Principle 3: Presume that the images and words you use are universally understood, and accepted.
If the person to whom I am speaking does not understand me, then it's my fault. It's my responsibility, as the transmitter to communicate the message in a way that is acceptable to the ears (and hopefully the brain) of the receiver. (It's the same theory as digital radio!) This doesn't mean I change the message: it doesn't require a dumbing down, nor does it result in a patronising tone that 'talks down'.
Communication of any sort requires a sensitivity to, and engagement with, the language, beliefs, values, ideas and priorities (the culture) of the receiver. But communicating cross-culturally requires all this plus imagination and effort - it demands a seeking after dynamic equivalents. That is, identifying images or forms that will carry the meaning of the message in a way that is both acceptable to, understandable by, and representative of the other culture - without destroying the original intention of the message, (which was also presented within a specific culture and context).
It is sheer arrogance and selfishness to demand that a receiver put aside their individuality (all that makes them unique) so that they can understand my message and before they can be acceptable to my community.
The burden of relevance is mine as the transmitter: I must take the time to understand the receiver as an individual, a person worth knowing; I must make the effort to be creative and imaginative: then I can know that I have communicated with integrity and with passion. Then I can know that I have delivered the message - the response is not mine to control!
Monday, 24 August 2009
Thursday, 13 August 2009
Inaugral World Humanitarian Day - August 19, 2009
Established by the General Assembly (GA) of the United Nations in December 2008, 19 August 2009 is the first World Humanitarian Day. The designation of the Day is a way to increase public understanding of humanitarian assistance activities worldwide. The Day also aims to honour humanitarian workers who have lost their lives or been injured in the course of their work. The General Assembly invites all countries, the entities of the UN system and international and non-governmental organizations to observe the day annually in an appropriate manner.Why 19 August? Six years ago, on 19 August 2003, the United Nations Office in Iraq was bombed and 22 people lost their lives. Among them was Sergio Vieira de Mello, at that time the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to Iraq. While there have been many other fatal incidents involving humanitarian personnel the General Assembly decided to use the anniversary of this incident as World Humanitarian Day.
What is planned? - For 2009 the Day will have three areas of focus:
- To draw attention to humanitarian needs worldwide;
- To acknowledge the ongoing work of humanitarian staff around the globe;
- To honour those who have lost their lives in humanitarian service.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Principles of Cross-Cultural Communication (#2)
Principle 2: If you don't understand a persons actions or behaviour - ridicule them: their religion, their culture, their language.
Australians are amongst the best at making jokes out of everything. When we are sad, mad, confused, frustrated or just plain apathetic we turn an event into a joke, and often a bad one! When Steve Irwin died jokes about stingrays where heard within hours, and during the bush fires of Black Saturday people told jokes about fires, firefighters and black stumps.
When we hurt, when we are unsure, when we don't understand we ridicule: and most Australians understand - it's who we are, it's part of our culture.
But that's not the way all cultures work. In fact in many cultures that are represented in our society 'saving face' is valued above all. The idea of being ridiculed, or ridiculing another in public is not only embarrassing, but offensive. And therein lies a problem for the person who is trying to communicate an important and life transforming message.
Too often rather than make the effort to understand what makes the Other tick, (what they value, what they believe, how they communicate) we expect them to act and behave as we do - we expect them not only to speak our language, but absorb our values and communicate our way. We assume they should just know and accept the rules of our culture as if by some kind of cultural osmosis. And when they don't, and we are unsure of where to go, we either ridicule them, their insecurity and their uncertainty, or we walk away.
Taking the time to understand culture - what makes another tick - must be the first step in effective cross-cultural communication, after that is when the real fun begins.
Australians are amongst the best at making jokes out of everything. When we are sad, mad, confused, frustrated or just plain apathetic we turn an event into a joke, and often a bad one! When Steve Irwin died jokes about stingrays where heard within hours, and during the bush fires of Black Saturday people told jokes about fires, firefighters and black stumps.
When we hurt, when we are unsure, when we don't understand we ridicule: and most Australians understand - it's who we are, it's part of our culture.
But that's not the way all cultures work. In fact in many cultures that are represented in our society 'saving face' is valued above all. The idea of being ridiculed, or ridiculing another in public is not only embarrassing, but offensive. And therein lies a problem for the person who is trying to communicate an important and life transforming message.
