Ruin Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Here's my disclaimer: Somethings, you may not agree with; some may really tick you off. If you think that what you post may start a fight and cause me to lock my own thread, please don't post. I'm looking for constructive criticism on my writing. I don't think this is much to ask. These are just something that run through my head. In short: I hope to get people thinking, and I also would appreciate any feedback on the actual piece, not it's content (doesn't mean you can't though). lol. Thanks in advance --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not sure where this one will end up. I just know I need to write and get some thoughts on paper. People do a lot of things that just "bug" me. Nothing major, I'm not prejiduce or anything, but just stupid stuff that's really kind of annoying. Just to reiterate, it doesn't put me in a fit of rage or anything just kinda "bug" me. For example, (thanks to Pantom's post in the Hmmmn thread) super sizing things. Do we really need to pay the extra 60 cents for the extra 5 cents worth of food? And I'm guilty of this one, reching two or three slices down in the bread bag to get the "better" bread (yeah, you've done it too). But those are just small things. On a larger scale, I think the most aggrivating things people do is out right show they are prejiduce or bias in some way shape or form. I'm not syaing that there are people who aren't prejiduce in some way. Because we all are, but do we really need to be open about it? Especially on the smaller things? Someone will think "well, it's to make a difference. We have to fight for what is right!" True, but, implanting it in your children's heads or "standing up" when you're around your friends can just be annoying. I guess I'm back on the politcal correctness track or whatever, but there are somethings that really just tick me off that people do. I'd have to say there are two prejiduces that really really irk me; sexisim and racism. Just because you're skin is different from someone else's does not give you the authority to mistreat them, or complain about them mistreating you. Same with sexism, just because you have different body parts does not give you the right to blame the other gender for unsolvable problems. I think that in the past 100 some years our country (the USA) has become very proactive to everything. We went from abolishing slavery to trying to rename Hamburger PA (I think that was the state). From women voting, to the removal of segregation. Our history has in all not been a very good one to us. There are a lot of things that we should be a shamed of, however, we have come a long way because of those things. We're heading in the right direction, but I'm afraid that we're going to be too "correct" and make us turn around. Because we can only give so much. It's almost like training an animal. When it does something right, you give it a treat. But, if you're too nice, it wont do anything and expect a treat. There are times when people (the ones who aren't demonstrating) need to say "enough". We can only do so much to make things equal for people. And we can only push the envelope so far. People will disagree when I say that there is a limit to what we as a society can do. But that is the point fo this, to discover if you agree with what I'm saying or not. Getting back to my point, I think that there are some people who are too open about it. Some of you who have talked with me know how badly age discrimination bothers me, and how I do anything I can to keep it from happening. But I'm not "in your face" about it (I try not to be any how). And I don't blame things that happen on me because of my age. I'm all for activisim, and doing what is right; but it doesn't need to be rubbed in my face. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All this typing has proved that I am due for a new keyboard. Lol. Anyway, as I have said before, this is to make people think, this is not necessarily my beliefs and views on the subject (however, obviosuly, some of it is). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefly2442 Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Interesting. Yet another excellent intrigueing post by Ruin. After reading this, one thing popped into my head. With regard to the racism and sexism. It seems like everywhere you go you are being educated and told about these two issues. Small children are educated about it and with our politically correct society we are reminded everyday that the issue still exists.... but what if there was no education and remindars? It's like we keep sexism and racism alive just by reminding ourselves and teaching our kids about it! What if we just left it along and forgot about it. Then maybe would people just "get along?". I'm not sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruin Posted June 15, 2003 Author Share Posted June 15, 2003 That's a interesting point Firefly... What if we did that? We eliminated those "friendly reminders" of all the things that are bad in this world. Then? Then we would have Utopia. Thanks for the compliment btw, I'm glad you liked it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dekela Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 To degrade people because of gender, race, age or what not is undoutedly the wrong attitude to have. But the reverse of this is also wrong, such as expecting to be treated different because of your gender, race, age or what not. All people deserve equality but were is the line drawn. Look at some women, they want to be treated equal to men but still wish to have doors opened and chairs pushed in for them, not that this is wrong but is this being two faced or is opening a door symbolic for something else such as caring. Older folk have lived their lives and payed their dues. They don't wish to be treated different because of their age and nor they should, but how often does the lovely old gentleman turn into a cane wealding maniac because he didn't get a pensioner discount. Religious people have the same basic right to do as they please with their own lives, but does this right extend to walking house to house trying to force their belief onto others who may not be interested. The incident here in Australia where Jonny Howard refused to appologise to the Aboriginal's has been and will probably remain a heated topic. Obviously what was done at the time was wrong, but is Mr. Howard or indeed any Australian in this present time responsible and therefore