Thread: Societal Norms Discussion

Originally Posted by syslight

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.

I believe that every person should have the right to do anything they want, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with another person's rights.

Originally Posted by PapaBull

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.

Very true.

Originally Posted by Jonedangerousli

I believe that every person should have the right to do anything they want, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with another person's rights.

Well, here we are. These very words are written into constitutions and charters the world over. These are the rights we all strive for. Denying them because we're uncomfortable with someone else's choice is clearly what I would call 'wrong'.

X

Originally Posted by syslight

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.

You've said what I wanted to say, but much better and to the point.

I believe there is a right and a wrong, and it has nothing to do with my preconceived notions. A good book for exploring this is The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis. The liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, all of them lost me a long time ago; they seem to be nothing but false fronts for their own brand of evil.
I am a Christian, but not lefty or righty Christian, just Christian, or as C.S. Lewis put it, merely Christian. I love everybody, and disagree with most of them about something. Sometimes I'm right, and sometimes I'm wrong, but I'm still in there trying.

Norm

Originally Posted by PapaBull

Bruno wants everyone to be as liberal as he is regardless of where they live. It's just human nature.

Actually, half of my viewpoints are conservative, the other half more to the left. In most political discussions I am the oddball because I can't be pinned to one side or the other.

But I am always being the oddball so that's allright then

Bruno,
Here in the United States of America we welcome your opinion, and i would hope that my opinion would be welcomed and respected with the same level of common courtesy extended to you. I do not define right and wrong. It was defined by the Creator of heaven and earth and evrything in them. THE God who SPOKE the universe into existence. THE God that walked on water, healed the lame, gave sight to the blind, raised the dead, fed the multitudes, turned water into wine, calmed the seas, died, was dead for 3 days, and rose from the dead. He is the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob AND the God of the founders of this great nation. He has blessed this nation greatly. He has defined right and wrong very clearly in the infallible and inerrant Word of God....the Bible.

You ask my why being homosexual is perverse. Isn't it self-evident? Don't those smells tell you how wrong it is? What about the illnesses associated with that lifestyle? What don't you get? It's obvious.

You ask if you have to believe in my God to live in this great nation. NO you can believe whatever you want. It's called freedom of religion .. or no religion at all. It's your choice. Nobody's going to make you believe anything. This isn't a theocratic islamic nation...we do not have sharia law, nor do we kill youif you are an "infidel." Muslims and Athiests thrive in this great nation and if they want to associate with their own ethnic groups, religious groups, sexual groups.. OR NOT is their decision. AND just as they have the right to CHOOSE where they want to live and who they want to associate with........I ALSO have the same right. And I choose to leave a society that has embraced and accepted lifestyles and languages that I don't choose to associate with.

So Bruno, thank you very much for your ennlightened, accepting and politically correct point of view. You're more than welcome to voice it here in the United States (you couldn't in Iran). I thank you for accepting my point of view with the same courtesy and understanding. Have a fantastic day my friend!

Originally Posted by Bruno

I have no problem with right and wrong. But who are you to define them?
Why are your right and wrong better than my right and wrong?
Why is being homosexual perverse?
Do I have to believe in YOUR god in order to live in your nation? And if you allow for freedom of religion, which religions are right and which are wrong? And what do you do with atheists, muslims etc?

As long as other people treat me and others with respect, they can be gay, muslim, or anythingI am not.

EDIT: I don't mind discussing this further but let's extend each other the courtesy of being polite and not turning this into the next Joe vs Bill.

'Choosing' segregation is not a choice, it is the institution of it's absence. The Rush line "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice" is a logical fallacy. Now we get to hear how logic is not some god's word. Fundamentalists come in Christian forms too. All written words were written by men, not gods.

Some people are so resistant to the idea of questioning their convictions. I do it every day and don't see what the trouble is.

X

Originally Posted by Jonedangerousli

I believe that every person should have the right to do anything they want, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with another person's rights.

I liked this statement when I first read it since I have a similar belief... although mine's more along syslight's post... tolerance.

I started to think about what and how this could work and why it doesn't anywhere in the world that I know of. As I reread the statement, applying different meanings to various words and thoughts (English is so imprecise... one can always interpret elements of almost any sentence many ways), I concluded that if anyone anywhere objects to what you want to do, then you wouldn't have the right to do it. That would preclude doing most anything... even if done in private (by locking your door or pulling your shades, you'd be forcibly infringing on someone else's right to watch you do whatever you do if they were so inclined).

Perhaps that's why people's rights must be agreeable to either the most powerful or the majority, depending on what political environment you fall under.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Actually, half of my viewpoints are conservative, the other half more to the left. In most political discussions I am the oddball because I can't be pinned to one side or the other.

But I am always being the oddball so that's allright then

Sounds like someone I know. The oddball part especially, LOL

Originally Posted by azjoe

I liked this statement when I first read it since I have a similar belief... although mine's more along syslight's post... tolerance.

Tolerance is a given, if you really believe that the other person has the right to do whatever.

I started to think about what and how this could work and why it doesn't anywhere in the world that I know of. As I reread the statement, applying different meanings to various words and thoughts (English is so imprecise... one can always interpret elements of almost any sentence many ways), I concluded that if anyone anywhere objects to what you want to do, then you wouldn't have the right to do it. That would preclude doing most anything... even if done in private (by locking your door or pulling your shades, you'd be forcibly infringing on someone else's right to watch you do whatever you do if they were so inclined).

This is a recursive argument. It stops if you consider that I have the right to lock my door. Your right to watch me stops if it forceably interferes with my right to privacy in my own home. My locking my door does not forceably interfere with your right to look in whatever direction you wish. It's sort of like the first amendment: You have a right to speak, you do not have a right to be heard.

Perhaps that's why people's rights must be agreeable to either the most powerful or the majority, depending on what political environment you fall under.

This is one of the reasons you couldn't find it working anywhere. The right exists naturally. Man restricts it un-naturally.