We need murder, God would rather play a joke

 

 

 

We need murder

For somebody one person when then some time

 

What kind of that murder?

Very likely just accident

 

Because

That person has 5 years old now

 

Why need murder?

 

That person have a gun

And watch you

 

(This is just an example, and this is not the only one thing I want to say.)

 

But

 

That is not at all that situation

 

We need murder for that person, just, that is matter of necessary that thing at least

 

And

 

We must change the world at the same time

 

That world is dosen't needed a gun that person

 

Anybody don't behavior that work in this world

And everybody just looking another things

 

Why are you don't understand in this ...

 

Why not try

Why not talking

 

Why?

 

If there is an answer, would you follow it?

 

Or are you not interested at all?

 

Otherwise, does the specific mention of the content itself seem unrealistic?

 

How you feel about it is less important than the solution.

 

However, a solution cannot be created by the heartache felt alone or the simple worry of worrying alone.

 

When you want to talk to someone in real life about things that require the formation of a group with the same purpose

 

Why do we suddenly feel like it's unrealistic?

 

it's probably a god's pranks

 

I don't think it's worth thinking about

 

The prank is obviously a prank caused by a majority vote.

 

However, I do not think the future will be good at all according to the conclusion of the majority vote.

 

It would be difficult for a person who had such thoughts to be treated as a mentally ill by others just for showing love for humanity, so protection is necessary.

 

But at the moment when that protection is really needed, let's revisit the subject we mentioned at the beginning.

 

It was a story about a situation in which a 5-year-old person was looking at another person with a gun.

 

When someone tries to discuss the story in depth with another person, the person who is telling the story needs protection.

 

God would rather play a joke

 

Hey you tell him that I was joking

 

If there is an answer, would you follow it?

 

 

 

When you don't know what to do

When it's hard to see even 1m ahead as if you're in the fog

 

Get away from things that people should never do

 

Changing society is not put into practice because there is only one answer.

 

You can't change a group without a team.

 

For your team

 

Even if someone tries to represent the five-year-old person's position, the spokesperson must be in the same position as the five-year-old person.

 

Because it is impossible to exclude someone from the negotiating table with a gun and confronting a 5-year-old person.

 

That is very danger

 

If someone who has thought of saving the 5-year-old person thinks too lightly of someone else holding a gun and confronting the 5-year-old person

 

God would rather play a prank on those who would have thought of it.

 

Someone had to do the confrontation with the gun with good intentions, but

 

Someone really had a gun fight with the 5-year-old person for the purpose of robbery.

 

At this time, do not think about whether the person who confronted the 5-year-old person with the gun is a regular soldier or a robber

 

The only way to change a group is to form a team.

 

When the opponent has already built a force that is not formidable to take lightly

 

In fact, good citizens are unaware of it and try to show humanity only.

 

How can we make a world where that 5-year-old person doesn't have to carry a gun anymore?

 

It is a matter that the main concern of citizens should change.

 

Not a love issue or celebrity talk, but a social issue.

 

Why the rate of wage increase for workers is lower than the rate of inflation

 

There is also a problem that I can't figure out what to do.

 

For example, as a result of a consumer class litigation or business-to-business litigation, one company must fail.

 

What do we need to change so that the five-year-old person doesn't have to carry a gun anymore?

 

 

 

Don't even do things you shouldn't do

It is protection for you.

The only thing that can prevent the situation from getting worse

Two things are necessary for a fundamental solution.

 

knowing what to do

And co-workers and funds

 

After prioritizing economic independence, the economic independence of others must be resolved.

But then it becomes a vicious cycle.

 

So

 

First of all, you have to know what to do.

everyone who has the right to vote

 

For that to happen, your interests must change.

 

(God would rather play a joke)

 

 

If there is an answer, would you follow it?

 

Or, of course, there are certainly great answers.

 

If one of them is really to get rid of the TV on this planet, would you do that?

 

Oh really, what if one of the real answers was definitely right?

 

Or would you like to keep watching because it's just fun?

 

What would you do if you had to exclude TVs from every home in order to create a world where that five-year-old doesn't have to carry guns anymore?

 

Or do you want to keep watching because it's fun?

 

 

 

I'm request you

 

Don't just look at the surface of what people say

Don't try to take it as a joke that can't be a joke

 

You know what I meant

 

I'm asking you to do what's necessary.

something absolutely necessary

 

What is essential for life and life to coexist without discomfort

 

I'm just saying that two things are essential.

 

something and another something

 

The entrance both sides

 

Don't try to interpret its position by mistaken for what it isn't.

 

'cause it's not what you think

 

It is, unfortunately....

 

 

 

So I mean

 

Just one more thought about forcing you to pick up a gun and fight that 5-year-old person.

 

Don't be overly sentimental about the words I use because it's hard to find a suitable analogy to compare.

