Fundamental Problems connected with Reality, Existence, Knowledge, Values, Reason, Mind, Language

Dec 2018
What are some basic fundamental problems connected to/with our reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason(ings), mind and language?


The 'chick' should never assume that it is a hen or a rooster.

Persons should never assume that their parents or 'peers' should, 'do it/be as', a 'certain' way.

Each family has their own private rights on how to raise their children in their homes while living lawfully with/to Community 'laws'.

Then what about 'domestic abuse'?

What if a 'parent' beats upon another member in the household but is lawful to Community 'laws'?

Since the 'beating' has/is already occurred/occurring, and because their 'rights' were still not infringed upon, the next step could be taken. But unless any Authority is made aware of this 'beating', nothing will or could get done.

So the child is taken into 'custody', per se. Is it infringement that the child was taken away?

What does the Community 'law' say in regards to Guardianship(s) over minors?

Guardianship Law and Legal Definition. A guardianship is a legal relationship created when a person or institution named in a will or assigned by the court to take care of minor children or incompetent adults. ... In some courts, a guardian may be reimbursed for attorney fees related to the guardianship.

Guardianship Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

The term "guardian" may also refer to someone who is appointed to care for and/or handle the affairs of a person who is incompetent or incapable of administering his/her affairs. Guardians must not benefit at the expense of those they care for (wards), and in many cases are required to make accountings to the court on a periodic basis. In some courts, a guardian may be reimbursed for attorney fees related to the guardianship. Court rules regarding accountings of expenses and requirements of guardians vary and local court rules should be consulted.

Legal guardians are individuals that have legal authority to care for another person. The individual being cared for is called a ward. Legal guardians must take care of their ward's personal and property interests.

Legal guardianship is commonly used for:

Legal guardians for minors are the most common guardianship. A legal guardian acts as the primary caretaker of a child or minor. This person may be personally selected by the child’s biological parents, or appointed by the court. Guardianship arrangements are necessary when a child's biological parents are unable to provide care.

What Are the Rights and Duties of a Legal Guardian?

Becoming a legal guardian involves many different legal rights and duties. A legal guardian generally has the right to make legal decisions on behalf of the child. These can include decisions, such as where to live, where to send the child to school, and other important aspects.

Responsibilities of a legal guardian are also broad. In most cases, the legal guardian also has legal and physical custody of the child. This means that they must fulfill duties in the same way as a parent would for their child. These responsibilities may include:

  • Providing food
  • Purchasing clothing
  • Providing shelter for the child
  • Maintaining the child’s physical and emotional health
  • Protecting the child from safety hazards
What Is a Legal Guardian? | LegalMatch Law Library

Legal guardian. Most countries and states have laws that provide that the parents of a minor child are the legal guardians of that child, and that the parents may designate who shall become the child's legal guardian in the event of death, typically subject to the approval of the court.

Legal guardian - Wikipedia

So how is 'abuse' from a natural guardian or legal guardian to a minor or a spouse in the home 'lawful' or 'unlawful' that local Laws either prohibits or condones and/or 'finds' punishable by 'law'?

For example:

Hawaii has NO open blade law. It has no 'blade' length law. It has no 'concealed/unconcealed' law. All blades except the 'dagger-like' blade and the 'filipino 'balisong'' 'knives/blades' are legal and there are NO laws pertaining to their length, concealment or carrying.

Well, i thought that the 'dagger like' blade was illegal but i guess I was wrong... It is the switchblade that is illegal. You cannot 'conceal' a 'dagger like' blade.

Knife laws in Hawaii can be a little tricky. This guide will teach you the knife law in an easy to understand manner. It will present excerpts of the law as well as case precedence.
  • It is legal to own Bowie knives and other large knives.
  • It is legal to own throwing stars and throwing knives.
  • It is legal to own disguised knives like belt knives, lipstick knives, and push knives.
  • It is legal to own undetectable knives (knives that won’t set off metal detectors).
  • It is legal to own dirks, daggers, and stilettos.

  • It is illegal to own balisong knives.
  • It is illegal to own switchblades
Only balisongs and switchblades are banned in Hawaii. Any other type of knife is legal.
  • You can open carry any knife.
  • You can not conceal carry dirks, daggers and knives similar to that.
  • You can not conceal carry knives with knuckles like some WWI trench knives.
  • You can conceal any other type of knife.
HRS § 134-51 (2012)​
§ 134-51. Deadly weapons; prohibitions; penalty.​
(a) Any person, not authorized by law, who carries concealed upon the person’s self or within any vehicle used or occupied by the person or who is found armed with any dirk, dagger, blackjack, slug shot, billy, metal knuckles, pistol, or other deadly or dangerous weapon shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be immediately arrested without warrant by any sheriff, police officer, or other officer or person. Any weapon, above enumerated, upon conviction of the one carrying or possessing it under this section, shall be summarily destroyed by the chief of police or sheriff.​
(b) Whoever knowingly possesses or intentionally uses or threatens to use a deadly or dangerous weapon while engaged in the commission of a crime shall be guilty of a class C felony.​
Hawaii Knife Law - Knife Up

Hawaii Felony Crimes by Class and Sentences
Last edited:
Dec 2018
Does Hawaii have 'civil obligations'?

