Political rant==Bad American

Page 3 of 8 [ 113 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

26 Jun 2012, 6:59 pm

SpiritBlooms wrote:

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

Our soldiers did not go to some foreign country and risk their lives in vainand defend our Constitution so that decades later you can tell me it's a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation. The guys who wrote it were light years ahead of anyone today, and they meant what they said; now leave the document alone, or there's going to be trouble

We've changed it many times and will change it again. Jefferson said we shouldnt be shackled to the ideas of their time. And of course it must be interpreted. It's language.

I don't think you are a bad American. I think you are a non-thinking traditionalist. You've constructed a world-view to justify being low information. I don't find it admirable but fortunately I don't know you and never will. Knock yourself out.

Yes! And the right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment, one of those changes. So you want that change, I take it. You might want to try actually reading it. You'll learn something.

If you want to fight at least try to make some sense. And pick one with someone who cares about your opinions. You've got the wrong guy.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

26 Jun 2012, 7:19 pm

ghoti wrote:

Tollorin wrote:

shadowboxer wrote:

I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or make me mad.

Then what are you doing here? You know this is forum of peoples that are differents and frequently considered as weird right? Many here have been victims of such intolerance.

Well, it was not his writing: http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/badamerican.htm

That's nice, not giving the author credit and making it appear like this own work. I guess not too surprising though.

SpiritBlooms
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 67
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,024

26 Jun 2012, 7:19 pm

simon_says wrote:

SpiritBlooms wrote:

simon_says wrote:

Quote:

Yes! And the right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment, one of those changes. So you want that change, I take it. You might want to try actually reading it. You'll learn something.

If you want to fight at least try to make some sense. And pick one with someone who cares about your opinions. You've got the wrong guy.

I meant all but the "Yes!" portion of my post to be directed at the OP, in case there was confusion, and if so, my bad.

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

26 Jun 2012, 7:22 pm

JWC wrote:

You're missing the point. Some things change, others don't. Having a 'static' opinion based upon an unchanging aspect of reality is a recognition of reality. If someone's opinion changes when reality has not, then they are still 'denouncing reality'. In summary, changes to your position should correspond to changes in reality. Which means that a 'static' viewpoint is appropriate towards an unchanging subject.

Perceptions aren't always accurate; reality doesn't need to change for a more accurate perception to shift opinion. No opinion should be so rigid as to be unable to change. There is always a more precise understanding. To say otherwise is arrogant. These things should be under revision constantly and always questioned; there is nothing too sacred for sober reflection. This is the essence of dynamic thinking as opposed to a rigid and non-adaptable mind.

Last edited by edgewaters on 26 Jun 2012, 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

26 Jun 2012, 7:24 pm

Raptor wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Thus they believe intolerance is some sort of virtue of individual liberty.

It is an individual liberty plain and simple. It may not be popular but nothing says that liberties and freedoms have to be.

That is not the point at all, the point is they hold something as a virtue based on their misunderstanding of tolerance to begin with. For instance, I am tolerant of Muslims, but I honestly really, really dislike their religion which is almost inseparable from their politics. That does not mean I will make things difficult for them as individuals. I will give them their space so long as they do not tread on mine, because I value humans not based on their religion or politics but by the fact that... they are human. Intolerance is not a virtue, though I suppose religion does play a part in making it seem so, since all religions inevitably claim *they* are the right one and others are wrong. Having the belief that you are chosen from on high definitely does not encourage tolerance towards the "lesser" unenlightened folk

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

26 Jun 2012, 10:34 pm

Vigilans wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Thus they believe intolerance is some sort of virtue of individual liberty.

It is an individual liberty plain and simple. It may not be popular but nothing says that liberties and freedoms have to be.

And I think you missed my point. The only question is was it intentional or not.
:roll:

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

27 Jun 2012, 10:58 am

Oodain wrote:

i never talked about human nature, what i did say was that they were human in nature, ie. derived from or inherently dependant on humans.(why i bolded the missed word above)

he didnt(knowingly nor intentionally anyway) and that wasnt my point, my point is that standing up and proclaiming these are my views and nothing is going to change them so deal with it(paraphrased)
suggests a static mindset reluctant to change anything for anything, that is what i meant with a static mindset, and such a mindset does to some degree neccesitate denouncing reality.

Just not in the case of the OP?

