Thread: Societal Norms Discussion

Originally Posted by PapaBull

Ever notice that people always figure every one else should think like they do? Merc wants everyone to be Christian, heterosexual, English speaking people if they live in this country. Bruno wants everyone to be as liberal as he is regardless of where they live. It's just human nature.

One societal norm that cannot be escaped..... get into wide open discussions about religion or politics and suddenly people who got along just fine before are no longer friends.

You're putting the cart before the horse, Robert. Tolerance cannot be weighed as an equal choice with intolerance.

X

Originally Posted by mercV12

Southern California is quickly turning into Belgium. This may be seen as an improvement to some, but it's not for me. This is why I'm selling my house and leaving as fast as I can. Before they make the state a sanctuary state for illegal aliens. Los Angeles is officially a sanctuary city, and quite frankly, I'm a little tired of paying for the education of children of illegal aliens as well as their free emergency room visits that have bankrupted 72 hospitals in the state (so far.) I want to live in a place where being homosexual (BTW it's NOT genetic, it's a choice) is still viewed as the perverse and pathetic lifestyle that it really is. I want to live where EVERYONE speaks English, the pledge of allegience has "one nation under God" in it, and where personal honor, integrity and responsibility are important. Some place where right and wrong is still right and wrong and not a function of some personal multiple choice buffet.

I know this place exists and this is where I'm moving to.

When you find it, give me a ring!

Originally Posted by JMS

When you find it, give me a ring!

So much for 'Freedom'.

Originally Posted by xman

You're putting the cart before the horse, Robert. Tolerance cannot be weighed as an equal choice with intolerance.

X

One guy figures XYZ (pick an issue) is wrong. One guy figures XYZ (same issue) is just fine.

Who's right? The one that thinks like you do, of course. And we're all very tolerant of like thinkers. That's why liberals aren't very tolerant of conservatives and conservatives aren't very tolerant of liberals.

And of course, you can't weigh both equally. The group to which we belong is the one that weighs the most heavily.

Tolerance isn't such a bad thing, but how do we decide what attitudes, lifestyles or opinions are to be tolerated? By our own personal philosophical biases.

It's a bit of a conundrum, isn't it?

Originally Posted by PapaBull

Ever notice that people always figure every one else should think like they do? Merc wants everyone to be Christian, heterosexual, English speaking people if they live in this country. Bruno wants everyone to be as liberal as he is regardless of where they live. It's just human nature.

One societal norm that cannot be escaped..... get into wide open discussions about religion or politics and suddenly people who got along just fine before are no longer friends.

Sometimes, it is not as simple as them no longer being friends but they devolve into open warfare, guns, knives, hands and words. personally, i live a quiet, conservative, respectable (read BORING) life. However i believe that what you choose is your own business.
You can tell me about it if you want but do not think you will change my mind, if that upsets you, that too is your choice. Live like you want to live but don't whine when others want to live differently. what i do on my property or in my house is my business, don't treasspass and i will show you the same courtesy.
As far as differences between any of the countries/ states/ provinces/ territories/ counties/ parishes/ townships/ buroughs/ cities/ villages THERE ARE NONE. we all think that our own is better and different but pretty much we are all slaves to the banks and the taxman. be thankful for the crumbs.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Do I have to believe in YOUR god in order to live in your nation?

No. There is an interesting page on the debate of the "under god" phrase here:

http://www.undergodprocon.org/Summary.htm

Originally Posted by xman

You're putting the cart before the horse, Robert. Tolerance cannot be weighed as an equal choice with intolerance.

X

Tolerance? you tolerate a crying child on an airplane. tolerance is merely accepting that not everything will always be perfect.
Acceptance is freedom, being willing to allow others to choose a different path than you that should be your goal.

Originally Posted by PapaBull

One guy figures XYZ (pick an issue) is wrong. One guy figures XYZ (same issue) is just fine.

Who's right? The one that thinks like you do, of course. And we're all very tolerant of like thinkers. That's why liberals aren't very tolerant of conservatives and conservatives aren't very tolerant of liberals.

And of course, you can't weigh both equally. The group to which we belong is the one that weighs the most heavily.

Tolerance isn't such a bad thing, but how do we decide what attitudes, lifestyles or opinions are to be tolerated? By our own personal philosophical biases.

It's a bit of a conundrum, isn't it?

I hear what you're saying and there's a lot of truth in it, but we should decide what good and bad choices are based on rational observation. We could choose to do otherwise and choose based on 'what papa said' without questioning his wisdom and we could well end up in a paradox doing something the way it has always been done, thus leaving no room for development.

I guess what I'm saying is that the path of ignorance and intolerance(lets not call that 'choice' just so that we're not confusing ourselves) is the definition of the Argument to Ignorance. The path of tolerance and consideration (where we weigh the validity of all ideas, not merely accept them blindly (that would be equally ignorant) is the only path with 'choice' in these two examples. There is a fundamental difference between the two.

X

That's how I see it, too, Syslight.

Originally Posted by xman

I hear what you're saying and there's a lot of truth in it, but we should decide what good and bad choices are based on rational observation. We could choose to do otherwise and choose based on 'what papa said' without questioning his wisdom and we could well end up in a paradox doing something the way it has always been done, thus leaving no room for development.

I guess what I'm saying is that the path of ignorance and intolerance(lets not call that 'choice' just so that we're not confusing ourselves) is the definition of the Argument to Ignorance. The path of tolerance and consideration (where we weigh the validity of all ideas, not merely accept them blindly (that would be equally ignorant) is the only path with 'choice' in these two examples. There is a fundamental difference between the two.

X

First we would have to assume that someone's diverse viewpoint is based on ignorance and I think that may be assuming too much, X. Ignorance and Intolerance are not really interchangeable terms nor does one necessarily follow the other. There have been some remarkably intolerant people who were anything but ignorant and I've known people who I consider to be remarkably ignorant who were postively overflowing with "tolerance".

Which leaves us back to the question of whether it's just different persectives or "right" and "wrong" perspectives - and once again, we're left to puzzle over how we determine which is right and wrong? And once again, I'll submit that it's based on our own preconceived notions of right and wrong.