Fox Racing Releases New Line Of Maternity ATV Gear

pixel skylines

Andulka
EXPECTATIONS
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open

oozey mess
KIROKAZE

gracie abrams

@theartofmadeline
Cosimo Galluzzi

Kiana Khansmith
No title available

bliss lane
Today's Document
h

Game Changer & Make Some Noise
YOU ARE THE REASON
Cosmic Funnies

ellievsbear

izzy's playlists!
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Brazil

seen from Türkiye

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States

seen from Kosovo

seen from Malaysia
seen from France

seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Mexico

seen from United States

seen from Malaysia
@kaptain-narhwal-the-autonomous
Fox Racing Releases New Line Of Maternity ATV Gear
HELP IM SITTING AT THE BARBERSHOP AND THE LORAX NOTICED ME TAKING PICS
Top 10 Photos Taken Seconds Before Disaster
I used to think:
I used to think that the highest level of existing was in an objectively moral state. Meaning, that every approach you took to life should be spent not on what you thought was moral or true, but instead what proved to exist outside your own subjectivity, as well as any other alternative realm of the same. But after a few years of wandering down this path, something has revealed itself to me:
true objectivity can only be found in the surrendering of your own identity.
To be honest to a true middle path, you must give your entire self over to no path. You have to desire nothing. You cannot form opinion. There can be no justification of self, leading to the lack of self all together. Is this true morality? A middle way?
Let’s talk it out a bit. How about a specific moral topic. In this case: gun rights.
One side points to statistics, denoting the obvious amount of destruction that guns bring to society. Regardless what you believe the solution is, there is a recognition that there is a vast amount of violence caused by barely controlled gun regulations.
The other side believes that it is their constitutional right to arm themselves. Not only that, but they provide connotation to the statistics mentioning that criminals would illegally own guns regardless of laws, so it is now also their own priority to have a gun in order to protect themselves, and their families, from the growing statistic of violence.
What can be the objective moral solution inside of this argument?
Perhaps it should be in the total eradication of weapons. That would effectively lead to less violence, right? But doing so would also leave others vulnerable, break constitutional rights, and rid the American people of their defense from their government.
Well then, maybe the answer is to allow guns to be made available just as much as they are now. But that doesn’t stop the growing trend of violence, does it? It cannot be moral to allow for the continuation of distribution of guns knowing that they might end up in the wrong hands.
I think it’s fair to say that neither side can be objectively right in this issue.
Ok. So, where is objective truth? Is there a middle way? Maybe just a more controlled application processes? Yeah, but that still infringes on rights though, and guns end up being as prevalent as they were before. (Not to mention the rampant racism that these “regulations” would maintain)
How then, can we remain objective but maintain a moral conscious?
If you were to be objectively moral regarding this issue, you would have to abstain from forming an opinion about it. It is in a sense an example of polarity/absolutes. Regardless of the decision it will be opposite of another, while also withholding it’s own wrongness. There is no middle way here.
This same line of thinking pervades every other political and moral dilemma. The only objective answer can be no answer. So isn’t that the one we should choose to be most correct?
Obviously not.
Choosing nothing leads only to a lack of self. It is a slow descent into depression.
You must recognize that you, are in fact, you. Within yourself, you are omnipresent. You cannot be anyone else, and you can’t hide from who you are. So neither should you be ashamed of where you lie on a social scale. Perhaps this moral objectivity is not in finding a “right” answer in the divergence of two schools of thoughts, but instead an understanding of the alternative to your own.
Objective truth is not finding the right answer, but instead responding to all answers with love.
What if… that was the objectively moral truth? Love. A simple, but poignant answer. It covers a multitude of issue and knows no bounds. How can you be wrong if it is your by your own volition that you can be yourself, but love even those who don’t agree with you?
What if love wasn’t just for those who you agreed with? Maybe the higher calling to life… is just that simple. Wouldn’t that be delightful?
Be yourself, but love others more than who you are.
Isaiah 9:6-7
vertical / square
THE LOCAL NEWS WAS TALKING ABOUT ROGUE ONE AND THE POSTER THEY USED HAS JAR JAR PHOTOSHOPPED ONTO ALL OF THE CHARACTERS
Art by Déborah Maradan
Browse more curated art
So Super Awesome is also on Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest
Jasper, Alberta // Tom Parker
Kyle Houck
(via alimaashfaq)