Philosophia Day

A Paradox of Nature

    Followers can be misled, where as anti-social individuals get haven-ed from that.  Who knew that what can be called rightly so as an inferior turns out to have an advantage in such circumstances.  The situation itself acts as a shield as if willing so on its own, keeping the anti-social from being fed with false info.  We can mark followers as sine line A, and the society outsiders (the anti-socials) as cosine line B.  Then what is commonly A receive + and B become - turns into A receiving - and B becoming +, a reversal that's contra-austa opposite.  

Additional Tags: then goodah, even bettah, me leading self, god directing me, no noise pressure,  then it would be all splendid,  distractions, unecessary,  noisy, manufacture-like environments can disturb, stir, yep, unwanted answers,  lorda of the pandents,  skyrim, whiterun, solitude,  mortail ravenshire,

`````````  `````````  `````````  `````````  `````````  `````````  `````````  `````````  `````````                       

Number-Based "Goofy" Sheeples

aye, sheeples are a serious goofy bunch
- all of them are essentially duplication of one another, yet they really living like each of them is a copy of Seth Curbain, a legend music star, a rarity (which is quality-based), as oppose to common number-based goods

- the sheeples are overpaid as a hectic rodant.  They are so rich that they could live and survive on their own somehow never needing an ounce of plea hour to us.  They've got electronics, appliances, housing, everything, though on their own none of this stuff can be made on their own.  How does this stuff like this happen?

- sheeples had gotten so rich and wealthy that the sheer unbelievable-ness is functioning like a deterrence to the truth.  They are wealthy enough that the appliance makers, software designers, tech companies are asking them for money and appreciation, not the other way around somehow

- another thing: even if the sheeples are well-hearted, which they cannot, then still we would not be taken care of, as the weak does not take care of the strong, it's always the strong that can take care of anyone below them.  A perfect example of this: dad takes care of mother, mother takes care of children, it's in that order, a child does not give guidance to the mother about career choices neither could they even if wanted to.  What this I've said tells us this principle: for any balance of economy, a disproportionate wealth gathered to the best would always result in fair income as the best are able to identify what's wrong and distribute accordingly, also are able to look after others.  While a disproportionate wealth to the least would always result in the perputualization of imbalance



''''''