Too often rather than make the effort to understand what makes the Other tick, (what they value, what they believe, how they communicate) we expect them to act and behave as we do - we expect them not only to speak our language, but absorb our values and communicate our way. We assume they should just know and accept the rules of our culture as if by some kind of cultural osmosis. And when they don't, and we are unsure of where to go, we either ridicule them, their insecurity and their uncertainty, or we walk away.
Taking the time to understand culture - what makes another tick - must be the first step in effective cross-cultural communication, after that is when the real fun begins.
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
Principles of Cross-Cultural Communication
Principle 1: If a person cannot understand your language - speak the same words louder and slower - and if that fails - shout at them!
I live and work in an excitingly (culturally and ethnically) diverse corner of Australia. In the space of a five minute walk I hear numerous languages spoken, see signs in as many scripts, pass shops selling unrecognisable (and secret) goods and smell foods that have the ability to simultaneously test the gag reflex or stimulate the saliva glands.
Lot's of good food too - on any given day I might go to China, then Sri Lanka, Portugal, Vietnam, Greece, Turkey, India, Italy, Mongolia, Uzbekistan... Preston is a great place to live.
This colourful mosaic of culture brings with it exciting challenges for me. Let's assume I have the right to engage people in dialogue on a deeper level than the menu, (which is another topic). How do I make relevant and attractive: what I do, the reason I do it, and the relationship that drives it, without resorting to the tried and true methods of paternalism, or tokenism?
As I waited in line at the bank I saw one method of communication. A young woman who was obviously nervous about her transaction was trying to withdraw some of her money, but the teller must have been having a bad day. When it became obvious that the young woman was not understanding the teller repeated the same phrase louder and slower until she was practically shouting at the woman.
What makes us think that if a person doesn't understand our language that shouting louder and slower will make a difference? (And let's be honest we all do it!) Maybe we need to find new ways of communicating. We have an amazingly important message - let's find ways of communicating that offer the hearer respect and rather than scaring them off the premises, eases their fears, shows them acceptance and empowers them to try again.
I live and work in an excitingly (culturally and ethnically) diverse corner of Australia. In the space of a five minute walk I hear numerous languages spoken, see signs in as many scripts, pass shops selling unrecognisable (and secret) goods and smell foods that have the ability to simultaneously test the gag reflex or stimulate the saliva glands.
Lot's of good food too - on any given day I might go to China, then Sri Lanka, Portugal, Vietnam, Greece, Turkey, India, Italy, Mongolia, Uzbekistan... Preston is a great place to live.
This colourful mosaic of culture brings with it exciting challenges for me. Let's assume I have the right to engage people in dialogue on a deeper level than the menu, (which is another topic). How do I make relevant and attractive: what I do, the reason I do it, and the relationship that drives it, without resorting to the tried and true methods of paternalism, or tokenism?
As I waited in line at the bank I saw one method of communication. A young woman who was obviously nervous about her transaction was trying to withdraw some of her money, but the teller must have been having a bad day. When it became obvious that the young woman was not understanding the teller repeated the same phrase louder and slower until she was practically shouting at the woman.
What makes us think that if a person doesn't understand our language that shouting louder and slower will make a difference? (And let's be honest we all do it!) Maybe we need to find new ways of communicating. We have an amazingly important message - let's find ways of communicating that offer the hearer respect and rather than scaring them off the premises, eases their fears, shows them acceptance and empowers them to try again.
Monday, 27 July 2009
A recent publication across my desk reminded me of an article I wrote in June 2006 in response to the suggestion that Christians are the Light in the Darkness. It appears that in yet another publication...
"The colonial [religio-arrogant] mentality of the Christian taking God to the barbarians still prevails. We may not say it, we definitely don’t write it, [although this time we have, in black and red] but underlying the motivation of our giving, and our going, is that belief that we are both the light and living in the light, and our duty is to save those in who live in darkness.
"How arrogant can we be? Is it not possible that God already exists in that which we label darkness? Is it not possible that God reveals Godself to all people, regardless of religion, ethnicity and colour? Could it be that 'everything was created through God; nothing - not one thing! - came into being without him. What came into existence was Life, and the Life was Light to live by. The Life-Light [God] blazed out of the darkness.’ (The Bible: John 1:3-4 The Message)
"Is it possible that we do not always recognise the fact that the Light shines on in the darkness because we are measuring the Light by our own predetermined set of rules and biases?