A person acts recklessly if “he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause” the injury. In other words, a person is reckless when he is aware (or should be aware) that his actions will cause the injury, but he just doesn’t care. A person can be convicted of second-degree assault for reckless conduct that causes either serious or substantial bodily injury. (Of course, as explained above, deliberately causing serious bodily injury will result in a first-degree assault charge.)

(Haw. Rev. Stat. § § 702-206, 707-711.)

Felony Assault Laws in Hawaii

'A person can' commit second-degree assault by either intentionally or knowingly causing a “substantial bodily injury” to a victim. In other words, a person must want to cause the injury. Such an injury is less severe than the “serious bodily injury” called for by first-degree assault, but goes beyond the simple pain or impairment of a mere “bodily injury” that will support a misdemeanor charge.

(Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-711.)

Hawaii defines substantial bodily injury as bodily injury which causes:

  • a major abrasion, laceration, or penetration of the skin
  • a burn of at least second degree severity
  • a bone fracture
  • a serious concussion, or
  • a tearing, rupture, or corrosive damage to the esophagus, viscera, or other internal organs.
(Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-700.)

Assault in the first degree is the most serious assault crime because it applies to the most severe injuries, and also requires that the defendant intended to cause the injuries. To commit first-degree assault, a person must intentionally or knowingly cause serious bodily injury to another person.

(Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-710.)

Serious bodily injury
In Hawaii, serious bodily injury means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. Examples of serious bodily injury include prolonged or permanent loss of eyesight, extensive facial injuries requiring multiple surgeries, and severe scarring.

(Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-700.)

Acting intentionally or knowingly
To secure a conviction of assault in the first degree, a prosecutor must also prove that the defendant acted knowingly or intentionally. Basically, this means showing that the defendant wanted or intended to cause the serious injury. Similarly, a person acts knowingly if he knows that it's almost certain that his conduct will cause the injury.

(Haw. Rev. Stat. § 702-206.)

Provocation refers to something that incites or provokes; a means of arousing or stirring to action. In criminal law, provocation is a possible defense by excuse or exculpation alleging a sudden or temporary loss of control as a response to another's provocative conduct sufficient to justify an acquittal, a mitigated sentence or a conviction for a lesser charge. It is a defense in a divorce case based upon physical violence, verbal abuse, or other course of conduct on the part of the plaintiff likely to lead to retaliation by the defendant, thereby inducing the conduct of the defendant complained of as a ground of divorce.

Provocation Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

In law, provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable person to lose self control. This makes them less morally culpable than if the act was premeditated (pre-planned) and done out of pure malice (malice aforethought).[1][2] It "affects the quality of the actor's state of mind as an indicator of moral blameworthiness".[1]

Provocation is often a mitigating factor in sentencing. It rarely serves as a legal defense, meaning it does not stop the defendant from being guilty of the crime. It may however, lead to a lesser punishment. In some common law legal systems, provocation is a "partial defence" for murder charges, which can result in the offense being classified as the lesser offense of manslaughter, specifically voluntary manslaughter.[3]

Provocation is distinct from self-defense in that self-defense is a legal defense, and refers to a justifiable action to protect oneself from imminent violence.

Provocation (legal) - Wikipedia

Intentional and Unintentional Provocations.

How would/could 'provocations' be seen as intentional or unintentional/non intended? How could/would attorneys find justifications for intentionality or non intentionality to the provocations?

not honoring a 'request' of stopping a 'provocation'.

asking, asking, asking for a 'provocation' to stop but not having the provocation stop or be abated in small contained confines.

Microaggressionisms: intended to provoke or not intended to provoke?

Is speaking about any 'group' in a 'negative' light, provocation?
Is speaking about any 'group' in a 'positive' light, provocation?

Is speaking 'highly' of an opposing 'group' of a certain opposite 'group', provocation?

Is speaking highly of Communism in a Democratic Republic, provocation?
Is speaking highly of Democrat Republicanism in a Communism, provocation?

Is speaking against Islam in an Islamic Country/Place/commune, provocation?

The same to 'majority' grouped 'places' such as majority single ethniced/raced Communites; Chinatown for example.

Is speaking against the majority of the U.S, being 'white' at over 71%, a provocation?

Total Population: (2010): 308,745,538 100.0% (2000): 281,421,906 100.0%
White (2010): 196,817,552 63.7% (2000) 211,460,626 75.1%

Population of the United States by Race and Hispanic/Latino Origin, Census 2000 and July 1, 2005

Is speaking against a group within the majority group a provocation to the whole group?

Could this show some 'benefits/advantages' of allowing for 'race' groups to be responsible for/of/over things of theirselves/themselves rather than being overly 'intermingled' with other 'races'?

Although a certain 'race' could be the 'majority' it does not mean that it is the entirety. Certain other 'races' might desire/want/choose/decide to do things 'differently' within their own 'race' dealings/handlings/judging(s)/executing(s), etc....