 

There is a Korean proverb that when someone points to the moon, other people only look at the finger.

 

There is only one thing that is required,

 

But that's more than two things I see

 

If the subject was a 5-year-old person, it would have been two

 

But now it should be more than two things

 

Maybe it should be at least not a crime, don’t you think?

 

 

 

If you want to persist any kind of illusion about it to the end,

 

Maybe in a few years you will see for yourself what it has prepared for you.

 

unfortunately it's never good for you

 

There are three positions here.

 

The worst and most dangerous of them all, unfortunately, is that it's important that neither I nor you.

 

 

 

Feel it one more time

 

If there is an answer, would you follow it?

 

 

 

 

In fact, the most important point in the original words is the story about it.

 

It also covers people's eyes and ears so that they cannot feel something.

 

or (and)

 

An in-depth discussion about something is absolutely necessary, but it can make you suddenly feel unrealistic than necessary.

 

I pointed to the moon in the sky, but that's what makes you interested in something else

 

That's the worst and most dangerous thing

 

Something that forces the ego to create unwanted illusions

 

For example, the phenomenon expressed as conscience is in fact an operation caused by the very above.

 

It's the very thing that strangely makes your thoughts go somewhere else when you try to approach it.

 

Instinct?

 

Or a simple feeling?

 

It's preparing something for you, you don't know

 

that's dangerous

 

It's the same thing that sometimes causes people to fight on the negotiating table by pulling out a knife or a gun without knowing what to talk about.

 

What is it?

 

Is it true that your will is correct?

 

 

 

 

 

To be clear, a total of three solutions have already been made.

 

The content is very large and long, so the full translation will be done later.

 

It is a real social issue that ultimately makes the 5-year-old person not need to carry a gun by solving many problems so that actual social issues do not collide with each other as much as possible and not cause quarrels anywhere.

 

But the three solutions I've worked on throughout my life are actually somewhat lacking.

 

Incomplete.

 

Economic Problems Judicial Problems and Real Estate Problems

 

The solution to the three problems is good, but it is incomplete in solving the third position.

 

I've been living to solve that problem.

 

Why do humans suddenly become delusional, suddenly feel unreal, suddenly forget something, or suddenly commit an unwanted accident?

 

So far, the best countermeasure I have thought of is to rearrange the social system so that no matter who is in such a situation, there is no problem.

 

Should a judge be punished if a judge makes a mistake?

 

If a company accidentally causes an accident, can the company go bankrupt?

 

You are already living your life under the thorough and tenacious domination of that third position.

 

 

 

 

If there is an answer, would you follow it?

 

 

 

 

 

From a very young age I thought of only one.

 

I hate it when people use violence against people.

 

I wanted to completely prevent it from happening again.

 

So far, what has been made as a countermeasure that can actually be presented to others is the resolution of the three social issues mentioned above.

 

A society in which companies can not worry about litigation costs even if the minimum wage for workers is doubled

 

The problem of why more than two houses should be allowed per household when the land is limited

 

And in real estate transactions, the question of why individuals are responsible for all profits and losses when the price fluctuation is a real gamble or close to a natural disaster.

 

Resolving the problem of the occurrence of civil legal action costs derived therefrom and the expenditure of social costs for winners and losers

 

A solution for resolving the obsessive social notion that the corporate state or law requires that the real actor is a person and must never make a single mistake in one job during his or her lifetime, i.e., excessively noble oblige.

 

Then wouldn't it be possible to at least prevent people from using excessive violence against people?

 

Can someone make a few mistakes so that the opinion of killing that guy doesn't come out?

 

 

 

 

Humans have no ability to prevent accidents that occur during their future actions.

 

But you have misunderstood that judges or states or corporations should kill them if they make a mistake.

 

I am tempted to define that misunderstanding as a third person created by God to annihilate mankind.

 

In fact, while I was working on the three solutions above, I almost felt like a living creature was attacking me.

 

My wish to stop the violence that people wield against people hasn't changed since until I turned 43, so I don't really want to mention who the target is.

 

Every time I make those measures one by one

 

Surprisingly, I got the feeling that something that wasn't a real person was attacking me, judging by itself like a living creature.

 

In every moment of trying to prevent humans from using violence against humans, every minute and every second must

 

For that very reason, I was so convinced that there was no problem at all if I really gave it any character.

 

 

 

 

Maybe someone who's drawn a picture with their own hands can understand what I'm talking about.

 

Anyone who has studied it very deeply and in-depth will understand it well enough.

 

Have you ever seen a student who wants to learn how to draw a picture of Venus's face as if it had been punched with a fist and then claimed to the teacher that he had painted Venus?

 

It is impossible for a person not to make mistakes.

