Sharing is Caring essay
Another name for love is sharing and caring. Sharing is a divine virtue, a “Sharing is caring essay” is given for all levels for their inspiration and love.
The greatest art of living happily and peacefully is caring others and share ones belonging with others without any hesitation and worry. Caring is a divine property, It is said that Almighty Allah cares a person more than a 70 mothers. So what is care it is nothing then love, passion and kindness for others. One can share only his articles and things if someone finds other lovable. The most caring relation in the world is of parents, who cares most for their offspring.
That items and belongings are shared with other which are not available to him/her, and an owner of any property will share only if he/she has a thought that such belonging may also be available to his loved one, so at once he decides to give it for their use.
So sharing is only done if someone has a love for others and in other way he will care only if there is some room in his heart for that person. So it is absolutely right that we can share the things if we have no more love for others. Once we are affectionate with others we will readily share our stuffs to others.
Sharing brings love, care, passion, tolerance, interdependence, empathy, responsiveness, gratitude and harmony not only among the families but as well as in the societies and countries. We find a person, a society and a country more lovable and friendly if it shares his things and helps us in the time of distress and hardship.
A patient will not forget a person who have donated his blood when no one was ready to donate, he will surely remember him whole the life as he has shared his dearest belonging with him and thus he is the only persons in the sea of people who cares him.
This manner of sharing and caring flourishes development among the masses and is a great cause of inner peace in the minds and hearts of all entities.
Love share is actually love between two partners, love between parents and children and other relationships. The golden principle for increment of love is to give your own thing and right to the person whom you love. In other way it is type of sharing…..one only cares for other if ones has a love and respect for other.
In fact, we can only share a thing for other for whom we have a space in our heart and mind. Parents care for their offspring as they have love, and each time they show their love with their kids by feeding them, by giving them gifts, by providing them protection and shelter and by providing them best opportunities to succeed in life. In response good manner and moral trained kids returns the care and love of their parents in the same way as their parents have cared for them during childhood. in this way journey of “sharing is caring” continues.
Not only human cares for one another but animal do care for their family and community. Lion, hyena and sharks live in a family and hunt in shape of groups and share their hunted animal.
Almighty Allah also do care for their creatures, by accepting their prayers, by blessing them and rewarding pious and good manner creatures. but Allah care is not confined to one sect, species and creatures, GOD do care not only for HIS followers but also for sinner and disbelievers.
We should care people all around the world in event of natural calamities, war, famine and disease.
Sharing happiness quotes
When you find a person without smile, give one of yours.
Great satisfaction comes from sharing with others.
No time is better spent then that spent in the service of your fellow men. (Bryan McGill)
Friendship ends when you stop sharing.
I don’t care what you say to me. I care what you share with me. (Santosh Kalwar)
Another name for love is sharing and caring.
Sharing is base for a relationship.
Sharing builds up relationship.
Some related posts
Best Inspirational LIFE QUOTES for MOTIVATION
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
—George Orwell, “1984”
Secrets are lies. Sharing is Caring. Privacy is theft.
—Dave Eggers, “The Circle”
The construction begs for comparison, and yet “The Circle” is no “1984.” In the future, according to Dave Eggers, one mega social-network corporation, the namesake of his new novel, has become the technological architect of daily life—arranging conversations, restocking pantries, making payments, and ranking human beings. The company’s leaders wear zip-up hoodies, of course, and enjoy surfing, yet they are known with reverent remove as the Three Wise Men. It’s serious business—so serious that even the parties are work, since attendance is monitored by your boss—and Eggers emulates this sobriety in his writing, which plods across the corporate campus resentfully. New hire Mae Holland, the novel’s protagonist, bounds forth into the communal ethos of her overlords, embracing her first assignment, answering e-mails that provide a “human experience” to small advertisers. Eggers seems bored by the task—Oh, must we spend another day at the Customer Experience desk, minutiae un-inspected, e-mails unread? He doesn’t want to be in the grind, or even playfully tease it. Disclosure is the story of “The Circle,” yet Eggers hardly tells enough.
But even without the searing wit of “1984,” the book is capable of landing on point—when it’s at its most irksome. Where “1984” has the vigilant Police Patrol and Thought Police, “The Circle” has SeeChange and Clarification. Surveillance isn’t a bad word; it’s a gift, even a human right. “I truly believe that if we have no path but the right path, the best path, then that would present a kind of ultimate and all-encompassing relief,” Wise Man Eamon Bailey, standing in for the role of Internet missionary, tells Mae. “We can cure any disease, end hunger, everything, because we won’t be dragged down by all our weaknesses, our petty secrets, our hoarding of information and knowledge. We will finally reach our full potential.”
The speech has a familiar ring: in September, 2006, Mark Zuckerberg wrote an open letter about the launch of News Feed, and the note resurfaced with this week’s unveiling of The Zuckerberg Files, an archive of his every public utterance catalogued by Michael Zimmer and a small team at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Digital Commons. (Zuckerberg, the social wizard who likes to keep to himself, has fittingly been made all the more transparent now that his transcripts have been neatly collected for viewing.) “When I made Facebook two years ago my goal was to help people understand what was going on in their world a little better,” Zuckerberg wrote. “I wanted to create an environment where people could share whatever information they wanted, but also have control over whom they shared that information with.” He also said that a week prior, “I created a group called Free Flow of Information on the Internet, because that’s what I believe in—helping people share information with the people they want to share it with.”
Katherine Losse, Facebook employee number fifty-one and the author of “The Boy Kings”—which, she has unsatisfactorily argued, Eggers ripped off—worked in customer support before becoming Zuckerberg’s speechwriter. By 2009, as Losse was writing e-mails on behalf of her boss, Facebook was working on adjusting its privacy settings. “We are pushing the world in the direction of making it a more open and transparent place,” she quoted Zuckerberg as saying in meetings. So, too, transparency is the guiding principle of the Circle; the company’s mantra is “ALL THAT HAPPENS MUST BE KNOWN.” (Deletion is outlawed.) But Mae, unlike Losse, is not quite a skeptic. Rather, she’s an earnest wannabe who divulges more and more over time, with less and less apprehension. Though Mae occasionally has impure thoughts about whether to keep to herself instead of hopping into the Circle, as employees are expected to do—with feeling!—she strives to post more. In doing so, she “feels a profound sense of accomplishment and possibility.”
Last year, Diana Tamir and Jason Mitchell, of Harvard’s department of psychology, published a paper titled “Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding.” As part of their study, they asked participants to undergo fMRI scans while stating opinions. The researchers found that “humans so willingly self-disclose because doing so represents an event with intrinsic value, in the same way as with primary rewards such as food and sex.”
“The sites make the process so easy, and people see their friends sharing, and that encourages them,” Jessica Vitak, an assistant professor at the University of Maryland College of Information Studies, told me.“So it’s kind of like ‘Hey, join this party.’” In research released last week, to be presented at a conference in February, Vitak and her co-author, Jinyoung Kim, followed Facebook users as they decided what to post. They found that, through “an often-complex thought process,” users weigh the pros and cons in deciding what to share, as a way of replicating the boundaries of offline conversation. As one participant, Zara, reflected of facing her invisible audience:
If you post this, are you okay with people, everyone seeing this? Is that okay with you? I think twice about it. And if I think it’s not a big deal, then I’ll go ahead and do it. But if I’m thinking about the repercussions of it; if I can think of a few, then I won’t do it.
Among American adults on Facebook, forty-four per cent update their status at least weekly, fifty-three per cent comment on a friend’s status, and forty-eight per cent comment on a photo. Sites that tell users they’ve only filled out a limited percentage of their personal pages—Where did you go to high school? Are you in a relationship?—encourage more disclosure, no matter how seemingly mundane. “Any piece of information that people share benefits these sites, because it gives Facebook, or whatever company, a more accurate profile of the user,” Vitak said. “They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity. Well, there’s no such thing as bad information, in their mind. It’s adding information that’s valuable to them.”
That data collection, of demographic details, is only half of the equation; Facebook also tracks behaviors. On Tuesday, the company announced that it would start monitoring stats like how long your cursor hovers over something on the site, or whether your News Feed is visible on your screen at any particular moment. There’s no opportunity to pause for self-censorship here, it’s just seamless sharing, along the lines of an automatic Foursquare check-in or a Google Now update to let people know you’re running late. More passive modes of personal data-gathering turn up in “The Circle” more subtly, as in a silver bracelet Mae is given at the health clinic, where a message is engraved in steel above the cabinets: “TO HEAL WE MUST KNOW. TO KNOW WE MUST SHARE.” The band monitors her heart rate, blood pressure, caloric intake, digestive efficiency, and so on. Elsewhere, in the ChildTrack lab, biochemists are working out a way to implant a chip into children’s bones, a permanent G.P.S. (They succeed.)
Not everyone in the Eggers dystopian near-future wants to be sucked up into the social vortex. Mae’s ex-boyfriend Mercer does what he can to stay off the grid, so he can focus on his antler-chandelier business. The novel’s extremes are laid out in the dialogue between the two characters. Condensed highlights from one scene:
Mercer: “Mae, I’ve never felt more that there is some cult taking over the world.”
Mae: “You’re so paranoid.”
Mercer: “I think you think that sitting at your desk, frowning and smiling somehow makes you think you’re actually living some fascinating life. You comment on things, and that substitutes for doing them.”
The Circle is as much Google as it is Facebook (though it officially stands in for neither, as the Circle is supposed to have succeeded them). Google’s motto, “Don’t be evil,” is upended in Eggers’s telling: these companies may not have started out as the clubhouses of moustache-twirling villains, but, he writes, in a return to Orwell, “We’re closing the circle around everyone—it’s a totalitarian nightmare.” The Wall Street Journal compared “The Circle” to “The Jungle,” with the caveat that the former is “not great literature. But it is a great warning.” Other critics, including Losse, have pointed out that Eggers can’t be held up as the revelatory chronicler of an industry that he isn’t immersed in; his ominous depiction isn’t backed up by thorough inquiry. It’s a novel, though, his novel, with his anxieties. It’s the account of an observer, not a participant: maybe even the kind who comments on things, which substitutes for doing them.
Losse wrote, “We film and we post and read social media constantly in order to capture something, some exciting moment or feeling or experience that we are afraid to miss, but the things about life that we most want to capture may not be, in the end, capturable.” Whether it’s a status update or a novel, the good ones can grasp hold of their subject—if not with the completion of a circle, then at least by delivering an essential sliver of truth.