The Evolution of @son-of-satire - Part Two

Part One

Is it possible to be both a good person and a good citizen? That's where we left things in part one, and if you don't mind, I'd like to get right into it;


I need only glance at the question for my first insight. I'm an idiot. This question I have posed to myself is poorly worded, for I do not believe that there is such a thing as a good or a bad person. Not in a definitive sense at least.

I know from personal experience that we humans have the capacity to be both good people, and bad people, but such titles belong only in the present. So I am going to reword my question to;

is it possible to continue being a good person, whilst also attempting to be a good citizen?

Things expected of a good citizen:

• pay your taxes
• don't break the law
• send your kids-----
  
  
  ----- I know I was in the middle of something, but this is how my mind works. When I find a thread I follow it, and this word has been bothering me for weeks. "Kids." I know that a kid is an infant goat, but if you read part one, and if you know what the Baphomet is, then you will understand why it seems an awfully convenient label to be attributed to children being raised by a Satanic society.

--- I just did a bit of research and it appears the word kid may have been used as slang for a child since the 16th century. I was genuinely beginning to wonder if this word had been introduced to the language in recent years and ascribed to the youngest of us who are being conditioned with the virtues of the Biblical entity Satan. I think the word being used for so long makes this far less likely, though I do find it interesting that the Spanish word for goat is also used as a slang label for a child, and I wonder what other languages this applies to. I will likely revisit this topic another time, in another post. Back to the task at hand----

• send your kids children to school

-- No. I have to stop again. This is all bullshit. You don't need to pay taxes to be a good citizen. Plenty "model" citizens do not. There are loop holes. You can break the law and still be a good citizen, as long as you pay your fines or do your time. There are even ways around sending your children to school, for the time being, so that's not true either.

What is really expected of a good citizen then? A good citizen is expected to stand there and watch as their neighbour is dragged off to jail by the police. It doesn't matter if you knew that neighbour well, and that you considered them a good and loving person, it is expected of a good citizen to know that they nothing, and that the men in uniforms know how best to keep us safe.

I was going to list some more, but actually, I think we have everything we need within this one hypothetical situation. The good citizen would watch as the neighbour was carted away- but they would also stand by as the child who is now without a guardian, the one that their son has played with every day for the last year, is shipped off to CPS. Sure, the good citizen might question for a moment whether that child will be safe, but only once. Because a good citizen knows they should trust in the system, for they have a child of their own to look out for, and would much rather have that system on their side.

---- My apologies. I know I am supposed to be writing down all my thoughts, but I drifted off into a trance for a while there, and there is no way I can even recall everything I just thought of, let alone have the patience to write it all down. But, I did not come back from wonderland empty-handed. I have just come to the realisation that a good citizen is one who is afraid-- or one who is blind.

You pay your taxes because you're blind, and you think that money is actually being used to make your life, and the life of your countrymen better. Or, you pay your taxes because you're afraid that you will go to jail if you do not.

You send your children to school because you are blind, and actually think that it is going to help rather than hurt their intelligence and creativity. Or, you send them to school because you are afraid that the government will take them from you if you do not.

You allow them to inject your children with dangerous chemicals because you are blind enough to think it will prevent illness rather than be a cause of it, or you allow for them to be vaccinated because you're afraid of the consequences from the state, or the judgement of your peers.

You let them abduct your neighbours or friends without question because you're blind, and believe that the primary function of the police is to protect the people, rather than the controllers. Or, you stand by and watch because you are afraid that they will take you too.

You adhere to a failing economical system that has had people starving on the streets since its inception, because you are too blind to imagine a better way of doing things, or because you are afraid to lose what you have, end up as one of those starving homeless people, or simply afraid of change in general.

Yes, it is becoming clear to me that it is ignorance and fear that clear the path for such a society's advancement, but then what life is there for those of who are neither? If you are no longer ignorant enough to overlook the consequences of your actions- and inaction, and if you're no longer allowing fear to push you in the direction that society has laid out for you, and for everyone else, what direction is left?

It would seem that I didn't really answer the question, but I don't think I need to anymore. I have taken what was needed from this. Now I know that I cannot be both the Scott that I want to be, and the Scott that my environment demands of me, and so the next question I am going to have to consider is one that is a tad more difficult.

I need to know whether the Scott I want to be is important enough, or even real enough to strive towards, and I am going to begin my journey towards this discovery by diving deep into one of the oldest curiosities known to man;

Nature or Nurture?

I don't have a strong opinion on this at the moment, but over the next post or two, I will develop one. For, if it is nature, this means the Scott I want to be is a real. He is the me that would have been if not for the unfortunate location of my birth(Earth), and for the environmental influences that suppressed my true self.

Conversely, if in the end I find that I'm leaning towards nurture having the greatest impact, then I will accept that Scott is nothing more than a collection of experiences. Just a computer that has downloaded a tiny bit of a data from every other computer I have ever observed on the network of humanity. If I believe that I am nothing more than a unique program that was programmed by other programs, then I shall have no problem at all embracing the digital, material world of tomorrow.

I realise now that "nature vs nurture" is essentially the same debate as "do we have free will?" Hopefully, I will be able to find some answers to both in part three.

---

Note: I wasn't really sure how this would turn out in terms of formatting or continuity. If I put shit together too quickly, or fail to explain my thinking well enough, feel free to seek clarification in the comments. With my sharing my thoughts live in this process, it is bound to get a tad confusing before long.