 

that is you guys

 

People who can't let go of the idea that it won't be them in the question of who makes a mistake

 

It is not a problem for beginners or learning students.

 

Even if you become an expert, you are only an expert in your field.

 

It is impossible for a person not to make mistakes.

 

But you guys think they don't make mistakes.

 

They go to the negotiating table about the issue they had to fight each other with their guns in that state.

 

 

 

 

 

So, I thought about that even if someone made a mistake and killed someone, simple disaster handling is possible only when the accident is obvious.

 

For example, a worker died while working, or a consumer died as a result of the company's negligence.

 

Of course, I'm not talking about unlimited indulgences.

 

However, the problem is that in order to operate an industrial site, a person must actually die there.

 

If you were the boss, would you be able to avoid killing workers?

 

Have you ever seen a student who wants to learn how to draw a picture of Venus's face as if it had been punched with a fist and then claimed to the teacher that he had painted Venus?

 

Unfortunately, almost 99.9999% of people actually do the same thing.

 

You drew a picture with one side of your shoulder hanging down, or the length or width of some place was narrower than the length and width of some place.

 

If you were a face that mistake wouldn't happen, but it does.

 

No one on Earth is free from that problem.

 

It's just a matter of whether the amount of error is small or large.

 

It is impossible for a person not to make mistakes.

 

that is you guys

 

 

 

 

A solution is actually needed

 

So, I thought about that even if someone made a mistake and killed someone, simple disaster handling is possible only when the accident is obvious.

 

When no one is able to not make a mistake, while all claiming that they don't make a mistake, people actually have to keep dying.

 

that is you guys

 

 

We need murder, God would rather play a joke

 

 

 

 

The solution I'm trying to propose is very simple.

 

In cases where any legal action may occur, only when it is a civil issue, it is to protect the victim while ensuring that neither party is liable for excessive loss costs.

 

For example, the creation of social public funds.

 

Funds are needed to protect victims, and at the same time, funds are needed to prevent corporate bankruptcy.

 

Otherwise, workers cannot demand an excessive increase in the minimum wage from the management.

 

A person died in an accident, punish the business owner

 

It means starving everyone else who works for that company.

 

Does that mean it doesn't protect the victim?

 

Even if it has been the case until now, it should change in the future, but in the process, it means that we should remove only one demand for punishment for business owners.

 

Only then can SMEs claim fair operating profits from large enterprises.

 

The biggest obstacle to the abolition of the lowest bid system is the litigation costs imposed on companies.

 

If you are a non-working consumer, you may be able to demand punishment from the business owner, even if it is a simple mistake.

 

It is an error of cognitive dissonance that occurs because the person who cannot see the whole feels the damage caused by the other person's negligence is particularly great for him/herself.

 

However, the problem does not only exist in the relationship between workers and companies, but equally occurs in all social issues that exist on the planet.

 

Because everyone thinks they don't make mistakes.

 

It's never really the case, but everyone does.

 

In that state, it is impossible to prevent people from using violence against people in advance.

 

I really call it a third person and I definitely want to work it out.

 

I do not make mistakes only myself, I want to change all such general thoughts from the ground up.

 

First, by starting by preventing anyone from being recklessly punished.

 

We can still see that the level of awareness of society is not much different from that of the witch hunt days.

 

Because everyone makes a mistake and when someone is killed or injured by that mistake, even if it's a mistake, they think that the person responsible should be killed.

 

Such thinking cannot prevent a 5-year-old person from confronting someone with a gun.

 

Please, this is a simple example.

 

It's a story about the five-year-old person, the soldier who confronted him, or who should be punished recklessly.

 

It also means that when it is difficult to decide who is in charge, do not do anything and save the 5-year-old person first.

 

I think that all social systems and structural elements of laws should be changed like that.

 

Except for criminal offenses

 

Even if the operating profit of small and medium-sized enterprises increases by 10%, the price of auto parts will only rise from $300 to $330.

 

But if you do that, your salary will at least double what it is now, and you will sue the company with that money.

 

I am very sorry, but you are in a position where you cannot see the whole.

 

Since a person has died, of course, you should not endure it, but before that, you must first prevent the occurrence of another victim.

 

Is it a criminal offense or an accident?

 

If you can't drive drunk

 

If you're really the superman who can never make a single mistake in life

 

Even if it is someone's very small mistake, in modern society, a business owner's mistake is someone's death.

 

I just forgot to sleep because it was so hard, so I paid without hearing the report of a subordinate, and a person died.

 

Even if it's something that's really hard to die for, are we going to punish it?

 

I'm just explaining with an example, I'm not even talking about it

 

It explains the underlying reason for your inability to stop violence.

 

Everyone thinks that they will never make a single mistake in their life.

 

But how can I resolve the fact that it is really just an illusion?

 

Be a person who can't make mistakes.?

 

Please, please, it's a just delusion.

