Is it possible? I've met people so self-centered, with only the visual
ability to see what's immediately in front of them, and with a severe
lack of cognitive skills that prohibit them from reaching any valid
conclusions about what it is they're actually experiencing. Add to that, if
what they see or read somehow upset them, they tend to draw
conclusions from their limited understanding which invariably lead to a
biased world-view that is incredibly hard to rid them of. Sometimes I
wonder if it's even possible.
Sad truth is that some, hardly most, but some well liked members of a
given community will use these people to serve their purposes. They
can be quite talented in a field or two which earn them some respect.
Some people even hold the crazy notion that elderly must be
respected at all times, no matter what dung they spew around them.
This respect and fondness they summon in the people around them
tend to help spread the bias unto others, as it was one day no doubt
passed to them.
How do we fight senseless prejudice when media and the people in
charge seem intent on promoting the same at almost any cost?
I guess the debate is if it's even possible to change the minds of
people whom has nothing to gain on crushing a biased world-view, but
everything to lose; change the minds of people who fear the unknown
effects of such a change. Is it possible to reach into the inner core of a
person and make that person realise the folly of generalisation and
intellectual dishonesty, even though the two seem to serve his/her
cause very well?
Or must they simply be intellectually crushed like the loathsome
maggots of muddy thoughts they are, then to serve as fertilisers for
justice and peace only?
Debate!
It's part of human instinct to reason inductively and jump to conclusions. It saves time and makes evolutionary sense in a primitive society. In a modern society, it obviously has its drawbacks, but there's not much we can do about it. I guess the best we can do is teach the scientific method and learn to distrust our intuition, religion and nationalism.
Originally posted by JigtiePeople that debate, whether providing the loathsome side of one argument or
Is it possible? I've met people so self-centered, with only the visual
ability to see what's immediately in front of them, and with a severe
lack of cognitive skills that prohibit them from reaching any valid
conclusions about what it is they're actually experiencing. Add to that, if
what they see or read somehow upset them, they tend to draw
conclu dy thoughts they are, then to serve as fertilisers for
justice and peace only?
Debate!
the wholesome side of another are people of use. They're the people that make
changes.
The narrow minded wretches that you refer to are the people that stay silent and
watch the world suffer.
They're the ones that voted Bush in for a second term. The silent, blameless mass.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckIt's the people making certain changes I'm talking about. Not all
People that debate, whether providing the loathsome side of one argument or
the wholesome side of another are people of use. They're the people that make
changes.
The narrow minded wretches that you refer to are the people that stay silent and
watch the world suffer.
They're the ones that voted Bush in for a second term. The silent, blameless mass.
changes are for the better, you know?
Originally posted by Jigtiesenseless bias is "un-fightable". when all attempts of reasoning have failed, the only way to ensure bias doesn't harm a category of people is instate rules, laws that forbid discrimination.
Is it possible? I've met people so self-centered, with only the visual
ability to see what's immediately in front of them, and with a severe
lack of cognitive skills that prohibit them from reaching any valid
conclusions about what it is they're actually experiencing. Add to that, if
what they see or read somehow upset them, they tend to draw
conclu ...[text shortened]... dy thoughts they are, then to serve as fertilisers for
justice and peace only?
Debate!
we understand it is the right of an individual to hate a category of people. as long as it doesn't brake the law. and we make laws to protect that category and society as a whole for that matter.
Originally posted by JigtieNo. But you don't know if a change is better until you've tried it.
Not all
changes are for the better, you know?
So, from a blanco knowledge of whether a change will be better or worse, you can either take a chance and change or be scared and stick to that what you already have.
With the sad irony being that you will only really appreciate that what you have once you have something else (change).
Hence, it's probably best to listen to Lou Reed on this one: "What comes is better than what came before."