Who Really Has the Right of Way?

Many people walk on Earth with a mindset of who really has the right to do things. Unfortunately, many set their minds on only one person: ourselves, or someone else connected by a tight iron rope – such as a son or daughter, or an intimate partner. Should anything happen within those margins, people will do their best to fulfil and announce their rights in attempt to protect themselves or those that they feel sincere to. However, the one who stares behind a foggy glass obviously will not see that. If a situation where both the offender and the offendee are both politically correct, who really has the right of way?

Unfortunately, the jury leaves the answer undefined.

right.jpgMy family and I had dropped by Toronto Chinatown for a casual stroll around a mall: full of hallway bazaars, lots of squealing toys (Mind you – my niece was in heaven), and, of course, who could forget the unusually casual congestion of people in the mall?
As we make our ways downstairs for dinner (Take-out in the hands of aggressive food hands, in Cantonese-styled vendors; how typical for a quick Chinese meal), my niece – more eager to drive than I am – swayed herself vigourously back and forth as she swung the wheel in circles. Of course, the entire family took note of the sign on the top – cynical and all, ?For paying customers only? – but who really wants to take a feisty baby – although cute and all – off of something that they really don?t want to come off of? Better yet, who likes to listen to a baby scream and cry? (Unless you?re a masochist)

With all intention to leave anyway, we left her on the seat while saying, ?Okay, Tina, let?s go. See look! Po-po is leaving now!? However, because of how intelligent she has become, she knew we wouldn?t actually leave her there, so she sat amazed with the wheel, and with a stubborn expression. We tried every intention to get her off that driving wheel with no real avail.
Concentrating on how cute she actually looked on the wheel, a man from the store appeared in a gradually recovering opacity. ?For paying customers only. Do you know how to read??

Ahem. I?d like to mention this before we move on. Do not attempt to prose a threat to a species called ?Franky?s Sister? or ?Kim?, because she knows how to bite your head off and feed it to the vultures before you can say. ?arsehole?.

(Continuing on?)

?I don?t see a line-up, do I??

The man just gave us a dirty look and shooed her off. Well, as my mother and I would like to say, ?Dragon Lady with Dragon Baby.? Screaming, kicking, crying; you name it. We managed to get her off the wheel, but it wasn?t necessarily what we wanted, because we had to put up with two angry ladies on our way back home.

What?s the point of talking about this? Well, if you were the mediator, you would pick a side: if you were sentimental for children, you?d pick my sister; if you had more sympathy for the shop owner, you?d pick him. However, if you were a mediator with absolutely justified opinions, sans bias and personality, you couldn?t technically pick either. So, in reality, who really has the right?

The answer is no one. No one has the right to do anything. The people in the mall have no right to listen to the baby screaming and crying, and it is also within no right to shoo someone off public property by means of a degrading tone, especially how there is no one else within the vicinity. However, there is no right to be in vicinity where someone requests that they should not be there, and they are not paying customers (therefore, it would technically be leeching). In conclusion, we really don?t have any rights, technically. As long as ?rights? attempt to fulfill everyone?s morale, we will have absolutely no rights.

  1. Hmm.. you forgot to mention your niece first getting on this wheel-toy thing.. you just jumped into her driving which was a little confusing.
    without bias i would say the shop guy sounded rude but technically it was not your niece’s right to be using the whatever-it-is. granted, it would’ve been nice for him to let it slide but he was in the right and you, not.

    cole December 11, 2006 at 4:13 am

  2. Well, it was actually an arcade game. It wasn’t actually a “toy” in a sense that it was to be purchased.

    The point of the prose was to promote the idea that people technically have no rights. Negative and positive numbers that equal the same absolute value (which means regardless of their sign, whether it’s positive or negative) will always equal zero when combined. This means that people mistaken themselves to believe that they are the ones within the right, although they are “theorietically” incorrect.

    Or in very simple words, neither of them were right, and any similar situation follows the same scheme.

    Franky December 11, 2006 at 11:16 am

  3. Well, that is certainly true. You bring up a fundementally incorrect assumption that people always seem to make. The ‘right’ vs. ‘wrong’ mentality can be seen everywhere. What is even worse though, is when there are two people arguing over two things, both saying they are right, when they are both saying the same thing. Vast amounts of amusement.

    Exams are exams btw, and deserve to be shoved off the nearest bridge. However, I cannot do that because to shove them off the bridge involves walking over said bridge, which would involve international incident. Could be fun though!

    Cassidy December 12, 2006 at 12:16 am

  4. – which, unfortunately, Canada does not have. :p My exams are coming up soon as well, and my uni. applications are coming up soon. I prefer more fireworks involved with the destruction of exams rather than a supposed exam-suicide attempt, if you get my drift.

    Franky December 12, 2006 at 1:11 am