 

It's really close to a simple hallucination.

 

Why does the Bible say to love your enemies?

 

This is the only applicable case for simple mistakes, not intentional crimes.

 

because everyone makes mistakes

 

just forgive that mistake

 

Be a person who can't make mistakes.?

 

Please, it's a just delusion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You guys can never defeat that third person.

 

This is because it is truly a gift from God that God made to allow living things such as dogs and cats to eat and live in a situation where no thought activity is possible.

 

you can't beat it

 

change your perception

 

you can't beat it never only one

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is a third person that is never neither me nor you.

 

It's the kind of thing that never loses to anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Much more than you think for yourself that I'm not mistaken.

 

 

 

 

 

What is required of us is a society where even if I am the one who made the mistake, everyone can forgive me for my mistakes.

 

Otherwise, I who made the mistake must die because it was a mistake.

 

What is required of us is a society in which even if you are the one who made the mistake, I can forgive you only if it is really a mistake.

 

Otherwise, you who made a mistake must die, even if it was a mistake.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is required of us is a society where even if I am the one who made the mistake, everyone can forgive me for my mistakes.

 

Otherwise, I who made the mistake must die because it was a mistake.

 

What is required of us is a society in which even if you are the one who made the mistake, I can forgive you only if it is really a mistake.

 

Otherwise, you who made a mistake must die, even if it was a mistake.

 

Do you guys never make mistakes? please let go of the delusion

 

Of course, on the premise that you agree with it, it can be applied to me as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only thing a person can and must do is not to repeat what turns out to be a mistake.

 

There has to be a clue attached to it, but without any exceptions.

 

must

 

No exceptions should be made when it turns out to be human error.

 

that anyone

 

 

 

 

 

 

So when we say we need murder, God rather play a joke

 

We have to realize that it's a gods joke

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is only one hopeful news

 

As long as humans are part of society, it is unavoidable.

 

Humans can create a transparent world in that society

 

All the solutions I offer are solutions for that completely transparent society.

 

The only prerequisite is that you must follow the guidance and direction of the social leadership.

 

Being able to make the society transparent while being ruled by others

 

That is the limit to which humans belong to society.

 

Or should we abandon society?

 

To keep a person from being dominated by others

 

I can make sure that people don't suffer unfair violence or harm from others

 

But I can't change the fact that people should be ruled by people.

 

To be clear, all I can do is make sure no one else suffers unfairly.

 

 

 

 

 

If a new human gene is discovered that truly makes it possible to never make a mistake, no one will ever have to be controlled.

 

But that is impossible no matter how advanced genetic engineering is.

 

human can never beat the third person

 

No matter how advanced technology is, it is absolutely impossible.

 

that the third person will surely defeat you

 

certainly

 

It never loses to me or any other human being

 

so-so

 

The third person never cares about losing to others.

 

But the object of its application is not a person, but only the third person herself.

 

I'm not kidding

 

Do you think it is possible for man to change the laws of nature?

 

It is said that it is impossible for a human to create a formula other than 1+1 = 2

 

That third person is in a position more impossible than changing it.

 

It is the driving force that allowed all living things to feed on their own without any thought activity before the birth of humans on this earth.

 

So, if you want to make this society transparent and not suffer unfair damage, for the time being, you have to allow the rule of the social leaders as justified.

 

To put it simply, the third personality is so strong that no human being with the gene capable of fully rational thinking has yet been born on this planet, and it will probably be impossible in the future.

 

 

 

 

Of course, the solution I will suggest is tuning.

 

Attunement to a new direction for the social system

 

 

From now on, I'll start translating the whole original again. It'll take a few weeks.

 

 

 

 

What tragedy would happen if the person who made more mistakes became the leader?

 

A human should follow the guidance of a other human who makes fewer mistakes than himself.

 

Otherwise, too many people would have to die or get hurt.

 

That's the third person you can never win

 

Mistaking as if he would never make a mistake and refusing to listen to someone who makes fewer mistakes than himself

 

stubborn

 

If you can't overcome your stubbornness, you're not a person who can think rationally.

 

But it's difficult when someone tries to point it out in words.

 

In that case, please, think of the third person

 

You just have to lose to that third person

 

 

 

 

 

Please, think of that third person as the mother's milk that fed all life.

 

It's really a sacrifice that allows you to pass your own flesh and blood to your enemy's neck.

 

Think that everything you eat and drink recognizes you

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In some cases, people sometimes feel better or look better by doing something rather than doing nothing.

 

But even if you don't try to do what it is, if it's already something that offends your conscience or if it's too risky, please don't just do it.

 

It's not that you don't have to do it, it's that the only answer is not to do it.

 

There are things that need to be prevented no matter who is doing it, but blocking is dangerous, so there are situations where you have to turn around and solve it.