"Our responsibility is not to take God into that which we call darkness. God is already there, and the darkness has never, and can never, overpower the Light (John 1:5). Our role is to find the ways in which the Light is already being revealed by asking God to open our eyes and having helped us recognise the Creator’s continuing engagement, to become partners in God’s revelations. It will involve us putting aside our constrictive assumptions of God and rather than being lecturers, becoming listeners and learners as well as contributors.
"The colonial [religio-arrogant] mentality of the Christian taking God to the barbarians still prevails. We may not say it, we definitely don’t write it, [although this time we have, in black and red] but underlying the motivation of our giving, and our going, is that belief that we are both the light and living in the light, and our duty is to save those in who live in darkness.
"How arrogant can we be? Is it not possible that God already exists in that which we label darkness? Is it not possible that God reveals Godself to all people, regardless of religion, ethnicity and colour? Could it be that 'everything was created through God; nothing - not one thing! - came into being without him. What came into existence was Life, and the Life was Light to live by. The Life-Light [God] blazed out of the darkness.’ (The Bible: John 1:3-4 The Message)
"Is it possible that we do not always recognise the fact that the Light shines on in the darkness because we are measuring the Light by our own predetermined set of rules and biases?
"Our responsibility is not to take God into that which we call darkness. God is already there, and the darkness has never, and can never, overpower the Light (John 1:5). Our role is to find the ways in which the Light is already being revealed by asking God to open our eyes and having helped us recognise the Creator’s continuing engagement, to become partners in God’s revelations. It will involve us putting aside our constrictive assumptions of God and rather than being lecturers, becoming listeners and learners as well as contributors.
Monday, 20 July 2009
What Profit in Your Prayers?
I WAS HUNGRY:
and you set going a humanisitc association,
and you discussed my hunger.
Thank you.
I WAS NAKED:
and in your mind you debated
the morality of my appearance.
I WAS SICK:
and you knelt and thanked God
for your health.
I WAS HOMELESS:
and you preached to me
of the spiritual shelter of the love of God.
I WAS LONELY:
and you left me alone
to pray for me.
You seem so holy,
so close to God.
But I am still hungry and lonesome, so cold.
So where have your prayers gone?
What does it profit a man
to page through his book of prayers
when the rest of the world
is crying for his help?
and you set going a humanisitc association,
and you discussed my hunger.
Thank you.
I WAS NAKED:
and in your mind you debated
the morality of my appearance.
I WAS SICK:
and you knelt and thanked God
for your health.
I WAS HOMELESS:
and you preached to me
of the spiritual shelter of the love of God.
I WAS LONELY:
and you left me alone
to pray for me.
You seem so holy,
so close to God.
But I am still hungry and lonesome, so cold.
So where have your prayers gone?
What does it profit a man
to page through his book of prayers
when the rest of the world
is crying for his help?
Friday, 10 July 2009
CLIMBING MOUNTAIN DEO
Once all the people of the world were one, they lived, they cried, they laughed and they died together - all in the shadow of Mount Deo. But when selfish ambition and greed were released from their prison people became suspicious of one another, they sought division rather than communion, and they ignored the shadow of Mount Deo.
Humanity planted new villages and towns in the valleys and plains surrounding Mount Deo. In all directions they dispersed around the Mount: to the East, the West, the South and the North they fought and claimed land as their own. They developed new rules of living, new laws of life and they sought to find new paths to climb the mountain.
For many years suspicion fed jealousy and people allowed xenophobic hedges to grow. Every now and then the people would attack one another - accusing each other of cultural, moral and religious superiority. Tolerance and acceptance in the face of diversity are hard won today, in the shadow of Mount Deo.
But, despite the inherent distrust and suspicion of all others, there existed a kernel of hope. Suspicion and greed could not completely destroy the power of friend - and from the villages in the shadow of Mount Deo four friends met: they ate, they laughed, they cried - and they hoped.
They hoped for a time when once again, the people in the shadow of Mount Deo would honour and respect one another; they prayed for a time when diversity would not divide but unite; and they longed for an era that would be defined by acceptance in the face of difference.
From the vantage point in their villages, Hameed, Isaac, Daryl and Yun stared with eyes of hope at the summit of Mount Deo. Hameed looked east and saw the sun rise above the peak, Isaac looked north and watched the shadow slowly shrink, Daryl gazed west as the side of the mountain was lost in darkness and Yun stared to the south as the shadow cast by the rising sun changed the shapes on the face of the slope.