obliged to appologise. Again were are the limits. The purpose of these questions is not to upset people nor fuel current or future debate, but to simply show that regardless of gender, race, age or what not, there is very fine line between right and wrong. We all view things in different ways and have different thoughts and opinions, so there will never really be a clearly defined line between the two. Finally remember, don't judge a certain gender, race or age based on one or two individuals, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel. Remember this and the line may become a little bit clearer. P.S. You really need to stop doing this to people at this time of the morning ruin, now my brain feels like a do-nut, all empty in the middle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruin Posted June 15, 2003 Author Share Posted June 15, 2003 Finally remember, don't judge a certain gender, race or age based on one or two individuals, it only takes one bad apple to spoil the barrel. Remember this and the line may become a little bit clearer. That's an excellent point. And I think that that is why some people become prejiduce to begin with. P.S. You really need to stop doing this to people at this time of the morning ruin, now my brain feels like a do-nut, all empty in the middle I hate to say it but uhhhh it's one in the afternoon here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dekela Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 I hate to say it but uhhhh it's one in the afternoon here. Doh!!! It's 0311 Hrs. on the play school clock over here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dekela Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Another thing to ask is where does discrimination start. I know it's clear with things like racial remarks, but what about the smaller things. If you are annoyed that your neighbour has more money than you, does that mean your discriminating against the rich. What about the guy or girl that gets all the hot dates, is this discrimination against the sexy. Again it all comes down to individual views. No one likes to admit that they discriminate, but the facts are that all of us do, it just depends on the view and the scale of it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firefly2442 Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 But then if everyone was equal and happy, the world would be a pretty boring place now wouldn't it?.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hephaestus Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Just trying to provoke thought, not war: Who says we have to be nice to people and not offend them? Why cant I treat anyone as I please and let that be OK? If I dont like Ruin because he is younger than me, then call me a twit and a numskull and let me think what I want to think. Afterall, if we are going to be an open-minded society, we have to accept that any given person is as good or as bad as anyone else. So in that line of thought, almost anything should be regarded as valid in the judgement of others-- if you happen to be the judging type But, what I'm hearing here in this discussion is that there is some kind of standard which all people should be held to-- a standard which all should follow. A kind of human decency, if you will. Perhaps some kind of Moral law? Something like, 'treat others as you would like to be treated'. Am I close? It is interesting to think whether this Law of Human Nature, of sorts, is actually something inherent in us, or if we have just conjured it up in our minds for our societies and cultures. If it is a kind of law within each human, I would say it should be taken seriously as it would certainly be a valid law of behavior. On the other hand, if said law is only a certain degree of politeness each of us ascribes to one another, then this standard which humanity has created is very subjective to each individual. In this case, why should I have to follow some kind of conventional code of decency if it carries no widespread credence and uniformity across the majority of the population? I should say here that I am not speaking of any cultural courtesy, such as opening doors for women here in the Good 'ole South. What I am speaking of is fairness to others in regards to race, gender, and creed. Just wondering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTF-2 Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 that's quite good Ruin. you raise some very interesting points. they are very provocative. This would make a really good essay, it would be nice to see it develop into one. here is some constructive criticism as far as your writing goes: -you tend to digress (not sure about this, it might just be the conversational style) -some bits are worded quite awkwardly -you should make your thesis better (i know this wasn't as essay but still) -you contradict yourself: "I'm not prejiduce or anything", and then you go on to say that everyone is prejudice. (the latter one being true) -(if this were to be an essay), you should start with the example from Phatom's post, then go on to the rest. -it needs more structure. (i'm sure you've been taught the "five paragraph SA", that's not what i'm talking about. Writers don't write essays in five paragraphs, you shouldn't either.) But it should have some structure. If your prose leads somewhere, or, even better, leads the reader to their own conclusion, it would be far more effective. i don't think this is the response you were looking for. sorry. lol. anyway, i think, with a few changes, it would make quite a good essay. i know you were just spitting thought's out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruin Posted June 15, 2003 Author Share Posted June 15, 2003 @JTF-2, Yeah, I know I lack a lot of that in somethnig like this. Maybe I should ship over one of my longer ones to you. Get some real feedback. My digression is the only thing I have a rough time on. @Heph But, what I'm hearing here in this discussion is that there is some kind of standard which all people should be held to-- a standard which all should follow. There's a name for it, but it is society's standards. We all need to be held accountable to it otherwise we'll have people who think it's okay to kill, and others who think it should be illegal to kiss in public (no sly comments on this one please... ) why should I have to follow some kind of conventional code of decency if it carries no widespread credence and uniformity across the majority of the population? Which is our problem. We have these moral code in place, but only about 75% of the population follows it. Then, as the others break down, those who follow it say "Why should I?