Opinionatedness

[Renorei]

Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.

I agree. I believe that everyone has a right to have a gun. So many people forget that guns are also used for hunting, which there's nothing wrong with. Also, even if guns were banned, the kind of people who would kill another person with a gun will still manage to get one anyway, and their victim will be gunless, since, after all, guns were banned. Sometime soon I plan to get a gun for myself, to put in my car in case someone ever tries to hijack my car and kill me. I have every right to own a gun, and so does everyone else, and I hope it always stays that way.

As a matter of personal opinion, I strongly disagree with this.

Hunting rifles, if you are a hunter and keep them locked up and unloaded when you are not using them, are fine.

...but handguns are built to kill other humans. That is all that they do. Ownership of one suggests that you plan on, or are willing to kill another human being with it some day.

The only reason you need one is because the bad guys have them too.

If no one had handguns (and semi-automatics), then we would all be better off.

...sure...SOME people would still get them, even if they were banned...but many, many, many people would not. (Only the worst of the worst...career criminals and people who go out of ther way to break the law and kill someone would go through the trouble to get one.)

So Many spontanious, and accidental deaths would be avoided if such tools of death were made far more difficult to aquire.

I HOPE that it does NOT stay the way it is for long.


(To those who own handguns: Are you really prepared to be a murderer...even in self defense?)

As I said, and as you agreed, some people would still manage to acquire guns. If it just so happens that some person kidnaps me or tries to kill me, and that person happens to be one of the ones who managed to get a gun, I certainly wouldn't enjoy the prospect of dying defenseless. Which is why I think that handguns should not be outlawed. No matter how unlikely it is that a situation like this would occur, I don't want to ever be in a situation where I would die defenseless. Furthermore, even if handguns were outlawed, how would we remove the ones that are already on the streets? I seriously doubt every person would hand them over quietly. A gun, if cared for well, can last an incredibly long time. To get all guns back would require a hell of an effort, and plenty tax dollars to boot.

And to answer your question about whether I would really be willing to kill someone in self-defense, yeah. If someone threatens my life, IMO, they no longer deserve to keep theirs.

I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, that is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! ARE YOU LISTENING MARTHA BURKE?

*sigh* I don't know about this one. There's nothing wrong with segregating things, as long as both sides are treated equally. Quite frankly, though, I wouldn't want to be a girl scout. Boy scouts get to do so much cooler stuff. Just because I'm a girl, doesn't mean I want to sit around and do girly stuff, maybe I wanna go outside and do outdoorsy type stuff. I think, ultimately, I disagree with this one. If I was a child, boy scouts would suit my personality much more, so why should I have to be left out just because I lack certain equipment? The fundamental differences between boys and girls is slight, most of the differences exist because society has imposed them.

This is a silly argument if you ask me.

If girls want to join the BOY SCOUTS because they like what they do more than what the GIRL SCOUTS do, then they should either form a new organization that Will allow both Boys and Girls, or complain to the GIRL SCOUTS to incorperate more varied activities that real girls actually want to do.

...not pester the group for boys who want to act like boys with other boys.

You, luckily enough, are a boy, and thus were capable (though I don't know if you actually did) of being in Boy Scouts, and doing cool stuff. I wasn't. A child of the age that I was when I wanted to join Boy Scouts can hardly be expected to organize an organization. I would have loved to be in some sort of organization that incorporated both boy and girl activities for both boys and girls, but I was maybe...7. A 7 year old can't start an organization on their own, and most adults don't listen to them if they say they want a new organization. I'm 19 now, and capable of doing something like that if I wanted to, but, I no longer want to. And so that is how it will be. Thousands of female children will be frustrated during their childhood because no organization exists that accommodates their needs. By the time they are old enough to make something happen, it is too late for them.

As far as pestering the boys, I don't see how a child would bother them that much if she did everything they did, and enjoyed it all as much as they did, simply because she lacks certain genitalia.

I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen, you should have to speak English!

YESYESYESYESYES. True, this country doesn't have an official language. But, we should. Hopefully someday we will. Either way, the overwhelming majority of people here speak English. I think that people who want to come to this country should have to be decently fluent in English before we let them in.

NONONONONONONO...

Language is a beautiful thing...and quite honestly, the English language SUCKS. I think the rest of America should stop being lazy and stubborn and learn a second or third language themselves, rather than sit on their butts and complain that those other people should learn a language foreign to them instead.

Everyone should speak at least two languages. IMHO.[/quote]

Well, this is America. The vast majority of people speak English, we shouldn't have to learn to speak a language foreign to us, when we are not the ones who are foreigners. Granted, I do think everyone should know more than one language, but this goes for foreigners in our country as well. They should know their own language, and English...THOROUGHLY...if they want to live here. And, IMO, the English language doesn't suck. That's an opinion thing, not a fact. English has more words than any language, and is far more adaptable. We have words from many languages in our language, and are always willing to accept more. Plus, English is the language of international communication, and international trade. In all actuality, it's the most important language in the world. There is only one language that is used more than English, but it is only used in a concentrated area.




Anyway, sorry we disagree. I respect your opinions, but I’ve formulated mine after great thought and heavy consideration of many issues within my own mind. Most of the time, I’ve already considered a new angle that someone may bring up, in regards to my opinion. As a result, I am very difficult to sway. I’m not trying to sway your opinions, by any means, just clarifying why I have the ones that I have.

[Scott Gardener]

In the United States in 1954, in the landmark case of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, the judge made the observation that schools segregated by race were inherently unequal. This has often been paraphrased "'seperate but equal' is unherently unequal." It was a major mantra of the 1960s civil rights movements, lead by people such as the late Reverand Martin Luther King, Jr. Around the same time, a then young lady named Rosa Parks, who died less than a week ago, refused to give up a seat on a bus and thus launched the "freedom rides," in which people of both black and white races sat integrated on busses, in protest of segregation laws.