The friends stared in awe at the same Mountain - and yet, as each of them had named it differently, so too the summit and the path to it, appeared different. Each of them imagined a different journey. Each of them plotted a unique path to the summit - yet each of them longed for the same goal - the Summit of Mount Deo.
___
Is it possible that the Cartographer has mapped multiple paths to Summit Deo and that humanity, in its division and diversity has named them in their own language? Is there a hope that the climb, though by different paths, and the reaching of the summit, though by different light are more important than the name, the language, the division, the dispersal and the past?
Humanity planted new villages and towns in the valleys and plains surrounding Mount Deo. In all directions they dispersed around the Mount: to the East, the West, the South and the North they fought and claimed land as their own. They developed new rules of living, new laws of life and they sought to find new paths to climb the mountain.
For many years suspicion fed jealousy and people allowed xenophobic hedges to grow. Every now and then the people would attack one another - accusing each other of cultural, moral and religious superiority. Tolerance and acceptance in the face of diversity are hard won today, in the shadow of Mount Deo.
But, despite the inherent distrust and suspicion of all others, there existed a kernel of hope. Suspicion and greed could not completely destroy the power of friend - and from the villages in the shadow of Mount Deo four friends met: they ate, they laughed, they cried - and they hoped.
They hoped for a time when once again, the people in the shadow of Mount Deo would honour and respect one another; they prayed for a time when diversity would not divide but unite; and they longed for an era that would be defined by acceptance in the face of difference.
From the vantage point in their villages, Hameed, Isaac, Daryl and Yun stared with eyes of hope at the summit of Mount Deo. Hameed looked east and saw the sun rise above the peak, Isaac looked north and watched the shadow slowly shrink, Daryl gazed west as the side of the mountain was lost in darkness and Yun stared to the south as the shadow cast by the rising sun changed the shapes on the face of the slope.
The friends stared in awe at the same Mountain - and yet, as each of them had named it differently, so too the summit and the path to it, appeared different. Each of them imagined a different journey. Each of them plotted a unique path to the summit - yet each of them longed for the same goal - the Summit of Mount Deo.
___
Is it possible that the Cartographer has mapped multiple paths to Summit Deo and that humanity, in its division and diversity has named them in their own language? Is there a hope that the climb, though by different paths, and the reaching of the summit, though by different light are more important than the name, the language, the division, the dispersal and the past?
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Is Santa Real?
As parents we decided that when our daughter asked if Santa was real we would tell her the truth - that Santa was as 'unreal' as the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. We just didn't think that the question would come before she turned 3! (And let me say that the lifting of the conspiratorial veil of parental secrecy did not spoil the excitement, or anticipation of Christmas, Easter or loosing teeth.)
Our decision was based on the theory that if we told her the truth about these cultural idols then when she asked us if Jesus was real she would know that we were telling the truth - and that not only did God exist but that he was engaged in our living.
It is interesting to me that the issue of 'proof of God' is not just a matter for children. For most, if not all euro-centric theological institutions the priority for the examination of the existence of God is a core subject, and necessarily a priority. Hours are spent researching the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments for God.
This same focus, the revelation and proof of God is reflected in the majority of preaching and teaching from platforms all over the western ('minority') world. We want to have proof that God exists, that there is a supreme being that is in control.
The interesting contrast is that in my experience with Pacific Islanders, Africans and Asians, (and from a theoretical cultural anthropology perspective) the people of the 'majority world' know that God exists. Their priority is not 'proof of God'.
They know that God exists, they have a practical theology that accepts and interacts with the spirit realm. They want a theology of healing, demonisation and poverty. They want to hear about how the God that lives will step into their reality and make a difference - now!
It's not enough to pronounce that God is Real, God is the Answer, or that Jesus is the Reason unless we are willing and able to move beyond the theoretical, cognitive, scientific and rational argument and be jesus in relationship: in love, acceptance, healing, freedom and sharing.
Our decision was based on the theory that if we told her the truth about these cultural idols then when she asked us if Jesus was real she would know that we were telling the truth - and that not only did God exist but that he was engaged in our living.
It is interesting to me that the issue of 'proof of God' is not just a matter for children. For most, if not all euro-centric theological institutions the priority for the examination of the existence of God is a core subject, and necessarily a priority. Hours are spent researching the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments for God.