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hephaestus Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 There's a name for it, but it is society's standards. We all need to be held accountable to it Which society? The civilized morality society, the savage morality society, the united states morality society, or the nazi morality society? Where did these standards come from and/or who put them there? We have these moral code in place, but only about 75% of the population follows it. Well, the 25% are probably living their lives the way they want to live, without anyone telling them how to behave or what to do in a given circumstance. Why should they follow something they believe to be unnecessary? If morals are nothing more than social constraints established by the 75% of society, why should the 25% have to live by anything else but their own rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTF-2 Posted June 15, 2003 Share Posted June 15, 2003 Maybe I should ship over one of my longer ones to you. Get some real feedback. My digression is the only thing I have a rough time on. sure, i'll have a look at one of your "longer ones" if you want. just PM it or e-mail me: matthewbubbers@canoemail.com. I'm no english prof or anything, i can just try to help you with your writing if you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. Slaughter Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 But, what I'm hearing here in this discussion is that there is some kind of standard which all people should be held to-- a standard which all should follow. A kind of human decency, if you will. Perhaps some kind of Moral law? Something like, 'treat others as you would like to be treated'. Am I close? It is interesting to think whether this Law of Human Nature, of sorts, is actually something inherent in us, or if we have just conjured it up in our minds for our societies and cultures. Interesting point you bring up. You attribute the phrase "treat others as you would like to be treated" to human beings. In reality this moral code is Biblical and whether you beleive it or not comes from Jesus Christ: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". IMO without "moral laws" which I beleive come from God everyone would be free to do as they please which would result in Anarchy and chaos. One person might be comfortable with cannabalism, another murder etc etc. Another thing to keep in mind is that "Religous" people going door to door may be annoying and bothersome but in their minds they are trying to tell people about salvation and keep them from damnation. I don't personally agree with most door to door types but in the end they ultimately can't "force" anyone to do anything. Plus since I opened my big mouth i would have to say that one of the things i find most annoying these days is political correctness, it tends to ###### me off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruin Posted June 16, 2003 Author Share Posted June 16, 2003 IMO without "moral laws" which I beleive come from God everyone would be free to do as they please Again, just food for thought, not trying to fire things up. But I see that Religion was a way of organizing these moral codes that everyone needs. @JTF-2, most of em are for school... but I'll send one over tomorrow (well, later today I guess... lol). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dekela Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 There's a name for it, but it is society's standards. We all need to be held accountable to it Which society? The civilized morality society, the savage morality society, the united states morality society, or the nazi morality society? Where did these standards come from and/or who put them there? We have these moral code in place, but only about 75% of the population follows it. Well, the 25% are probably living their lives the way they want to live, without anyone telling them how to behave or what to do in a given circumstance. Why should they follow something they believe to be unnecessary? If morals are nothing more than social constraints established by the 75% of society, why should the 25% have to live by anything else but their own rules? Thats very true, and these people also have a natural right to think as they do, but do they also have the right to force this on others?? Do the 75% have the right to try and change these people?? Another thing to keep in mind is that "Religous" people going door to door may be annoying and bothersome but in their minds they are trying to tell people about salvation and keep them from damnation. What if i dont care about salvation and damnation, do i still need these people coming to my door telling me about it, do they have these rights. Do i have the right to tell them to take a hike?? Not trying to offend any one here, but these are the questions that get asked. This is the line and the views i wrote about earlier. Every one sees thing differently, and this is their right, isn't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hephaestus Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Do the 75% have the right to try and change these people?? Sure. They can try through dialogue. What if i dont care about salvation and damnation, do i still need these people coming to my door telling me about it, do they have these rights. Do i have the right to tell them to take a hike?? Well, whether you care about salvation or damnation, there is the chance that you could be wrong about both, and thats why some religious groups go door to door. So, yeah, they have the right to come knock on your door, but you dont have to talk to them. Sure you can tell them to take a hike if you want. The point of my questions was not whether we have certain rights, because each individual should know his or her rights. My point was the validity of moral standards. If someone proposes that we should follow a certain standard, I would like to know how said standard came to be, why its agreed upon, and why I should follow it. Don't tell me that racism is bad and not give me a reason (just an example). And dont tell me what 'you think' or 'you believe' or 'you feel'. Because, if racism is wrong, then it is wrong not because you say, think, feel, or believe it is wrong. Certainly, there is someone in the world that will think racism is just fine, and their conviction is in direct opposition with the idea that racism is wrong. NOTE: I'm just adding to and trying to give some extra thought into the original post in this thread. This is not necessarliy a debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconSnake Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 To reply to the original thread of Ruin's, I will just say this: Far too many US citizens have forgotten that this Country is a form of democracy where the majority rules. It seems that every little group believes that they should have their way - regardless of what liberties it countermands or the fact that the majority feels differently. Even when it has been made resoundingly clear to them that they are the minority when it comes to a vote. To think that we can have a nation where every single person gets their way is foolish, to think that you as an individual or minority group (note: that is not meant as a strict ethnicity modifier) deserve special treatment is preposterous. No matter what the decision on any given issue, there is always going to a group of people on the losing side who cry "unfair". Like the saying goes, "you can't win 'em all". I hate political correctness. And tofu. RS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dekela Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 If someone proposes that we should follow a certain standard, I would like to know how said standard came to be, why its agreed upon, and why I should follow it. It's a good point, which i dout any one will have the answer for. The said standard may infact come from within each individual. Their own views/beliefs. Or it may infact come from the teachings of others. Which ever way, all of us have some standard that we follow, most of the time it happens to be the same as some one elses. Hence the follow like sheep attitude. If enough people believe it to be wrong then that is how it is judged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruin Posted June 16, 2003 Author Share Posted June 16, 2003 Far too many US citizens have forgotten that this Country is a form of democracy where the majority rules. I think that's a good point RS. Maybe the USA has allowed too much leeway for the "minority" groups that needed it. Not saying this is a bad thing, some groups definatley needed that, but now groups that are way out of line are expecting it. Which society? The civilized morality society, the savage morality society, the united states morality society, or the nazi morality society? Where did these standards come from and/or who put them there? Sorry but these questions are a little wierd to me. Maybe I'm misreading your question, but when I say "society" I mean we as a human race, inspite of those foolish few who decide to disobey our moral code. As for where they came from and who put them there, I see it this way. Somewhere way back when people decided it's not right to steal, cheat, kill, lie, or have an affair. Look familiar? Part of the ten commandments. Whether you believe they came from god or not is up to you. Either way we somehow ended up with the knowledge that these were ten "no nos", and society obeyed them. It only got lrger from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dekela Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Somewhere way back when people decided it's not right to steal, cheat, kill, lie, or have an affair. Look familiar? Part of the ten commandments. To me this is just a big bucket off turkey poo, but it may also be correct. As i said, i don't think that any one knows where the social standards for right and wrong came from, but if enough sheep say it's wrong, then it is seen as wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruin Posted June 16, 2003 Author Share Posted June 16, 2003 Eitherway, we somehow came up with the idea that these tent hings were wrong. Like I said, where you think these came from (or even if they exist) is your opinion. But somehow, way back when, these ten issues were addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dekela Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 Unfortunately some of the best things in life are banned by these commandments, doh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hephaestus Posted June 16, 2003 Share Posted June 16, 2003 (edited) If someone proposes that we should follow a certain standard, I would like to know how said standard came to be, why its agreed upon, and why I should follow it. It's a good point, which i dout any one will have the answer for. Right. I'm not necessarily looking for a specific answer as my questions do not come to me in multiple choice Just adding fuel to our thinking process in the discussion. Sorry but these questions are a little wierd to me. Maybe I'm misreading your question, but when I say "society" I mean we as a human race, inspite of those foolish few who decide to disobey our moral code. As for where they came from and who put them there, I see it this way. Somewhere way back when people decided it's not right to steal, cheat, kill, lie, or have an affair. Look familiar? Part of the ten commandments. Whether you believe they came from god or not is up to you. Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't state that question very specifically. But you gave me your definition of society anyway, which is part of what I was basically looking for. Religion, god, and the ten commandments aside, let me see if I can explain this next point better than my last: When you think about the differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. But I'm pretty sure we all believe that some moralities are better than others. And the moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are measuring them both by a STANDARD, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more than the other. But the STANDARD that measures the two moralities is something different from either. The two moralities are being compared with what could be called a REAL MORALITY, and this supposes a Real Right, independent of what people think. If you think that your ideas of morality are truer than the moral ideas of Nazis, you must be comparing both to a Real Morality. And this REAL MORALITY is what I have been asking about. Draw your own conclusions about where it came from, or if it even exists. Either way, the idea of a Real Morality adds validity to the moralities that float about in our societies. Edited June 16, 2003 by hephaestus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.