OT. Rant

On 19 Nov 2004 18:59:52 GMT, eener (SUQKRT) yodeled:


In article , Takayuki
wrote:


Your friend's views must seen about as relevant as if an Iranian
conservative emailed me and told me that Massachusetts should adopt
the sharia, or a Japanese conservative emailed me and told me that the
United States should be ruled by an emperor.



Massachusetts having an Emperor made me giggle. The American Revolution started
here.


All the more irony in having a President who publicly denigrates your
state and its traditions. Have you ever heard another President
specifically put down one of the United States like that? It's just
weird.


Theresa
Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh
My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com

"Christina Websell" wrote in message
...

This is an example:
Andy Rooney said on "60 Minutes" a few weeks back:

snip

That's an urban legend, Andy Rooney did not say that - in fact Andy Rooney
tends to be a bit liberal in his rants.

Also, there are almost 300 *million* people living in the United States
today. Among those 300,000,000 are, unfortunately, a few kooks,
ignoramuses, bigots, etc. Also unfortunately, those are the people who tend
to be the most vocal and also the ones who tend to make the news.

However, we have here what we call "the silent majority". What this means
is the *majority* of people here are quietly intelligent, quietly
courageous, quietly compassionate, and quietly caring about all other living
beings. They only tend to get vocal when they see injustice being done.
Again, unfortunately, all those good qualities and good people don't seem to
be very newsworthy.

Yes, there are people here who say horrible things and flaunt their
ignorance for all the world to see. However, a famous American once said,
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it." We, in our ardor for freedom, tend to take that sentiment
*VERY* seriously - often to the detriment of our reputation with the rest of
the world. So, those ignoramuses are allowed to say whatever they will -
and the press is usually there to tape it!

I guess what I'm saying is, please don't judge us all by the words or
actions of a vocal few. Most of the people I've met in my life have been
decent, kind, and loving - and wouldn't dream of harming in word, thought,
or deed anyone else, even those they don't necessarily agree with - even if
they do live in America! ;

Hugs,

CatNipped

"Christina Websell" wrote in message
...

This is an example:
Andy Rooney said on "60 Minutes" a few weeks back:

snip

That's an urban legend, Andy Rooney did not say that - in fact Andy Rooney
tends to be a bit liberal in his rants.

Also, there are almost 300 *million* people living in the United States
today. Among those 300,000,000 are, unfortunately, a few kooks,
ignoramuses, bigots, etc. Also unfortunately, those are the people who tend
to be the most vocal and also the ones who tend to make the news.

However, we have here what we call "the silent majority". What this means
is the *majority* of people here are quietly intelligent, quietly
courageous, quietly compassionate, and quietly caring about all other living
beings. They only tend to get vocal when they see injustice being done.
Again, unfortunately, all those good qualities and good people don't seem to
be very newsworthy.

Yes, there are people here who say horrible things and flaunt their
ignorance for all the world to see. However, a famous American once said,
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it." We, in our ardor for freedom, tend to take that sentiment
*VERY* seriously - often to the detriment of our reputation with the rest of
the world. So, those ignoramuses are allowed to say whatever they will -
and the press is usually there to tape it!

I guess what I'm saying is, please don't judge us all by the words or
actions of a vocal few. Most of the people I've met in my life have been
decent, kind, and loving - and wouldn't dream of harming in word, thought,
or deed anyone else, even those they don't necessarily agree with - even if
they do live in America! ;

Hugs,

CatNipped

Cheryl Perkins wrote:

Some families do
something similar - after discussing an issue, they 'agree to disagree' -
they don't discuss it, they treat the other side with the usual degree of
courtesy and they maintain both sides within the family. I used to
consider this sort of thing as the worst kind of denial and hypocrisy; as
the bad type of compromise you say you'll never do. I've changed my mind
on that.

I know what you mean. Some relationships can't be avoided, such as
family members, workmates, or people who belong to organizations that
are important to you. When you can't choose who's going to be part of
a group you care about, sometimes you can agree to disagree as a way
of maintaining sanity in that relationship. I don't think that's
hypocritical at all. But it's important that both people agree to
avoid the topic. Otherwise, the one who wants to keep talking about
it will feel silenced, and the one who wants to stop the discussion
will feel badgered.