This same focus, the revelation and proof of God is reflected in the majority of preaching and teaching from platforms all over the western ('minority') world. We want to have proof that God exists, that there is a supreme being that is in control.
The interesting contrast is that in my experience with Pacific Islanders, Africans and Asians, (and from a theoretical cultural anthropology perspective) the people of the 'majority world' know that God exists. Their priority is not 'proof of God'.
They know that God exists, they have a practical theology that accepts and interacts with the spirit realm. They want a theology of healing, demonisation and poverty. They want to hear about how the God that lives will step into their reality and make a difference - now!
It's not enough to pronounce that God is Real, God is the Answer, or that Jesus is the Reason unless we are willing and able to move beyond the theoretical, cognitive, scientific and rational argument and be jesus in relationship: in love, acceptance, healing, freedom and sharing.
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Delayed Gratification
The message came across loud and clear as I watched the TV the other day. Not only do I deserve 'it', but I deserve it now!
There is no doubt that two values that define our generation, and inform our lives are individualism, and immediacy. I take care of myself and at a stretch for 'mine', because I'm worth it. Not only is it all about me, but it should be mine now. Financial, emotional or physical debt is irrelevant, the way my wants affect you is irrelevant - providing I get what I want when I want it.
These same cultural values are reflected in the church. (Proponents find biblical justification for it, but let's face it we could justify anything if we tried hard enough.) There are loud voices crying in the wilderness, demanding individual evangelistic results. They are keeping score, cutting notches in their bibles and arguing that unless I am 'winning souls for Jesus' and doing it now, that I am failing as a Christian. They suggest that a relationship is only worth my time if a salvific result is achieved quickly.
This model of evangelism betrays a selfish agenda - it seems to say more about me than it does about 'others'. It appears to be more about validating me than valuing others. It's more about results at any cost; cheap, quick cultural conversion and a notch in my leather bound study bible.
If this is the model of evangelism to which I am to be held to account then I'm a failure, and I suspect I'm not alone. Lucky for me I don't believe it's Jesus' model (or is that just my justification?). It seems to me that Jesus was in for the duration, the long-haul relationship -not the lightening raid!
There is no doubt that two values that define our generation, and inform our lives are individualism, and immediacy. I take care of myself and at a stretch for 'mine', because I'm worth it. Not only is it all about me, but it should be mine now. Financial, emotional or physical debt is irrelevant, the way my wants affect you is irrelevant - providing I get what I want when I want it.
These same cultural values are reflected in the church. (Proponents find biblical justification for it, but let's face it we could justify anything if we tried hard enough.) There are loud voices crying in the wilderness, demanding individual evangelistic results. They are keeping score, cutting notches in their bibles and arguing that unless I am 'winning souls for Jesus' and doing it now, that I am failing as a Christian. They suggest that a relationship is only worth my time if a salvific result is achieved quickly.
This model of evangelism betrays a selfish agenda - it seems to say more about me than it does about 'others'. It appears to be more about validating me than valuing others. It's more about results at any cost; cheap, quick cultural conversion and a notch in my leather bound study bible.
If this is the model of evangelism to which I am to be held to account then I'm a failure, and I suspect I'm not alone. Lucky for me I don't believe it's Jesus' model (or is that just my justification?). It seems to me that Jesus was in for the duration, the long-haul relationship -not the lightening raid!
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Sri Lanka
Amazing news of cessation of three decades of war, but I can't help feeling some degree of cynicism. Is it really over? Have the most passionate of people really laid down their arms uncinditionally? And regardless of the immediate outcome, what of the cost to Sri Lanka and her people?
And where to from here? I've heard the cries of 'One Nation, One People' but who gets to decide? Will the Tamil (and Moor) minorities actually get a voice in the decisions to come? And what future is there for the thousands of displaced people - those Sinhalese and Tamil people who fought to live and in the process lost homes, family and friends.
In the sprint to create a nation who watches out for the citizens that won't matter?
I don't pretend to understand the complexities that inform a thirty year war. But there are some that have benefitted from the ongoing fighting, there are some that have made their reputation: but I do not believe that it is over for thousands who were, and will be, used as pawns in an essentially greedy and ugly grab for power.
