|09-16-2011, 02:25 PM||#21|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Soviet Maryland
Training Exp: 8 years off and on
Training Type: SFW!
Fav Exercise: Bench Press
Unfortunately, no matter who wrote that paragraph, those words come from a hypocrite. There is absolutely no possible way for anyone to look at some of the things others do, and not find a single thing in the world appalling to you. We are all unique in some way shape or form, and that is our true individuality, but I would find it impossible to believe there is someone who truly is beyond anyone else; that their ideas and opinions are not shared by others. You speak of a purity that just does not exist.
I'm sure I could think of several actions, non hypothetical (extreme nonetheless), where you would share an opinion with others that frowns upon certain behaviors. No man is as pure as that paragraph would make them out to be.
The Greatest Respect You Can Earn is Self Respect.
|09-16-2011, 04:25 PM||#22|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Training Type: Fullbody
Fav Exercise: Deadlift
|09-16-2011, 04:44 PM||#23|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Training Exp: 5+ years
Training Type: Bodybuilding
Fav Exercise: Pullup/Bent Over Row
Fav Supp: Feeding the Brain
Sometimes giving respect does NOT return respect.
And, it doesn't really (IMO) sum up everything, only some of it.
Mutual rights--"that were happening at the SAME TIME" are at odds with one another.
1. The persons right not to stand in silence and the right not to respect the national anthem
2. The persons right to stand in silence and the right to respect the national anthem.
It happened in the United States of America. Where we enjoy many freedoms that over lap the other, and they tend to collide once in awhile.
Neither right is stronger than the other, in the constitutional sense. And, neither has the right to infringe the right of the other.
Who respects WHO first here?.
Does the moral values out weigh the rights of the other? Remember, he has the RIGHT not to honor if he so chooses. And, the person reacting has the RIGHT to select his mode of action.
In addition, even if the guy reacting did not like the guy on the cell phone, what about..............respecting his RIGHT to do so?
ITS A TWO WAY STREET.
And, considering the "type of" supposed disruption (by using cell phone), does it warrant a violation of his right.....of personal protection?
And, even if he was a moral violating moron (violating no criminal law, but only moral values--not premised under any statute to bring a violation of law), does it justify the reaction?
This is relative.
Some would say, yes, and take the consequences. While others may say, they were justified and shouldn't be prosecuted.
While is true, you remove the stimulus that provided the aggressive reaction, the aggressive reaction "more than likely" would not have happened.
BUT.......respecting the guys, RIGHT, and being personally annoyed (without violence) would have removed the aggressive reaction. Avoided violating additional personal rights and criminal prosecution.
We have to be responsible for our actions.
We all have the constitutional right to free speech.......correct?
Yes....BUT...its conditional and at times can be down right criminal.......and with consequences, even when you exercise this RIGHT.
Think about it.
Last edited by Chillen; 09-16-2011 at 05:00 PM.
|09-16-2011, 05:55 PM||#24|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Training Exp: 30+
Training Type: Other
Fav Exercise: Anything overhead
Fav Supp: Creatine. C'est tout.
I'm not setting myself on a higher moral plane here. I'm suggesting that there is a weird tension between elevating individualism to an extreme virtue on the one hand and insisting on conformity on the other. And that includes me.
Also, I'm not saying that having group norms, and being appalled when someone breaks them, is always a bad thing. We couldn't function as a society without that reaction. For me, the problem is that there are some group behaviours that make very little intrinsic sense, and so the appropriate response to ignoring those norms ought to be...."well, I want to do this because that's my thing, but if he doesn't want to...so what?" To me, I think we should be grown up enough, as a society, to recognise those situations for what they are.
The particular objection I have against minute silences is that it's an attempt to legislate and enforce grief and remembrance. And those things are spontaneous personal things that should not be intruded upon. I don't mind saying that I have shed tears for victims of many crises, and reflected on their plight. This has happened naturally, and at the time that was appropriate for me, rather than at an arbitrary moment selected by someone else.
I'm going to tread carefully here, but it seems to me that for many people taking part in minute's silences, their primary preoccupations at that moment are (a) waiting for it to end and (b) trying to look sombre and maybe (c) looking out for anyone whose not doing it, so that they can be righteously annoyed. In any mass event like that, my guess is that a lot of people aren't transported into a reflective state at all. That's not to say that they don't care, just that they need to arrive at that state themselves, in their own time, without prompting.
Last edited by Tannhauser; 09-16-2011 at 05:58 PM.
|brawl, game, jets|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|The Boston Brawl||BendtheBar||General Board||1||05-31-2011 01:15 PM|
|Lights out, Game Over||gwilliams||Training Logs||6||03-08-2011 07:34 AM|
|Weapons Game||wesrman||General Board||15||02-14-2011 05:54 PM|
|What's Your End Game?||BendtheBar||General Board||20||05-25-2010 01:07 AM|
|Jets vs. Vikings||Joe Weider||General Board||12||01-25-2010 09:58 PM|
|Thread Tools||Search this Thread|