Is it provocation to deny them these 'rights'? Or... is it 'infringement' to deny them these 'rights'?

Or should the 'lesser' serve the 'greater'; the 'minority' serve the 'majority' by receiving of the majorities way(s) within their own minority 'group/race'?

Just a question:

If this was to occur, would it be okay if a certain 'minority' race, which was governing theirselves/themselves to theirselves/themselves, passed 'judgments' in an opposite viewpoint than how/what the 'majority' race was? In regards to family/home/neighborhood/values/ethics/morals, etc....

Or could/would their 'judgments' be seen as inhumane?

And now onto the other aspects. Church. Should Churches also be allowed to be 'self' governing to their own by their own and not in 'unity' with the other Churches of the other 'races'?

In other words, do members of any Church have 'rights' to be kept/led/remained within any Church which might be 'contrary' to The Holy Texts they attend that particular Church for?
Last edited:
Dec 2018
In other words, does the buddhist in that particular church have the right to be kept/led/remained within that particular church if that church is teaching/informing contrary to the Holy texts that particular church uses and establishes up?

Or is it assumed that each 'race' is only of 1 'faith'?

Are there no 'white' buddhist adherents?
Are there no 'asian' Christian adherents?

So would it be okay that an 'asian' Christian from the 'asian' race Church to speak to/regarding a Church in another 'raced' majoritied place but not cause an offense? And would it be okay for a 'white' Buddhist from the 'white' race Church to speak to/regarding a Church in another 'raced' majoritied place but not cause an offense, if it pertains to the Holy texts they use in 'common'?

Or is each 'faith' only of/for/to only 1 'race'?

And would these individual 'places' be allowed to judge the other 'Churches' within their places according to their own 'race' morals/ethics/values as they would see justifiable without needing to fear any outside Jurisprudence?

Could/would an Asian 'community' under its own values/morals/ethics, etc.. be allowed to 'judge' other(s), including Church(es), within their own 'territories'? And if the 'leaders' in this community thought it permissible to have 'certain' persons within it, would these persons have agreed to be 'under' the Jurisprudence of that 'community' with its own values/morals/ethics/judgments, etc???

If I enter into a 'territory/jurisdiction' ruled by a certain 'race' and if that 'race' was of an open minded 'drug culture', would I be held responsible to keep to their set(s) of rules and laws as far as ethics, values, morals and others are concerned if I choose to remain in that place? Would I have 'rights' to personal safety if such a place did not regard attacks to others' personal safety as offensive?

If it is a violation to speak contrary to the 'given' writings in Saudi Arabia, could it also be justified to be wrong in a U.S 'race' territory, where it is of a certain 'race', ruled by that certain 'race' for that certain 'race', to speak contrary to anything 'given' in the 'drug culture' territory and can there be a thing as a 'race' ruled territory based on 'drug' usage?

Just as there are 'gay districts'; such as the Castro District in San Francisco, which is ruled by the 'race' to the 'race' by their own set of morals, ethics, values, etc... could such a 'district' exist, or can such a drug cultured city or 'territory' which would have 'rule' to/of/by their own exist in a U.S State?

Or is the 'intermingling' a better way of looking at it or wanting it?

Because if the 'drug culture' should not have their own territory/rule to their own/by their own/for their own, and if they should be within other Jurisdictions then it is how it is now. And if it is how it is now, then is it the responsibility of the others in those places to find residence elsewhere if they should not desire/choose to remain under such Jurisdictions where the 'drug culture' lives and exists within?

So regardless.. There is the community, there is the 'race' and there is the 'rulers'. Each community being responsible for their own values, ethics, morals and judgments thereof, etc....
Last edited:
Dec 2018
Readers Defend the Rise of the 'Microaggressions' Framework
Correspondents make the case that applying the label to offenses does more good than harm.
Microaggressions and Victimhood Culture - The Atlantic

How Microaggressions Can Wreck Your Business
How Microaggressions Can Wreck Your Business

Are these things causing 'microaggression' to the larger community, by chance?

Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership.

Microaggressions: More than Just Race

first it was wrong to speak against any 'marginalized' group, now it is wrong to speak against majority?

But is it wrong to speak against 'lies'?

If yes, then that is one thing. If no, then that is another.

The example with Dr. LeVay's findings that there is a certain 'place' in the brain which is 'configured' a little differently from others which causes a person to have the genetic disposition, such as green eyes or blue eyes, for them to be of a certain sexual orientation.

Is Dr. LeVay's findings trustworthy enough to stand on the claims that a person is genetically pre-dispositioned to be 'born' that way?

yes? no?

"LeVay openly related his research to his own homosexuality and to his mourning over his lover's death from AIDS."

However "[Dr.] LeVay cautioned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. The INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior."

Simon LeVay - Wikipedia

So would speaking against the rumored report that Dr. LeVay found a reason, scientifically, for a person to be of a certain orientation, whether it be 'gay' or 'straight', be wrong?

Or are persons more interested in 'enjoying' their life more than/rather than receiving the 'truths'?
Last edited: