What lies beneath public trust?

Truth.

What is truth?

The simplest idea conjuring all arguments and evidences.

What is considered as the simplest idea?

Yes or No.

What are its grounds?

The Rules.

What are the rules?

Quaint side judiciary. Quaint side political.

Then what do you call their verdict?

Who wins is the honest.

What is honesty?

Rounds what is fit

What is fit?

Solace

What is solace?

No betrayal

The grounds of betrayal?

Violations

How do you judge what is violation and what is not?

The Rules.

How do you weigh the rules?

Moral conscience

What is conscience?

The truth

How do you approach the truth?

Fair

Aren't you being round-about?

No.

Define conscience and rules?

Conscience forms the rules. Rules abide by the conscience.

You're lacking.

No.

Conscience forms the rules. Rules abide by the consciences. AS MUCH AS conscience abide by the rules. Rules form the conscience.       You don't base truth on what you said alone. Conscience and rules co-exist with each other. If one overrides the other just by saying don't complicate what is simple, then if "kababawan din lang pala ang katotohanan, then don't make rules." Rules will never be simple, so don't decide basing on one rule that is redundant with another nor without seeing the other rules nor having different interpretations. And, the rules on the court are "part judiciary-part political". Not part political-part not so obvious political. In the first place the ends have what we call "redemptions" and "third wrap-ups that are beneficial to both parties of Yes and No even if they both meet at the end and must choose only one". Wars and arguments arise because both sides are just. Half-half is half-half.

The question remains, "Have you actually seen the others with the same exact case? Or...have you ever seen yours?"

 

Real brains are scarce.

Filed under orinji no iru | hn. your pen's toilet