" Moral of the Porcupine".

I'm not pointing my finger at anyone but I was sent this email the other day and I thought, "How Apt For the YLC Site".

It was the coldest Winter ever - many animals died because of the cold. The Porcupines realizing the situation, decided to group  together to keep warm. This way they covered and protected themselves; but the quills of each one wounded their closest companions. After a while they decided to distance themselves, one from the other, and they began to die, alone and frozen. So they had to make a choice: either accept the quills of their companions or disappear from the Earth. Wisely, they decided to go back to being together. They learned to live with their little wounds caused by the close relationship with their companions in order to receive the heat that came from the others. This way they were able to survive. The best relationship is not the one that brings together perfect people, but when each individual learns to live with the imperfections of others and can admire the other person's good qualities.

The Moral of the Story is: "LEARN TO LIVE WITH THE PRICKS

                                      IN  YOUR LIFE".

9 comments

HA HA HOLA,    so very true,    but they can be bloody trying at times,  

Yes, we have to live with some strange ways people have but we don't have to put up with it,   best just ignore their egotistical ways, if they are supposed "friends".

 

I think the best bit of that story was omitted..it goes like this…

“The next time you are hurt by the prickly nature of one of your fellow porcupines, remember that you have spikes as well and can be just as challenging to live with.

Let’s learn to live with the sharp quills of others and hope and pray that those around us can learn to live with ours.”

Moral of the story as I see it is: People in glass houses should not throw stones.

https://betterlifecoachingblog.com/2010/12/17/how-the-porcupines-survived-the-ice-age-a-story-about-our-need-for-relationships/

 

The sharp quills are bad, but it is the ones that are not so sharp that are the hardest to suffer.  If you are going to stick me with your quill, please make it a sharp one.

It only becomes a problem when the prickly little ones want to fly with the eagles and upset the flying pattern of the high flying eagles.

 

 

Image result for micha the porcupine

Eagles, What they any good for, HUH.

The Eagle does not escape the storm. The Eagle simply uses the storm to lift it higher. It spreads its mighty wings and rises on the winds that bring the storm. That’s what eagles are good for. They face adversity.

When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber (Winston Churchill)

Image result for parrot playing a banjo

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant" Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

In the Sixties we all fought so hard to reveal and beat the censorship that permeated every part of life and was always so corruptive, disempowering and restrictive. Censorship concealed and enabled the full spectrum of abuses of citizens by the State and by powerful interest groups.

We should be very, very careful indeed about the motivation and secondary agenda of those who would protect us by legislating for restrictions on freedom of speech.  Freedom of speech is always under attack and must be defended vigorously and steadfastly. 

What simply amazes, but maybe it shouldn't be given the Marxism of its claimed Progressive adherents, is the enthusiasm of modern-day leftists for censorship of any opinion that opposes their own. They are nothing at all like the Left of the Sixties who staunchly defended the right of ALL to free speech and the more of it, free speech, the better.

Freedom of speach is very important, but more important is the acceptance that when participating in this freedom you should be willing to take responsibility for the consequences and responsibilities of exercising that freedom. 

Feel free to stand in the middle of an airport and yell bomb, but be prepared to forfeit your liberty or your life if someone is hurt or killed in the panic it causes, or if a security person puts a pill between your eyes.  Or if a fanatic listens to his favourite speaker and uses that speach to justify blowing up a school bus, does the speaker get out of taking any responsibility?  Unrestricted freedom of speach does not seem to me to be a good idea under those circumstances.

As for everything in the Universe, there should be a suitable reaction for every action taken.

As for arrogance and narrow mindedness, it is not cofined to one political/social organisation, it is found pretty evenly spread throughout the world.  I do believe that Hitler and Mussolini were not receptive to free speach any more than Stalin or Mao Zedong, ever hear of an American Senator named McCarthy?

Does anybody know what is going on in our countries concentration camps?  What is going on with our Border Protection operations?  Surely these activities are not subject to censorship?  Or do we have a leftist government that nobody knows about.

Maybe what we need is action not rhetoric.

ex PS,

You pose and counter your own Straw Men.

exPS, your views on freedom of speech are quite extreme. I think that what we should be more concerned with is not freedom of speech but moreso freedom of thought.