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

27 Jun 2012, 11:03 am

edgewaters wrote:

JWC wrote:

Yes, but a sane mind does not make changes that have no relation to reality. The standard should not be "change for the sake of change", not should it be "static because of tradition". The standard must be "do my thoughts and perceptions correspond with reality?".

simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

27 Jun 2012, 11:17 am

Quote:

I don't celebrate Kwanzaa. But if you want to that's fine; just don't feel like everyone else should have to

That part is funny. He singles out an American black holiday meant to connect them to their African roots and suggests they are trying to force it on him. That is from a talk radio freakout last year when low brows went ballistic because the Obama WH issued a Kwanza statement. But so did Bush. Every year for eight years.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

27 Jun 2012, 11:28 am

JWC wrote:

edgewaters wrote:

JWC wrote:

human perception is so erronous that in effect we will always have something wrong in relation to reality by your own logic that neccesitates changing a view.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

27 Jun 2012, 12:19 pm

Oodain wrote:

JWC wrote:

edgewaters wrote:

JWC wrote:

human perception is so erronous that in effect we will always have something wrong in relation to reality by your own logic that neccesitates changing a view.

Why does human perception have to be erroneous?

edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

27 Jun 2012, 12:22 pm

JWC wrote:

Why does human perception have to be erroneous?

Because we're not omniscient. If you say your perceptions are flawless and unquestionable and you're never wrong, well, you're just deluding yourself. And if you can delude yourself like that, your perception is even more likely to be erroneous. Perception is often tainted by psychological needs, projecting, etc.

Besides, opinions aren't formed entirely by perception, but by interpretation of perception. The sun makes light - that is a fact, something that can tangibly be perceived as a reality. This is something where perception can be trusted. But notions like black people are all criminals and private enterprise (or communist revolution) will bring about a utopian society - these are not perceptions at all, but interpretations built from perceptions. If you say it's a perception of reality, you can't even be trusted to distinguish between perception of fact and abstract interpretation, let alone have any sort of clear understanding of reality. This is a rigid mind almost completely cut loose from reality, and totally unwilling to accept reality.

Last edited by edgewaters on 27 Jun 2012, 12:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

27 Jun 2012, 12:27 pm

it is(in a way vlarification below) by its very nature, any memory you form is revised and altered everytime you remember it and then you have to take the sheer scale and number of variables into account, something even thousands of people working together have trouble with today.

so while i dont think it has to be erronous the probability of one being 100% right about a single subject is vanishingly small, even more so when making generalizations and if you look at the entirety of a person opinions and belief it is practically impossible for a person not to be wrong about something.

all of this only touches on the issue of observervation bias.

let me ask you this:
do you know anyone that is always right?
and even if you do try to ask them if they believe they are error free.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

27 Jun 2012, 12:33 pm

Raptor wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Thus they believe intolerance is some sort of virtue of individual liberty.

It is an individual liberty plain and simple. It may not be popular but nothing says that liberties and freedoms have to be.

And I think you missed my point. The only question is was it intentional or not.
:roll:

I know exactly what you said, and I am simply saying that it is not relevant. Yeah, its your right to be a huge dick. That doesn't mean you *should*. What acting that way to prove a point (like many do...) amounts to is vainglorious, ignoble self promotion disguised as "exercising one's rights". Common sense and human communication protocols should take precedence, not the fact that you *can* be a giant douche. All you would be demonstrating is... that you are a giant douche. Now do you understand?

UnLoser
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 655

27 Jun 2012, 1:17 pm

shadowboxer wrote:

I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or make me mad. This is my life to live, and not necessarily up to others expectations.

Yeah, just like I have the right to go kill someone because I feel like it. :roll:

You don't have to like everyone, but intolerance implies discrimination and unequal treatment, and often cruelty, which is never acceptable.

I don't care about the rest of the things you had to say, but that particular comment struck me as hateful.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

27 Jun 2012, 1:21 pm

UnLoser wrote:

shadowboxer wrote:

I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or make me mad. This is my life to live, and not necessarily up to others expectations.

Yeah, just like I have the right to go kill someone because I feel like it. :roll:

These people don't even comprehend what tolerance is exactly, it doesn't mean one has to like anybody or their differences. It is very disappointing, but it is how their country's media controls them

Page 3 of 8 [ 113 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8 Next

Jump to:

Political rant==Bad American Post Reply New Topic

Political rant==Bad American