And where to from here? I've heard the cries of 'One Nation, One People' but who gets to decide? Will the Tamil (and Moor) minorities actually get a voice in the decisions to come? And what future is there for the thousands of displaced people - those Sinhalese and Tamil people who fought to live and in the process lost homes, family and friends.
In the sprint to create a nation who watches out for the citizens that won't matter?
I don't pretend to understand the complexities that inform a thirty year war. But there are some that have benefitted from the ongoing fighting, there are some that have made their reputation: but I do not believe that it is over for thousands who were, and will be, used as pawns in an essentially greedy and ugly grab for power.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
WELCOMING STRANGERS
The issue of assylum seekers and their journey through Indonesia in the hope of finding safety and hope in Australia (and New Zealand) is one that continues to dominate the media and political agenda. Images of fishing trawlers burning and survivors in bandages perpetuate the emotive agenda of refugee advocates, whilst political speak of security and economy drive politicians on both sides to call for another discussion – to build a better, cleaner way to welcome (approved and limited) strangers.
Our leaders tell us that the main issue is the “scum of the earth” (Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, AAP) that profit from the transport of assylum seekers, not the refugees. Apparently, providing a person fits within the United Nations category of refugee, and meets the requirements of entry into our ‘lucky country’, we are ready and willing to welcome them! But, those people smugglers, “they should rot in hell”. (K Rudd)
So why don’t we circumvent the people smugglers? Why don’t we put a fence around the cliff instead of a screaming ambulance on Ashmore Reef?
I know this is hugely simplistic, but surely the establishment of a refugee assessment / processing unit (with the approval and partnership of the Indonesian government) on the ground in Indonesia would be a better use of finance, not to mention it would remove the client base from the privateers (or is that pirates) that would trade on the desperation of hope-driven humanity. This refugee assessment centre could conceivably accept (or return) and transport personnel from Indonesia cheaper than protecting borders, salvaging ships and hospitalising asylum seekers. And again, it has the potential to remove the people smugglers from the scene – after all they’re the problem.
Our leaders tell us that the main issue is the “scum of the earth” (Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, AAP) that profit from the transport of assylum seekers, not the refugees. Apparently, providing a person fits within the United Nations category of refugee, and meets the requirements of entry into our ‘lucky country’, we are ready and willing to welcome them! But, those people smugglers, “they should rot in hell”. (K Rudd)
So why don’t we circumvent the people smugglers? Why don’t we put a fence around the cliff instead of a screaming ambulance on Ashmore Reef?
I know this is hugely simplistic, but surely the establishment of a refugee assessment / processing unit (with the approval and partnership of the Indonesian government) on the ground in Indonesia would be a better use of finance, not to mention it would remove the client base from the privateers (or is that pirates) that would trade on the desperation of hope-driven humanity. This refugee assessment centre could conceivably accept (or return) and transport personnel from Indonesia cheaper than protecting borders, salvaging ships and hospitalising asylum seekers. And again, it has the potential to remove the people smugglers from the scene – after all they’re the problem.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Killing Crocs
The discussion about killing all the crocs within a certain area in the Northern Territory got me thinking.
Apparently we are going to declare open season on the animals because they have killed a couple of idiots that decided that if they went swimming in croc infested waters they would be safe. Despite all the warnings, the documented stories, the experience of many others over many years and the signs that say "Don't Swim Here" - they believed that it would never happen to them. So society decides, it's not the fault of the idiot but rather the croc.
I wonder what would be said if we applied the same logic to tobacco and alcohol. Perhaps we should cull these 'killers' too, after all they are responsible for the deaths of many more idiots that despite the warnings believe that lung cancer, or liver poisoning, or death as a result of drunk driving will never happen to them.
If it isn't their fault then blame must be laid on the "crocs", mustn't it!
Apparently we are going to declare open season on the animals because they have killed a couple of idiots that decided that if they went swimming in croc infested waters they would be safe. Despite all the warnings, the documented stories, the experience of many others over many years and the signs that say "Don't Swim Here" - they believed that it would never happen to them. So society decides, it's not the fault of the idiot but rather the croc.
I wonder what would be said if we applied the same logic to tobacco and alcohol. Perhaps we should cull these 'killers' too, after all they are responsible for the deaths of many more idiots that despite the warnings believe that lung cancer, or liver poisoning, or death as a result of drunk driving will never happen to them.
If it isn't their fault then blame must be laid on the "crocs", mustn't it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)