Objectives

Our mission and approach

The objectives of Constructiveway are to carry on activities which benefit the community and in particular (without limitation) to support the community, particular individuals and/or their close in cases of breached human rights, environmental issues, disabled alongside with some other socially excluded people, and as one of many byproducts of the previously mentioned activities it's also organizing some small art exhibitions (as a side-effect of campaigning).

Environment and sustainable development

We would like to specify our objectives as narrow, keep the meaning as open as the environmental changes and our constructive options are. However, in particular, Constructiveway takes more space in work aiming to support sustainable development (e.g. via innovation, technologies or materials), natural resources, and human health. And, furthermore, one of our notable objectives is the future level of CO2 and other unbreathable gases (while it's true, while it's fact-proof that the increasing level of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases are unhealthy for humans/animals, we don't see the point why to decide according to any parallel, different topic like for example: "the global warming". None disputes about the direct effect of greenhouse gases on health, so we don't need to consider the indirect effect of global warming on the same thing, health). 

Human rights & development

Remarkably, we can be quite interested in unicate human stories, people like you but it's notable that in a synergetically coherent way, according to all the decades years of data from OECD, the World Bank, Nobel prize winning economists, and many UK-based institutions, the domestic (not abroad) human rights are also exactly in the midpoint of our domestic economic interests. When we've already stopped the practice of witch-hunts or pagan practices, slavery abroad, in the time when women are permitted to drive (usually, women get it permitted by all also in practice, yes/no?), and many more famous victories of social changes so, now, we'd like to break the celebration and carry on whatever's left. We don't specialize at all, however, focus on integration (or also what's disintegrative - asocial acts, resp., however, not merely the Equality Act 2010), Article 8 and Article 3 of Human Rights. To talk about it nowadays, if you need a hint of what it's about, I can very quickly find an example. The UK has got a very weak score (many countries do incomparably better) either in employability or other forms of integration of (especially) disabled, then homosexuals, etc. It doesn't cut just on GDP, increase spending of NHS, etc, all for nothing. Let's say that people around you hear about someone that his/her "mental health" isn't good and they don't know what it's about (they're not psychologists) so they start to consider she/he's "bad", dangerous... and if it's true or not, do they invite her/him to take a job, into a society, friend cycles or rather, will they have ANY ONE dispute? I don't know about you but people around me (not merely friends) always call/need me to meet exactly when they're in a (temporary) bad psychical state, even much worse state than mentally ill. That's typical, tree (before) healthy friends of mine suddenly wanted to commit suicide because their girlfriends left or cheated them (and forth didn't say anyone, we knew from his ex when became a pâté pressed by a train). Would you meet them, break with them, or break apart from someone else (e.g. a new girlfriend)? Yeah, that's what people use to do, they use to target them, meantime, 1/3 of the population is having a permanent illness and another huge part experienced temporary conditions (privacy breaches make the difference).

Chronologically, facts (what we see) in current time are the reality. Constructiveway doesn't recognize agruments such as Ad Hominem, Appeal to Ridicule, Common Opinion, and so on. We are what we do, our actions make us what we are... And, we see it in front of us. On a regular base, I see a situation when A damages B and it's just one-side attack. Each one whoever damages (attacks) anyone gives the same one reasoning to others: "because he/she is bad". The most common reason why people change sides despite their own observations is when A is under attack, B damages the reputation again as an argument Ad Hominem, so... In fact, it only proves that B is guilty (because again, again attacks, damages the social position of A), however, if B damages again then people decide to side to B (not A), despite that we see guilty B, again.

We mind real lives

We mind the society, so we mind individuals. There's no man which is named "all", "group", "company", "country", etc. The language should serve a linguistic logic, these words describe groupings, categories, so abstract entities having no own feelings, thoughts, personal/private and social life to lose/enrich, or opportunities to contribute to the society as many people capable of a much better quality of life.