I commend the current government for allowing people to speak freely on gay marriage. A shame that many cabinet ministers overwhelmingly voted against the wishes of their electorate. Difficult to understand when 70% or more did not want gay marriage? 

Talking about attacks on free speech,

Gillian Triggs, "Sadly, you can still say what you want around the kitchen table at home".

"Freedom of speach is very important, but more important is the acceptance that when participating in this freedom you should be willing to take responsibility for the consequences and responsibilities of exercising that freedom." exPS

And if the consequences are delivered by a more powerful body which opposes the content of the speech? What then?

You make it sound as though we dont already have laws structured to deal with this?

 

LJ, you put up your defense of un restricted freedom of speach, I answered your arguement with my own proposal as to the dangers of this.  You displayed strong bias against certain political leanings and prescribed negative generalised character flaws against that group, I simply pointed out that those flaws were not indemiic in that group only.

You are very fond of trotting out the " Straw Man" comment, do you really understand the meaning of this term?

I would be obliged if you would point out to me where it is that I have set up a false arguement in order to deflect from your original point in order to prove my own point of view.

I quite often present contrary facts to my own point of view, I would much rather be right than win an arguement.  Do I argue with myself at times, yes, who better to tell you the truth than yourself.  What I never do is to present other than the truth just to win an arguement, it is in its self a sure sign of defeat.  We must all remember, just because we believe something, it does not make it true, it is just what we believe.

You could start with your first para, first sentence.  Where am I suggesting "un restricted freedom of speach"?  That is your imagining.

You should not believe that others think in binary terms, either black or white, totally for this or that.  It causes one to leap to confusions.  I can't understand for instance, how you could ever arrive at the conclusion that I am for any political party or ideology, just because I might query you or disagree on some things.  I criticise the charlatans regardless of Party.

LJ, I accept your criticsim of my use of the term un restricted, as you did not use that term.  I still however have the same views in regards to responsibilities and repercusions.  I would argue that in this case it was not a deliberate attempt at deflection but a bad choice of word.  The only defence of the term I offer is that if I was to take it out my sentence would read as a condemnation of all freedom of speach, which is not at all what I am about. 

As far as political bias, that is something I see in your comments, it may be a perception that is not justified, I will in future reserve my judgement and refrain from commenting on this particular subject, as it would be fruitless if in deed political bias is the issue.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it"  (misattributed to Voltaire).

Freedom of speech is important.  Better to be public where it can be examined, tested and refuted if necessary, than underground perhaps fermenting unrest.

"Discussion" is important in any civilized society.

The first action of a dictatorship is to ban freedom of speech. 

I could not agree more Twila, but do we draw a line between public discussion or debate and public mischief.

Is making false public accusations against a race or religion in order to cause riots or worse a legitimate form of freedom of speach.

If it causes death or injury, should the person who caused the action be held accountable?  The person committing the assault certainly would be, but what of the person who instigated the assault, do they get to wash their hands and say, not my fault, I didn't touch anyone.

My point is that with rights should always come responsibilities.  Actions should have to have corresponding cosequences, I doubt Voltaire would disagree. But not being a follower of his work, I could be wrong.

I have friends who visit from a country where they can be gaoled for saying anything negative about their leaders, but when they come to Australia they speak their mind and love it. 

 

 

ex PS,

You make very valid points.

My concern is the PC police, where even elephants pounding round a room are not "open" for discussion.

Many years ago, I mentioned to a university colleague the issue of female genital circumcision.  I was told this was a "no-go" area, as it was culturally sensitive. 

Fortunately, since then there was been wide discussion and condemnation of this practice, often by the particular women themselves.

I do understand what you mean.  However, aren't repugnant ideas better in the open where they can be challenged and refuted?  I suspect that many problems are caused by beliefs going underground, where people suseptible people are  drawn in ...

Yes, Yes, Yes, we are cin agreement, all I am saying is ideas for debate are one thing, incitement is another.  I am not even saying that any impediment should be put on what youcan say.  All I am saying is that if you use words to incite violence, you must be prepared to pay the price, it is not good enough to wash your hands and say "It is not my fault, I didn't get my hands dirty".  

YES everything has to open to discussion, we are not at odds here.

9 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment