Seems they are doing some maintenance tomorrow, got this notification on Friday:

Planned shutdown of the Highlands substation

Residents in the eastern parts of Tshwane are informed about an emergency shutdown of the Highlands substation on Tuesday, 17 September 2019. The shutdown is necessitated by the need to carry out essential maintenance and repair work on the electricity network and components at the substation.

The interruption period will be for 11 hours from 07:00 until 18:00.

 

16 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Wo[Men ] Do Nothing.

I think that oversimplifies things. I saw a movie once, google says it is called "The Confession" though I remember almost none of it, just a small part of the dialogue: It isn't hard to do the right thing. It is hard to KNOW what the right thing is, but once you know... it becomes hard not to do it.

1 hour ago, plonkster said:

I think that oversimplifies things.

Nope, I disagree with you completely. People are over-complicating things today, and more so every day. 
Talk (philosophical) versus money buys the whiskey (wo[man] acting).

1 hour ago, plonkster said:

It isn't hard to do the right thing. It is hard to KNOW what the right thing is, but once you know... it becomes hard not to do it.

Two thoughts on that:
1) We KNOW we must not hurt females / kill people / rape kids ... yet it still happens and seems to be on the increase because the majority is still philosophising on the merits of the matter i.e. the rights of the rapists / murderer and the costs of the court cases, the costs of the jails, which is coming out of our taxes to "give the perpetrators their rights". Rights that they have lost when they acted. 🙂 
2) How would one know until you have acted? Like you can sit and plan but once you action that plan, a lot of new stuff comes out you never thought of. Experience is to KNOW (a little bit more) if you act. So I say: Nike it.

So to that effect, here is a bold idea:
Instead of debating the merits, each person who is caught raping / murdering a wo[man] or a child / baby, the culprit should be put to death in the exact same fashion as they have raped / murder their victim? Agree?

Now I bet you that will get a lot of people very hot under the collar and the debates / arguments will start whilst a complete inaction happens on the current problem getting more people / kids / babies are raped and murdered.

Nike it ... and let's see where that goes for a change because what is going on today ... is NOT working. 

Societies should allow no one to hurt / rape / murder women / kids / babies / old people EVER! It is a sign of a pending collapse in my opinion.

Same as with Eskom, It cannot be fixed unless the ANC acts on the perpetrators ... even if it is their own voters / leadership ... and I say ANC because they need to back their President to do that. EDIT: Another sign in the same society (SA) of a pending collapse.

 

1 hour ago, PaBz0r said:

The interruption period will be for 11 hours from 07:00 until 18:00.

Impressive that they warn people upfront! Respect.

 

Edited September 16, 20196 yr by Guest

9 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

1) We KNOW we must not hurt females / kill people / rape kids ... yet it still happens and seems to be on the increase because the majority is still philosophising on the merits of the matter i.e. the rights of the rapists / murderer and the costs of the court cases, the costs of the jails, which is coming out of our taxes to "give the perpetrators their rights".

I think you are missing the point. The question is: What should a law abiding loving husband who sticks with his family (or otherwise provides for them, didn't leave the woman to fend on her own) do? What should the father who is already teaching his sons to have proper respect do in addition to what he is already doing? What should the man who is already involved in his community, church, etc. do in addition to what he is already doing?

This nation is full of good fathers, people who are already doing their part. A lot of the debate is about what men ought to do, and I admit, I even hinted towards that already by saying this is a male problem. But when I ask about how we KNOW what the right thing is to do, I am not talking about the culprits. I am talking about the good people who are called upon to do more. People like me and you who feels this nonsense must stop. What is the right thing FOR US to do? At the moment I have just one answer: In your own home, continue to be the change you want to see.

I fear that solution will take an awfully long time to get anywhere. But what else? That is the question.

15 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Rights that they have lost when they acted.

Again, is that the right thing to do? I fear people misunderstand what rights are about (and to some extent, that is because we have divorced talk about rights from talk aboit responsibilities, but I digress). All people have the SAME rights, and there are good reasons for doing it this way, and for even including criminals. This thing you hear around the "braaivleisvuur" where someone goes "jaaa, these criminals hey... they have more rights than us!" (insert your best South-of-the-boerewors-gordyn accent)... that is just misguided. But it is also completely understandable: One does feel like all these rights lets people get away with murder. Literally.

Chesterton once wrote that Charity is giving a man something he does not deserve, and Grace is NOT giving a man something he does deserve! I would much rather live in a society that errs on the side of grace... for one day I might be on the wrong side of it not for doing something wrong, but for doing something someone else decided was wrong.

19 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

How would one know until you have acted?

There is this story about a bunch of influential people who decide to take down a lamp post.

Quote

Suppose that a great commotion arises in the street about something, let us say a lamp-post, which many influential persons desire to pull down. A grey-clad monk, who is the spirit of the Middle Ages, is approached upon the matter, and begins to say, in the arid manner of the Schoolmen, “Let us first of all consider, my brethren, the value of Light. If Light be in itself good–” At this point he is somewhat excusably knocked down. All the people make a rush for the lamp-post, the lamp-post is down in ten minutes, and they go about congratulating each other on their unmedieval practicality. But as things go on they do not work out so easily. Some people have pulled the lamp-post down because they wanted the electric light; some because they wanted old iron; some because they wanted darkness, because their deeds were evil. Some thought it not enough of a lamp-post, some too much; some acted because they wanted to smash municipal machinery; some because they wanted to smash something. And there is war in the night, no man knowing whom he strikes. So, gradually and inevitably, to-day, to-morrow, or the next day, there comes back the conviction that the monk was right after all, and that all depends on what is the philosophy of Light. Only what we might have discussed under the gas-lamp, we now must discuss in the dark.

That's why you first decide how and why to act... and then act.

Of course there are times where some kind of immediate action is absolutely necessary. For example, there are many who criticise Bush for actions in the wake of 9/11. There was however something worse he could have done: not acting at all.

5 minutes ago, plonkster said:

I think you are missing the point. The question is: What should a law abiding loving husband who sticks with his family (or otherwise provides for them, didn't leave the woman to fend on her own) do? What should the father who is already teaching his sons to have proper respect do in addition to what he is already doing? What should the man who is already involved in his community, church, etc. do in addition to what he is already doing?

I'm not missing the point. See, this is not a hypothetical scenario, it is a real life crisis.
You ask: What should they do: "They" must speak up when they become aware of a problem in their own family. 🙂 
The question is: 
Will a parent act on her son?
Will a wife act on her husband?
Daughter act on her farther?
Businessmen split on their buddie when they are "entertained" in his million dollar home?
Frat "boys" (they are not men) having some fun at the expense of a "drunk" woman?
Or is it a taboo subject, family first, buddies first, fraternity first ... she is lying / drunk etc?

THAT is where "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Wo[Men] Do Nothing." comes in.
We KNOW it is wrong yet every single day good wo[men] are doing nothing. 

It starts at home as you suggest, by doing THE hardest thing ever, saying NO to a close relative breaking down the soul or a baby / girl / woman / grandma. 🙂 

 

13 minutes ago, plonkster said:

Again, is that the right thing to do?

Yes, it is. You commit a crime, you lose your rights. End of conversation.

 

13 minutes ago, plonkster said:

... for one day I might be on the wrong side of it not for doing something wrong, but for doing something someone else decided was wrong.

No THAT is a very good point, a point I can completely agree with. Goes back to: The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Wo[Men] Do Nothing.
If it is done right, then we SHOULD not have a problem. But the problem is, wo[men], the majority, is too busy scraping together a living to be bothered too much with the "details".

Chesterton, wonder if he would have said the same if he was an abused and raped woman?

 

17 minutes ago, plonkster said:

That's why you first decide how and why to act... and then act.

How can you know all the answers if you have never acted or experienced a situation, or have stopped to act?
But this is not about that. It is about facts we know that are wrong and the inaction around that.

In my mind you are applying philosophical debates and points to a know problem that we ALL KNOW is wrong - no wonder the females are so upset. 🙂 

 

23 minutes ago, plonkster said:

Of course there are times where some kind of immediate action is absolutely necessary. For example, there are many who criticise Bush for actions in the wake of 9/11. There was however something worse he could have done: not acting at all.

Conversely, in Bush'es case, he should not have acted so hastily. Look at what has transpired since he acted on "emotion", to "show strength". Your lamp post example fits what Bush did to the T. 🙂 

1 hour ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

  2 hours ago, plonkster said:

 

33 minutes ago, plonkster said:

  53 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Geezzzz guys, I just realized, I cant write an essay, because I cant read a book.... Shorter sentences please, I am trying to follow yous... 

7 minutes ago, Jaco de Jongh said:

Geezzzz guys, I just realized, I cant write an essay, because I cant read a book.... Shorter sentences please, I am trying to follow yous... 

No Eksom woes, no newbies to help, not drama's to sort so we wander a wee bit see. 

39 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Yes, it is. You commit a crime, you lose your rights. End of conversation.

And there I disagree. Just to be 100% clear though: Not disagreeing that criminals ought to be punished. Not disagreeing that they should be hindered from causing damage, and removed from society if required. Disagreeing about what rights are and why you have them.

You have rights because of what you are, not because of how you act. Rights are intrinsic. You have a right to life because you ARE human. Or in syllogism form:

Premise 1: All human beings have the same rights.
Premise 2: Criminals are human beings
Conclusion: Therefore criminals have the same rights (as everyone else).

The argument is valid, so if you don't like the conclusion (aka you think it is unsound), you have to decide which premise you disagree with. I don't want to live in a society where some human beings are treated as lesser. Giving the criminal more grace than he deserves is a necessary outcome of that wish.

(I still want him removed from society though!).

Edited September 16, 20196 yr by plonkster

5 minutes ago, plonkster said:

(I still want him removed from society though!).

To expand on that, cause it might seem contradictory. Rights can be curbed (usually because another right is more important). So a murderer's right to freedom can be curbed because others' right to life is more important. The right to freedom doesn't stop existing, it is not taken away. It is curbed, and it can be given back.

If I castrate or kill the bastard... well that's not just curbing the right. That's Lex Talionis.

What I see here, quite clearly, is exactly what I described earlier. It is hard to know what the right thing is to do. There was a time when the right thing to do was to tie a criminal to a breaking wheel and make an example of him... I sure am glad we no longer do that.

2 minutes ago, plonkster said:

Premise 1: All human beings have the same rights.
Premise 2: Criminals are human beings
Conclusion: Therefore criminals have the same rights (as everyone else).

(I still want him removed from society though!).

See, there you removed a right. 🙂 

Premise 1: Does that right included females having the right to earn the same as their males counterparts, the right to justice? 🙂
Premise 2: Criminals are human beings ... that due to their actions have lost some of their rights.

Philosophical premises fall flat in real life as far as I can see. 

Loss of rights like:
1) To vote.
2) "Unlimited" medical expenses - that is the issue around the braai discussion - as the rest of us must pay for our own medical bills, whcih sometimes we cannot afford.
3) And if you have murdered someone and they prove it in a court of law and the people deciding your fate is 100%, or as close to sane as can be, then you lose your right to life. 
To name just three ... 

Just now, The Terrible Triplett said:

See, there you removed a right. 🙂 

And I saw the objection coming. So I covered it 🙂

You curb the right. The reason you can do that is because all rights are in balance and none are absolute. I can kill someone to defend myself. The dead guy's right to life was not removed, it took second place to my own right to live.

2 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

Philosophical premises fall flat in real life as far as I can see. 

So your'e saying philosophy has no utility? That is in itself a philosophical assertion 🙂

4 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

1) To vote.
2) "Unlimited" medical expenses - that is the issue around the braai discussion - as the rest of us must pay for our own medical bills, whcih sometimes we cannot afford.
3) And if you have murdered someone and they prove it in a court of law and the people deciding your fate is 100%, or as close to sane as can be, then you lose your right to life. 
To name just three ... 

This is where things get really interesting. Rights are further distniguished as positive and negative rights.

You have a right to water for example. Just because you have a right to water doesn't mean I have to build a pipeline to wherever you live. It does mean I cannot dam up the river if it will deprive you of water.

Buuut anyway. This is getting way too philosophical.

I have another reason I oppose things like the death penalty. In the majority of cases it is not a deterrent. It is not a deterrent because murders rarely plan to get caught. Only one in seven is caught, and even less are successfully prosecuted. Re-instituting the death penalty will do almost nothing to curb violent crime. Similarly, if you make the penalty for rape the same as for murder, then you increase the number of rapes that turn into rape-murders.

36 minutes ago, plonkster said:

I sure am glad we no longer do that.
I have another reason I oppose things like the death penalty. 

I agree. And I agree that because of systemic failures today, that the murderer's right to life has to stay ... unfortunate.

It starts with the cost of legal representation, lack of policing, overworked courts ... underfunding of the system.
PS. Most of us cannot afford proper legal representation today - and I don't trust the police nor the courts, for reasons mentioned above.

And no, no death penalty for rapist ... as you say, it causes more problems.

But dang wo[men] and children, speak up if your family is hurting you! Don't keep it a secret.
And if YOU know of someone doing that, SPEAK UP!
After the home, the next level starts there Plonk. Speak up even if it is your oen family.

 

31 minutes ago, plonkster said:

So your'e saying philosophy has no utility?

Philosophy has a lot to and have contribute to the expansion of humankind getting better, saner, balanced.

But in today's world, it sometimes confuses the lefts and the rights and the rights of criminals and just about everyone out there today.

Like a very basic: Say a women is murdered.
Some will argue:
The person who murderer her had daddy / mommy issues ... so it is not their fault.
Some will say the person should be put down.
Some will say put the person in a jail for life, which in itself is not life as they can get out before they die of natural causes.

The question should be, not about the criminals rights, no, but: The woman who has been murder, is justice served? 
I mean, she is dead, gone, maybe she had kids a husband, father / mother ... they will never again enjoy her sunny personality ever again. The criminal on the other hand is alive and well, medically taken care of, and can maybe one day walk free again.

Loosely speaking society seems to focus more on the rights of ourselves and the criminals than the rights (lost) of the woman, her families lost rights.

If you or I had our wifes or our daughters viciously raped and / or murdered or our sons ... philosophy will be out that door very fast. 🙂 
Walk in the victims shoes ... few people does that OR can do that ... it is way too uncomfortable compared to a philosophical debate.

Edited September 16, 20196 yr by Guest

21 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

The person who murderer her had daddy / mommy issues ... so it is not their fault.

I figure those things serve as explanation, but not as an excuse. And that's why I also said there must be a balance between rights and responsibilities.

As another controversial example: I disagree with most animal-rights activists. The reason I am to treat an animal well is not because of what they are (something with rights), but because of something that I am (a moral agent with responsibilities).

21 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

If you or I had our wifes or our daughters viciously raped and / or murdered or our sons ... philosophy will be out that door very fast. 🙂 

Oh no doubt! I have been told many times (when disagreeing with the white genocide narrative) that I will change my tune if I am personally affected. To which I say: Indeed, I very well might do that! But do you expect me to think more clearly or less clearly in that case? We don't decide on whether something is right or wrong based on what we do when we're under pressure/stress. I hope to God I have the presence of mind to keep thinking straight if such a thing ever happens.

(If indeed I am thinking straight! 🙂 ).

Edited September 16, 20196 yr by plonkster

19 minutes ago, plonkster said:

I disagree with most animal-rights activists.

O, my next pet subject (pun intended).
So our friends ask my wife: So how is the Yorkies mommie today?
To which I respond: Did you just call my wife a bitch? 🤔

Humans are NOT daddies / mommies to animals ... No. You. Are. Not.!

Humans mistreating or abusing animals is for me a clear and present insight into that person's psyche.
And that abusing or mistreating of animals COULD morph into doing same to humans one day.

 

19 minutes ago, plonkster said:

I hope to God I have the presence of mind to keep thinking straight if such a thing ever happens.

Amen to that. And we are NOT debating what that thinking should be to "keep it straight", ok!? 😀

I keep on telling my kids: Be safe out there guys! Your safety has a direct link to keeping your Dad out of jail, ok!?

And for the record: I will speak up if I find a family member or friend abusing anyone, even an animal. Will sleep like a baby afterward. 

Edited September 16, 20196 yr by Guest

1 hour ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

O, my next pet subject (pun intended).