If I insisted
that I would only relate with people whose beliefs I truly shared or
accepted, I would be insisting that they change theirs to suit me - or
offering to change mine to suit them. And that's not acceptance of
difference, that's an intolerance of difference and a lack of respect for
the rights of other people to disagree with me -

For me it depends on what the issue is, and how profound the disagreement
is. I don't agree about everything with *anyone* - such a person would
just be another me, and not very interesting!

But when someone's ideas offend me, that's another issue. Bigotry is a
form of ignorance, and I don't consider it a valid "opinion" that I can
argue with in a friendly way. I would have a hard time respecting a
person who's full of hatred or superiority toward others, based on some
difference like race or sexual orientation, etc. If that person were a
family member, I would have to avoid that topic with them altogether.

So, I might have stimulating arguments with a friend who believes, for
example, that our country would be better off if the government stopped
spending money on social programs (I disagree with that intensely). I
wouldn't end a friendship over a difference of opinion like that, nor
would I expect the other person to change their views to be more like
mine. I certainly wouldn't be changing my views to suit them, either.
And we might come away from such discussions with some interesting
new perspectives. At the very least, we would both need to clarify and
justify our arguments for our own points of view, which is good mental
exercise. Only if the discussions got overly angry, or going around in
circles endlessly, would it become necessary to "agree to disagree".

Joyce

Cheryl Perkins wrote:

Some families do
something similar - after discussing an issue, they 'agree to disagree' -
they don't discuss it, they treat the other side with the usual degree of
courtesy and they maintain both sides within the family. I used to
consider this sort of thing as the worst kind of denial and hypocrisy; as
the bad type of compromise you say you'll never do. I've changed my mind
on that.

I know what you mean. Some relationships can't be avoided, such as
family members, workmates, or people who belong to organizations that
are important to you. When you can't choose who's going to be part of
a group you care about, sometimes you can agree to disagree as a way
of maintaining sanity in that relationship. I don't think that's
hypocritical at all. But it's important that both people agree to
avoid the topic. Otherwise, the one who wants to keep talking about
it will feel silenced, and the one who wants to stop the discussion
will feel badgered.

If I insisted
that I would only relate with people whose beliefs I truly shared or
accepted, I would be insisting that they change theirs to suit me - or
offering to change mine to suit them. And that's not acceptance of
difference, that's an intolerance of difference and a lack of respect for
the rights of other people to disagree with me -

For me it depends on what the issue is, and how profound the disagreement
is. I don't agree about everything with *anyone* - such a person would
just be another me, and not very interesting!

But when someone's ideas offend me, that's another issue. Bigotry is a
form of ignorance, and I don't consider it a valid "opinion" that I can
argue with in a friendly way. I would have a hard time respecting a
person who's full of hatred or superiority toward others, based on some
difference like race or sexual orientation, etc. If that person were a
family member, I would have to avoid that topic with them altogether.

So, I might have stimulating arguments with a friend who believes, for
example, that our country would be better off if the government stopped
spending money on social programs (I disagree with that intensely). I
wouldn't end a friendship over a difference of opinion like that, nor
would I expect the other person to change their views to be more like
mine. I certainly wouldn't be changing my views to suit them, either.
And we might come away from such discussions with some interesting
new perspectives. At the very least, we would both need to clarify and
justify our arguments for our own points of view, which is good mental
exercise. Only if the discussions got overly angry, or going around in
circles endlessly, would it become necessary to "agree to disagree".

Joyce

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:40:28 +1100, "Yowie"
yodeled:

"Kreisleriana" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 02:53:25 GMT, Victor Martinez
yodeled:

Christina Websell wrote:
It will be painful for me to fall out with her, but I cannot tolerate a
racist and bigot. She thinks she is right, and I think I am right.

