But first –  the real meanings of Friend & Acquaintance:

Friend: A relationship with another person that may be best described as family without the blood-ties. An extended family member (which being an expat I know all too well).

Acquaintance: A relationship with someone that you may or may not eventually become friends with. You may know this person for years and are indeed acquainted with them, but still – hardly a friend.

 

And then the Other Terms:

Buddy:Someone you are affable with. A very good acquaintance. Someone you might participate in activities with. Examples: Golf Buddy. Fuck buddy.

Pal: 1680s, from Romany (English Gypsy) pal “brother, comrade,”

Mate: “companion, associate, fellow, comrade,” late 14c., from M.L.G. mate, gemate “one eating at the same table, messmate,”

 Frenemy: …Seriously?

Proposed Acronyms for The Internet:

 NetCon: Network Connection.  Relationships that have been formed on an internet networking site – this can be in the form of PR or your social site popularity contest; a relationship with another individual based on similar business interests that may not require the energy, time and devotion one would give for a friend.

InterBud: Internet Buddy. A relationship formed on the internet. You may meet sometimes, but most interaction is done via internet.

PIK: People I Know. This all inclusive acronym can be used for anything from Family Members to someone you met at a bar last night… I think I like this one best!

Should there be clear distinct definitions on how we define relationships in general? Family, Extended Family, Friends, Acquaintances? Buds? Pals?

What guidelines should we follow so that we know that we are all on the same sheet of music?

 

Finale

 

What gives value to a friendship is often the result of the friend – on a consistent basis – demonstrating the desire to do what they feel is best for the other. A friend, like a member of a Loving Family, shows sympathy, has empathy, is honest & truthful, even in situations where it may be difficult to be so. A friend then lovingly points out perceived faults with a willingness to discuss them so that they both may have the learning benefit from one’s folly; a true friend is not spiteful, and seeks mutual understanding.

 My hope is that one be careful how we use Words. Think about their meaning. Think about how others may perceive what you are saying. Though we all share a common accepted reality, still we are all wired slightly different and individually perceive reality slightly different than those around us.

What I might be feeling in my heart and understanding in my mind when I share a first kiss and express what I am feeling with someone is going to be slightly different than that of whom I am sharing that kiss.

 Life is so much better when there is Good Communication. Let’s bring the real meanings back to the words Friend & Love and save the World!

Peace and Love

You can FOLLOW Boston Paul at Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BostonPaul

%d bloggers like this: