NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, let's think about it. We're kicking off the 21st century. Amazing isn't it? Within the next hundred years, we'll have advanced so far in so many places, and I hope that I can live to see most of them. However, there are a few things that I want to see above all others. It's the year 2004, yet there are millions of Americans that are still prejudiced. Millions who won't even allow a person of another race in their home, simply because of their ethnic background or color. There are millions more that discriminate against gays and lesbians, not to mention those that would kill someone because they believed a different religion. Doesn't sound like we've come so far now, does it?

People need to wake up and realize that there are not rigid rules in life. The adventure and journey of life is fluid, fast, and quick to change. Those millions of Americans who still cannot bring themselves to allow a person of another race to eat dinner in their home need to realize that skin pigment and "cultural differences" shouldn't be a barrier. Rather, they should take the opportunity to learn, and destroy their stereotypes. I have friends that would love to date outside their race, but the parents of the one they're interested in always ends up being close-minded and stuck in the past. It's a tragedy that needs to end. This generation of teenagers has been more open about issues of race, religion, and sexual orientation than any other before. It's a push forward, but the a majority of people in generations of the past still have us locked, and they are preventing the shackles from being torn down because that's "just the way things are, and always have been." That phrase offends me for the very reason it prevents change and progress. Let's get rid of it, shall we?

Religion is also a major issue today. With more and more people coming up with their own thoughts and beliefs, the word "Christian" has become a very fluid one. For example, one Christian beside me may believe in the story of Adam and Eve, yet I do not. Does that make me a bad person? I don't think it does, it just makes me different than the person next to me. Will I turn around and start telling that person to believe in Evolution? Of course I won't, and I expect that person to not turn around and tell me to start believing in Creationism. It's about acceptance and tolerance, not about who is right or wrong. Ponder that thought for those of you who would be compelled to tear me down for that belief, then immediately start pulling out Bible verses and giving me a number of churches I could attend. That's not cool at all, it's annoying.

My point is that we all need to sit down and think, and form our own opinions. That's the beauty of the freedom that so many have died for so we can enjoy it. Use it well, and after you've completely thought something through with an open mind, determine whether you still won't allow someone over for dinner based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation.

My point is that we all need to sit down and think, and form our own opinions.

Isn't that statement in direct opposition to the rest of the message? I mean, you state that people who don't want their children dating outside their race are "locked in tradition". You say that it's wrong to preach creationism or evolutionism. You state we should all accept gays and lesbians.

But isn't that not allowing us to form our own opinions, but trying to impose yours on us? How is that acceptance?

Not a personal attack. Just noting.

Sitting and forming your own opinions is all well and good as long as you shut up about them. When it comes right down it, there's right and wrong, truth and lies, important issues and bullshit. Someone who starts their own creed about nailing children's ears to trees isn't "Just as right" as someone who tries to follow a moral principle.

Sydenia, I'm not trying to impose my opinion on anyone. I'm simply saying that if people sat down and thought things through, a lot more would get done, and many more people would be accepting. Most people that have those biases against people of another race never sat down and thought about it, they just accepted what was told to them. I'm not telling people what to do, I'm telling them what they could do to make the world a more harmonious place.

This was designed to make people think, not make them believe. I find it silly that anyone would argue that social acceptance could be a bad thing, so long as the group that needs to be accepted isn't attempting to hurt others.

I totally agree with you in that what is needed is more acceptance the world around, but I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon. I mean just look at the sad fact that we are beings who despite being able to reason can't act reasonable toward each other most of the time. We can't even agree on not killing each other after countless of wars that only caused pain and misery.

You speak about mankind advancing in the next hundred years, but at the rate of self-destruction that we're going at it is doubtful we have fifty years left before we've made this planet virtually inhabitable.

Sydenia, I'm not trying to impose my opinion on anyone. I'm simply saying that if people sat down and thought things through, a lot more would get done, and many more people would be accepting. Most people that have those biases against people of another race never sat down and thought about it, they just accepted what was told to them. I'm not telling people what to do, I'm telling them what they could do to make the world a more harmonious place.

This was designed to make people think, not make them believe. I find it silly that anyone would argue that social acceptance could be a bad thing, so long as the group that needs to be accepted isn't attempting to hurt others.

Um... perhaps we're interpreting certain statements you've made differently. A few examples:

Those millions of Americans who still cannot bring themselves to allow a person of another race to eat dinner in their home need to realize that skin pigment and "cultural differences" shouldn't be a barrier.

The two bolded statements don't sound like asking people to form their own opinions to me. They sound (and this is just to me) as if you are suggesting your method is correct, theirs is wrong, and they need to conform.

I have friends that would love to date outside their race, but the parents of the one they're interested in always ends up being close-minded and stuck in the past. It's a tragedy that needs to end.

That, again, doesn't seem like asking people to form an opinion of their own. It seems to be suggesting they need to come around to your way of thinking. More to the point, that their way of thinking needs to end.

It's a push forward, but the a majority of people in generations of the past still have us locked, and they are preventing the shackles from being torn down because that's "just the way things are, and always have been." That phrase offends me for the very reason it prevents change and progress. Let's get rid of it, shall we?

Once again, it seems (to me) less like asking them to consider alternate opinions, and more like "your opinions are wrong, drop them, come over to this opinion".

That's just how I interpret it. Several of the points made, while potentially valid, don't strike me as encouraging free thought, but a particular string of thought. I apologize if that comes across as harsh, it's not intended to.

It is a string of thought, and I'm hoping that someone will read it and compare it with their own beliefs, and determine which one is the right way to go. Of course most people have already determined I'm right or wrong before reading it, and many of them will block out what is said in an attempt to make me look like an idiot. However, I'm not trying to encourage free thought, I'm simply just trying to encourage people to think about what I've said.

I know it may sound like I'm trying to force people to believe as I do, but it's really me trying to get people to wake up and realize. Surely you agree that social acceptance is an important thing, and that someone has to encourage it? I'm not saying "Accept everyone, or else." I'm saying, "Think about it. What's the point in being bigoted?" I thought that was quite obvious when I wrote it. ;-)

It is a string of thought, and I'm hoping that someone will read it and compare it with their own beliefs, and determine which one is the right way to go. Of course most people have already determined I'm right or wrong before reading it, and many of them will block out what is said in an attempt to make me look like an idiot. However, I'm not trying to encourage free thought, I'm simply just trying to encourage people to think about what I've said.

I know it may sound like I'm trying to force people to believe as I do, but it's really me trying to get people to wake up and realize. Surely you agree that social acceptance is an important thing, and that someone has to encourage it? I'm not saying "Accept everyone, or else." I'm saying, "Think about it. What's the point in being bigoted?" I thought that was quite obvious when I wrote it. ;-)

Fair enough, I'll respect that.

As per the question: "Surely you agree that social acceptance is an important thing, and that someone has to encourage it?" I'm afraid I have to say no to the latter half. I believe people must be free to form their own opinions, and truly forming an opinion for oneself requires a lack of bias.

It might be acceptable to present all sides of a case (without bias) to a person to aid in their forming an opinion. However if you encourage them even slightly towards one opinion or away from another, then I don't support it. Opinions should be formed of the person's own volition, without outside interference.

The only exception in my mind is children. I still believe in freedom of thought for them, however the parent may sometimes need to override that to protect them from danger. Once they become an adult, it's their life - and all powers of self-determination should be relinquished.

Anyhow. That's just me.

I agree. People are stupid.
:D :mp5:

Tolerance is, I think, the best we can do. Education can lead to tolerance. But acceptance - no way. And if acceptance is rammed down the people's throats - then there is backlash.

I don't really care if people are gay in there own homes and I probaly can't tell unless they tell me. But when they come out and say that they are gay and except them that makes me wanna puke. If they wanna be together they should get no benifits that I can't have and they should not be allowed to adopt children but if they abide by those things I could really care less if they are gay in private. I should not be made to accept anything.

I don't really care if people are gay in there own homes and I probaly can't tell unless they tell me. But when they come out and say that they are gay and except them that makes me wanna puke. If they wanna be together they should get no benifits that I can't have and they should not be allowed to adopt children but if they abide by those things I could really care less if they are gay in private. I should not be made to accept anything.

Maybe they should wear a small pink triangle on their clothes, just so you know who you are dealing with? That way you can recognise them on sight, and avoid them. In fact, why not give them their own shops, that nice ethical people don't have to share with them? And living accomodations too, in out of the way places - yes, that would be great.
You wouldn't have to puke then.

Um... perhaps we're interpreting certain statements you've made differently. A few examples:



The two bolded statements don't sound like asking people to form their own opinions to me. They sound (and this is just to me) as if you are suggesting your method is correct, theirs is wrong, and they need to conform.



That, again, doesn't seem like asking people to form an opinion of their own. It seems to be suggesting they need to come around to your way of thinking. More to the point, that their way of thinking needs to end.



Once again, it seems (to me) less like asking them to consider alternate opinions, and more like "your opinions are wrong, drop them, come over to this opinion".

That's just how I interpret it. Several of the points made, while potentially valid, don't strike me as encouraging free thought, but a particular string of thought. I apologize if that comes across as harsh, it's not intended to.
shutuip, no really shutup, he is sharing his opinion then asking people to sit down and think about it, THINK ABOUT REALITY, then make their own decision, he isnt tellnig anyone to make a decsion, stop whining

I don't really care if people are gay in there own homes and I probaly can't tell unless they tell me. But when they come out and say that they are gay and except them that makes me wanna puke. If they wanna be together they should get no benifits that I can't have and they should not be allowed to adopt children but if they abide by those things I could really care less if they are gay in private. I should not be made to accept anything.
woooo wooo, detecting ignorant intolerance in the area!

shutuip, no really shutup, he is sharing his opinion then asking people to sit down and think about it, THINK ABOUT REALITY, then make their own decision, he isnt tellnig anyone to make a decsion, stop whining

And I was expressing my opinion, kid. The only whining I see is coming from your direction, running hand-in-hand with the blatant hypocrisy. And as for "think about reality", that's a joke, right? Surely you understand that there is no such thing as reality.

Next time stop and think before you make a post.

And I was expressing my opinion, kid. The only whining I see is coming from your direction, running hand-in-hand with the blatant hypocrisy. And as for "think about reality", that's a joke, right? Surely you understand that there is no such thing as reality.

Next time stop and think before you make a post.
yes try doing that, before gonig around throwing accusation of peopel telling other peopel to do stuff. i didnt see him sitting around sayign you should do this and this and thats that. he suggested people shoud look at the opposing views and think about it

how do you propose submitting opposing views without submitting oopinions? i would LOVE to hear that

woooo wooo, detecting ignorant intolerance in the area!

Ironic.

Ironic.
no its "go go gadget irony"

yes try doing that, before gonig around throwing accusation of peopel telling other peopel to do stuff. i didnt see him sitting around sayign you should do this and this and thats that. he suggested people shoud look at the opposing views and think about it

how do you propose submitting opposing views without submitting oopinions? i would LOVE to hear that

http://www.spellcheck.net/

I have every right/privilege to point out what I saw as bias. It was an expression of my opinion, it was backed up with specific incidents and explanations of why I felt they were biased, it was done politely and with the repeated affirmation that this was solely my opinion.

It's little things called "debate" and "difference of opinion". Maybe you've heard of them.

I did not infringe on any right/privilege of theirs, nor did I attempt to stop them from posting their opinions. I countered their opinions with my own. You, on the other hand, feeling your opinions are absolute attempt to deny me my right/privilege to counter an opinion posted.


shutuip, no really shutup

The difference between me and you is that I didn't try to tell them they couldn't express an opinion. I simply disagreed with it, and explained why in a calm and rational matter. I didn't even attempt to stop you from posting your opinion, despite that fact that it attempts to deny my the right/privilege to post mine.

Now, I'm quite done with you. If you continue to heckle, you'll simply be ignored with no more mention of the matter.

no its "go go gadget irony"

...

Just try to imagine I am pointing at you and laughing. A sort of hollow laughter, not particularly pleasant sounding.

It isn't with you.

...

Just try to imagine I am pointing at you and laughing. A sort of hollow laughter, not particularly pleasant sounding.

It isn't with you.
go go gadget hypocrisy

I guess when you get right down to it, while it is a desirable end you are putting forth (imho), this nation (USA) is supposedly the proponent of free speech.

Of course, I can find many exceptions to this supposed "iron clad" freedom. If I disagree with (and believe me I frequently do) with the President, one of my Constitutional rights is to gather among like minds within the sight of the President and seek redress for my grievances.

With the advent of "free speech zones" (read here crowd control points, out of sight of the man we seek) I doubt very seriously if this President even realizes there is a rather large segment of the population who thinks his politics and policies smell of large amounts of cow dung. One cannot take a group to the mall area in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where the President can see, and stage a protest. It is very difficult to make any sort of demonstration of disagreement when this man's cronies call all who disagree with him "un-Patriotic and un-American."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So major exception has been made to genuine First Amendment rights.

We cannot verbally disagree with the President or risk defamation, and we cannot peaceably assemble and petition our Government for a redress of grievances.

Funny how that old Patriot Act works, eh?

I guess when you get right down to it, while it is a desirable end you are putting forth (imho), this nation (USA) is supposedly the proponent of free speech.

Of course, I can find many exceptions to this supposed "iron clad" freedom. If I disagree with (and believe me I frequently do) with the President, one of my Constitutional rights is to gather among like minds within the sight of the President and seek redress for my grievances.

With the advent of "free speech zones" (read here crowd control points, out of sight of the man we seek) I doubt very seriously if this President even realizes there is a rather large segment of the population who thinks his politics and policies smell of large amounts of cow dung. One cannot take a group to the mall area in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, where the President can see, and stage a protest. It is very difficult to make any sort of demonstration of disagreement when this man's cronies call all who disagree with him "un-Patriotic and un-American."

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So major exception has been made to genuine First Amendment rights.

We cannot verbally disagree with the President or risk defamation, and we cannot peaceably assemble and petition our Government for a redress of grievances.

Funny how that old Patriot Act works, eh?
gotta love it

i also love how the pro-gun freaks are pro gun ebcause they say they will use it to protect their other rights, you think the would get right on that promise