Could I have been saying it wrong?
   By PaulC

Tal and greetings,

As I sit here and read the postings and the arguments from my original post from a while ago and I am thinking to myself, “ Hmmmm, Where did I go wrong in trying to give you an understanding of my thoughts?” I read how wrong I am and how far from the truth I am and how I missed the mark. All of you have valid points and I’m not an arrogant cuss nor I won’t say I am absolute.

Still, I have to say, I continue to see the relevance of what I was trying to get across to all of you. Let’s start with the phrase “social outcast”, is it such a bad thing? No, not really. But that, let me ask you a question, would most of the people that you work with understand how you live? Or why? Could they live your lifestyle? While we seem to be able to function fairly well in the standard society, could that same society survive in our lifestyle? Perhaps social outcast is the wrong words; perhaps the words better used are socially diverse. Personally, I consider us a bit supreme to our society. We are trying to live two standards in one. We are attempting to uphold our beliefs and views while trying to maintain a standard that is placed before us in the general society.

Children, here is another issue. Our planet is over populated, our resources are over extended, our streets are not safe, and our economy is insolvent. We, as a culture and society would be ill advised to continue to pro-create at the rate that we are. We have entire continental regions that cannot feed its people, or are so diseased that the children of the region have a one in four chance of surviving until their 5th birthday. That, to me, is a travesty to our race. Should we continue to have children at such a pace when we can’t feed the one’s that are already here? Here is the sadder issue, we COULD feed all those children, but we that live in one culture do not feel that we are responsible to care for those of another.

We are split into three classes as nations. First World, those that have the power and strength to influence all others around us, to influence the way other nations do business, educate and have the ability to set political agenda. Second World, those that have the economic ability to do business with the First, and those that are directly influenced by the First. And then there is the Third World, those that have more then most other nations, they have more hunger, more death by disease, more death by poor living conditions; they have more of what we, on average, will never have to deal with.

Tell me this; would any of you consider living in conditions half as bad as those in Niger, Nicaragua or even India? Tell me how a society such as ours would allow for so much suffering? Why is it that so many must go without, while we few have so much? And how do we justify this? Tell me is our society so right?

Perhaps if we tried to live the type of society that is written in the books of Gor, maybe, just maybe, there wouldn’t be so much hunger, so much suffering, so much pestilence. The description of Gor’s social structure shows us that while nothing came easy for anyone, everyone had a place and position, no body went without. Not such a bad idea, eh?

And if all this came to pass, maybe again, we as a race would know what honor truly was.

I wish you all well,

PaulC