Racism and bigotry are never right. Never. They have always been used as
an excuse to opress the minority (and sometimes even a weak majority) by
those in power.
I just told Tom that if his sister and her husband voted for the
anti-gay ammendment in their state's election, then they are not welcome
in our house. I'm sorry, but if you find my relationship so repugnant,
that you would vote to inscribe discrimination in your state's
constitution, then I do not want to welcome you into my house.
As an aside, the bible has been used throughout history to justify and
defend many horrible things, from the crusades to slavery in the US and
the oppresion of women.


Did it ever occur to these people that the Biblical model for marriage
is NOT, as they claim, "One Man, One Woman"? It is One Man, Several
Women.

Even that depends on which particular part of the Bible one is referencing.


The point is that the Bible doesn't even really *have* a consistent
model for marriage, as the God-botherers claim.


Theresa
Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh
My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:40:28 +1100, "Yowie"
yodeled:

"Kreisleriana" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 02:53:25 GMT, Victor Martinez
yodeled:

Christina Websell wrote:
It will be painful for me to fall out with her, but I cannot tolerate a
racist and bigot. She thinks she is right, and I think I am right.

Racism and bigotry are never right. Never. They have always been used as
an excuse to opress the minority (and sometimes even a weak majority) by
those in power.
I just told Tom that if his sister and her husband voted for the
anti-gay ammendment in their state's election, then they are not welcome
in our house. I'm sorry, but if you find my relationship so repugnant,
that you would vote to inscribe discrimination in your state's
constitution, then I do not want to welcome you into my house.
As an aside, the bible has been used throughout history to justify and
defend many horrible things, from the crusades to slavery in the US and
the oppresion of women.


Did it ever occur to these people that the Biblical model for marriage
is NOT, as they claim, "One Man, One Woman"? It is One Man, Several
Women.

Even that depends on which particular part of the Bible one is referencing.


The point is that the Bible doesn't even really *have* a consistent
model for marriage, as the God-botherers claim.


Theresa
Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh
My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com

On 19 Nov 2004 14:12:42 -0800, (Napoleon) yodeled:

I don't understand why people feel the need to send emails with some
sort of statement of their political or religious convictions to
others like some sort of spam.

I've thought about this on occasion. I have a close friend who is a
black man, and for some reason, people feel some need to forward some
really disgustingly racist bilge to him, in the guise of some kind of
clever or reasonable discourse. I just don't get it. It is not
exactly as if they are outright trying to hurt him (which it does, of
course), but as if they are somehow trying to get his *permission* to
express bigotry. I find this really odd, but I see it happen all the
time.

I think that deep inside, they know that it is not OK to feel the
way, but they are comforted that they have found something that echoes
their personal views, and lets them be comfortable in their
prejudices.


Theresa
Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh
My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com

On 19 Nov 2004 14:12:42 -0800, (Napoleon) yodeled:

I don't understand why people feel the need to send emails with some
sort of statement of their political or religious convictions to
others like some sort of spam.

I've thought about this on occasion. I have a close friend who is a
black man, and for some reason, people feel some need to forward some
really disgustingly racist bilge to him, in the guise of some kind of
clever or reasonable discourse. I just don't get it. It is not
exactly as if they are outright trying to hurt him (which it does, of
course), but as if they are somehow trying to get his *permission* to
express bigotry. I find this really odd, but I see it happen all the
time.

I think that deep inside, they know that it is not OK to feel the
way, but they are comforted that they have found something that echoes
their personal views, and lets them be comfortable in their
prejudices.


Theresa
Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh
My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 09:18:51 +1100, "Yowie"
yodeled:

If anyone has teenage kids who need to practice essay writing and debating
skills, that peice of FUD (fear, uncertaintly and doubt) is a perfect peice
to analyse.

There are many fallacious arguments, such as arguing from authority, false
analogy, gross overgeneralisation, as well as using emotive words and tones
to gain sympathy (ie, agreemenet) from the reader.

One could use
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/



I wish this was more widely taught. People in the highest areas of
public life regularly use absolutely ridiculous arguments all the
time, and people just go "Yeah!"


Theresa
Stinky Pictures: http://community.webshots.com/album/125591586JWEFwh
My Blog: http://www.humanitas.blogspot.com