If you have time one day, check out the debate between Andy Bannister and Peter Singer, they touch on the topic of animal rights somewhere in there. Peter Singer is of course somewhat of an authority on animal rights, he wrote a book on it. He is also considered a leading bio-ethicist (from Princeton), though again, perfect example of how you can be leading... but perhaps not quite in the right direction.

(Same chap who suggested that technically, infanticide should be an option... and frankly, though you may find that distasteful, he is actually fully consistent when he arrives at that conclusion!).

3 hours ago, plonkster said:

I disagree with most animal-rights activists. The reason I am to treat an animal well is not because of what they are (something with rights), but because of something that I am (a moral agent with responsibilities).

I disagree because not all humans are moral agents with responsibilities. I believe that all living organisms should have defined and protected rights. Imagine how you would feel if one day a much more advanced extraterrestrial life form lands on earth and takes all your rights away 😧.

Edited September 16, 20196 yr by Fuenkli

3 minutes ago, Fuenkli said:

I disagree because not all humans are moral agent with responsibilities. I believe that all living organisms should have defined and protected rights. Imagine how you would feel if one day a much more advanced extraterrestrial life form lands on earth and takes all your rights away 😧.

You know what, I think there's actually an easy way to resolve this apparent clash of rights and responsibilities, and that is to acknowledge that rights actually implies responsibilities. A right means nothing if there isn't also a responsibility on other members of the (hopefully much larger!) group to respect that right.

Suppose said extraterrestrials land here... and tell you... we are under no obligation to respect your so-called rights!

An example closer to home: There are some racists in this country who claim themselves followers of a particular religion, but when you point out that said religion teaches to love thy neighbour, they simply reply that the rule only applies to white neighbours.

It's a bit like that one Newtonian law... equal and opposite reaction? 🙂

12 minutes ago, Fuenkli said:

not all humans are moral agent with responsibilities

Also, that is actually true. Overall and for the most part I would say humans are moral agents (or we at least expect them to be) and they have responsibilities. But of course, there are people who are so badly damaged that you don't expectit from them.

Conversely, we don't think that a Lion did something wrong when he kills a young cub (because it was fathered by the dethroned former pride leader). That is just what Lions do. So overall and for the most part, animals would not be moral agents.

And humans have different morals and responsibilities between all the nations / tribes / ethic groups and between groups of people.

There are thousands of videos where animals help humans at great peril to themselves ... some becoming moral agents. 🙂 

2 minutes ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

And humans have different morals and responsibilities between all the nations / tribes / ethic groups and between groups of people.

And yet... we tend to look at such a tribe (who might be practicing slavery or FGM), and say... now come on guys... that is not on! You stop that now... or else!

(Not making that up. Way back in India, when the British got involved, there were some priests saying, leave us alone, burning a widow on her husband's funeral pyre is our custom! So the British replied: Yeah, and hanging people who do that is our custom).

Edited September 16, 20196 yr by plonkster

I mean, just look at this list : https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/stories-of-amazing-times-wild-animals-saved-people-in-need/

This one really caught my attention: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/amazing-moment-hero-whale-saves-11816131

 

3 minutes ago, plonkster said:

(Not making that up. Way back in India, when the British got involved, there were some priests saying, leave us alone, burning a widow on her husband's funeral pyre is our custom! So the British replied: Yeah, and hanging people who do that is our custom).

Yeah, I can go with that ... 

3 minutes ago, plonkster said:

... practicing slavery or FGM), and say... now come on guys... that is not on! You stop that now... or else!

Jip, stop or else ... 

Edited September 16, 20196 yr by Guest

1 minute ago, The Terrible Triplett said:

I mean, just look at this list : https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/stories-of-amazing-times-wild-animals-saved-people-in-need/

True, and fascinating. But if they didnt' do that... would you cry to the heavens about how you have been wronged? Or what you go: Meh... survival of the fittest I guess!

1 minute ago, plonkster said:

But if they didn't' do that ... Meh... survival of the fittest I guess!

🙂 

1) The lions and the little girl ... wow. The lion cub has a chance see.
2) Pod of dolphins ... survival of the fittest being the shark if not for the dolphins.
3) Sea lions saving man who jumped ... lucky man, 2nd chance in life.
4) Deer chasing away attacker ... deer should have kicked the attackers butt some more.
5) Beavers ... just wow!

The whale and that researcher ... astounding!