3 ms·
In response to Mike Arrington: Why you should start living your life again.
I hope me posting this isn't a problem. Just thought some of you would appreciate it.
- oldgregg 17y agoWhat ridiculous ramblings. You presuppose that the only problem in the world is intolerance. Well what if my "true self" is touching kids in the naughty place, would you tolerate that? Everyone is intolerant of others, the question is just who is drawing the line.
- tylerdmace 17y agoI don't think I ever said it was the only problem in the world. I simply stated that it's a problem. And a big one. Grumpy oldgregg is grumpy. Relax, friend.
- greenlblue 17y agoumm... I wouldn't tolerate that because you touching kids is imposing your needs and desires onto someone that is not qualified to consent to that kind of imposition and I don't think this is what the author of the post is saying.
- oldgregg 17y agoBecause they are 12 yrs old? 14? 16? 18? Who gets to draw the "qualified to consent" line?
- greenlblue 17y agoTheir parents I would think or until they are able to provide and sustain themselves on their own. Anyway, this is a really weird kind of argument you've gotten yourself into. It completely misses the intent of the post.
- nopassrecover 17y agoFortunately when people can look at issues rationally not emotionally we can debate under what conditions (age, development, maturity etc.) a person is able to give their consent.
- jacoblyles 17y agoOnce everybody in the world is considering issues rationally the first guy that starts debating emotionally is going to have a hell of a big influence. Half the population has an IQ below 100.
- ytinas 17y agoBut if everyone in the world considered issues rationally, then everyone would be smarter, no?
- nopassrecover 17y agoRidiculous straw man retort. If tolerance, in the form the author argues for ("recognition and respect (of) differences in opinions or beliefs" from an impartial viewpoint), was more widely adopted we would be able to have reasonable debates on issues like censorship and individual liberties without people like you appealing to people's emotional biases with pathetic fear-inducing examples.
- oldgregg 17y agoIt's not a straw man, see the very frequent example below. The problem is the definition of "impartial viewpoint."
- greenlblue 17y agoAwesome post and I kinda see where he is coming from. Don't be a dick to others and be true to yourself and the world will be a much better place. Solid advice but unfortunately there are always powerful interests at work that have a stake in shaping your views and opinions. The church, the government, corporations, etc. Each of these things has a stake in an ideology that creates the conditions for their well being at the expense of the well being of others and people are extremely bad at untangling all those influences and getting to the bottom of who they really are. I even suspect some people are really uncomfortable with not being influenced and told what to do since they think chaos is sure to ensue. Every time I tell people I'm an atheist they act like they are seeing me for the first time and their immediate next question is "How do you make moral decisions without religion?". I have yet to find an answer to this question.
- jacoblyles 17y agoReally? I meet so many atheists on the internet and in California that I have the urge to take up a religion just to spite them.
- greenlblue 17y agoI honestly don't care if people are religious or not because in my experience it makes absolutely no difference to how the person acts. In my time I've know many intolerant and unkind religious assholes and I've also known many that have been religious and kind and caring. So if you're gonna take up religion you should do it for yourself and not to spite me.
- jacoblyles 17y agoI didn't quite mean it that way. In line with the author's thoughts, popular beliefs that everyone is "supposed" to hold annoy me. I grew up in a very religious area and became an atheist. In my current environment atheism is the default position and religious people are given strange looks, so I sympathize with the religious people.
- gizmomagico 17y ago
- jacoblyles 17y ago>"But my plea to you all is to stick up for what you believe in - despite knowing that you will undoubtedly encounter hardships as a result. Yeah, it's hard. But believe me, it's worth it." Why is it worth it? Because you say so? A person who holds a minority belief may risk personal and professional alienation if he expresses that belief without restraint. How do you know that self-expression is worth it for him? Isn't this post an example of the pathology it describes? "Being true to yourself" is something you're supposed to believe in post-1960s American culture. The author offers nothing but emotion-based arguments for a popular ideal.
- tylerdmace 17y agoI agree that the word 'worth' was poor choice. That's opinion. My only argument was that it seems beneficial for an individual, even if only in the long run, to exercise open and honest self-expression. Emotion-based? Sure. But that doesn't negate any validity, does it?
- jacoblyles 17y ago>Emotion-based? Sure. But that doesn't negate any validity, does it? For me - yes. I try not to believe things on the basis of emotion alone.
- tylerdmace 17y agoAnd you shouldn't. Just like you shouldn't dismiss validity because it's emotion-based.
- greenlblue 17y agoA society in which people are not willing to trust each other and express their opinion is in a very real sense broken. No politician on capitol hill is willing to express their real opinion and look at where that has lead us. Special interests dominate every aspect of law making and every deal happens behind closed doors. This is truly a sad state of affairs and it is so mostly because nobody is willing to say what is really on their mind. All we get now are ideological shouting matches because just like muscles atrophy when not used so does the mental faculty of thinking for yourself.