For a low low price, your puppy’s mental health can be looked after… telepathically \ image by Jonathan Kriz
Daft: A generous way to describe some of the less than rational viewpoints adopted by some of the less than rational members of our wonderfully diverse global society.
Only today, I read somewhere on social media a quote from Chris Hipkins who said the extreme weather conditions being experienced in Auckland are a consequence of climate change. The first comment beneath this announcement said “Perhaps he should read the Old Testament – he might learn something”.
Now I feel quite safe suggesting that one of those people is working on the fringe of reality. Of course, which one you think it is depends entirely upon your own interpretation of the information available to you.
Another daft thing I saw recently was a post from a person who has set up a business in which he or she, I can’t remember which, will address the mental concerns of your pets. And they will do this telepathically, without coming near the pet. I don’t know about you but I would be more inclined to send money to my newly-discovered Nigerian uncle than someone who claims the ability to ease my cat’s anxiety by remote control. How is it going to work?
Let’s assume for one ridiculous minute that this could actually happen. We all know how radio waves work, and I presume the telepathic tranquillisation of pets would have to work in a similar way. How is it that it won’t affect all the pets in the neighbourhood while only one owner pays? Do I email some sort of ethereal IP address (that’s an internet location FYI) in the hope that the anxious cat will be singled out by a rush of soothing cosmic waves, which will tease it alone down from the height of angst and disquiet known to afflict all but the most sedate moggies. I don’t mean to be confrontational, but if someone is going to make such a claim they must be ready to defend it.
Some years ago I found, by accident, a small purple crystal underneath and behind my bedside table.
I thought nothing of it at first, but it niggled, and eventually I asked my other half if she knew anything about it. It turned out that, being not immune to a bit of superstition, she had placed the offending article there some weeks earlier, in the hope that it might make me less sceptical of all things airy-fairy, and very possibly less grumpy to boot. She was forced to concede that it hadn’t worked.
The world is full of people who hold views which to others are impenetrably illogical or outright daft.
This is fine and there should be no problems arising, given that we are all so reasonable and tolerant.
But we are not.
The problems arise when, instead of discussing and debating different views, some will simply shout victimisation, or throw soup on a painting, or deny their antagonist the right to speak at all. Or even go to war. That is daft.