By this time, segregation was a serious embarassment for the United States, as most of Europe had either abolished it or had never had it in the first place. In the 1920s, famous sensual performer Josephine Baker was an enormous sensation in Europe, performing at some of the largest night club venues. But, in her home country, she was not even allowed to walk in the front door, let alone organize an act, because she was black.

And yet, the biggest advocates today of segregation are some of the modern African-American community leaders. They forget that Reverand King invited white people too, to the original march on Washington, DC. He gave his "I have a dream" speech to an audience of mixed races. Today, fanatic radicals have hijacked the movement, directing focus away from peace and unity, focusing instead on anger, aggressive posturing, and stereotypical symbolisms such as rap music, abuse towards women, and a new form of slang language. Thankfully, some of the biggest opponents of this misdirection of the movement are also African-Americans. There are people such as Bill Cosby, who has been around since the original civil rights movements, and who continues to advocate an integrated, civil, and intelligent approach.

And, let's not let the black-white issue cause us to forget all the other segregation issues happening. The gender issue is at least as pervasive a problem in the United States today. It's a far bigger issue still in places like Saudi Arabia, where women are denied to this day voting rights, and where the culture indoctrinates the idea that women are somehow inherantly inferior, thus suppressing access to half the population's productivity and intellectual potential. A similar problem exists in many other countries within the Middle East, as well as in places like substantial portions of China.

Racism and the desire to segregate one's self from other groups is certainly not uniquely American. In Japan, the word "foreigner," ("Gai-Jin") has built into it an association with stupidity and inferiority; it is in essence the same as many hate words here in America that have finally been given the same treatment as other words of profanity. And, it in Japan can be used to describe anyone not Japanese, which basically can apply to about all of us.

I need not go into all the race-related wars over the past, say, 5000 years. There's whole volumes dedicated to that. They're called History textbooks. Suffice it to say, blacks aren't the only ones who have been historically subjected to injustice. The Jews' ordeals through history is legendary, and the Irish have been at odds with themselves and engaging in terrorist attacks over Catholicism versus the Anglican church, two different denominaitons of the same religion. Similar parallels can be found throughout the Middle East, without even getting into the whole Israel / Palestine thing.

So, human groups hate other human groups. Let's quit acting like it's a strange and novel thing. It's one of the core problems with our whole civilization. The solution isn't to continue insisting on the inherent superiority of one particular group over the others. That's precicely what perpetuates and empowers the underlying problem. Quit shizzling my dizzle and start treating me like a fellow human being.

[Shadow Wulf]

Yeah the country call Adhen is basicly consider the boys club cause the females doesnt get be invovled in alot of things.

[Renorei]

But seriously why are we talking about some left/right wing (wich ever is REpublican) guy who doesn't know what he's talking about, why not some other thing?

Whether or not you agree with his ideas (and whether his delivery is good or not), doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. There's no crime or inherent incorrectness in being Republican. Most of the things that he's said are pretty good. Whether or not you agree with him doesn't automatically negate the validity of his ideas.

And as to why we're talking about it, it's fun, and interesting. For many of us, talking about our beliefs can be enjoyable, or at least engaging.

[Vilkacis]

As for the language issue, let me offer just a bit more than my previous "I disagree completely."

My thoughts are that anyone who wishes to come to our country ought to be able to speak whichever language(s) they wish. If they don't want to speak the same language as everyone else (or come here not knowing), that's their prerogative. As I see it, they're only isolating themselves, and we really don't have any right to force them to do otherwise.

However, I do not think that the government or anyone else should be obligated in any way to communicate in their language, either.

I realize there are other issues here, but these are my general thoughts on the issue.

-- Vilkacis

[Renorei]

My two ideal scenarios on language:

-Make them learn English thoroughly before they are allowed in. Stop printing instruction manuals in other languages, and stop having Latin HBO, and all other venues that allow a person not to speak English and still live a normal life here. By immersing them fully in the culture, English is more likely to 'stick'. But, I still think that foreign language education should start earlier in the United States. All of the other languages besides English are so small compared to English, they shouldn't be too hard to learn.

-Don't force them to speak English well before they come here. However, *the parts in italics are a repeat of the above bullet* Stop printing instruction manuals in other languages, and stop having Latin HBO, and all other venues that allow a person not to speak English and still live a normal life here. By immersing them fully in the culture, English is more likely to 'stick'. But, I still think that foreign language education should start earlier in the United States. All of the other languages besides English are so small compared to English, they shouldn't be too hard to learn. Also, remove bilingual education from elementary and junior high schools. Basically, bilingual education is when students who have immigrated here are taught in their native language, with maybe less than an hour a day devoted to English. Studies have shown that putting them in English-only classrooms immediately results in them learning English very fast. Their grades may suffer for a few months after they've moved here, but elementary and junior high grades don't matter anyway. No college cares about the kind of grades you got in elementary or junior high. So basically, once again cut them off from all avenues which they could use to not learn English, thereby forcing them to do so.

(yeah, yeah, yeah, I know a lot of you aren't going to agree with this, and I'm sure you'll provide brilliant reasons as to why you don't.)

[Vuldari]

As I said, and as you agreed, some people would still manage to acquire guns. If it just so happens that some person kidnaps me or tries to kill me, and that person happens to be one of the ones who managed to get a gun, I certainly wouldn't enjoy the prospect of dying defenseless. Which is why I think that handguns should not be outlawed. No matter how unlikely it is that a situation like this would occur, I don't want to ever be in a situation where I would die defenseless. Furthermore, even if handguns were outlawed, how would we remove the ones that are already on the streets? I seriously doubt every person would hand them over quietly. A gun, if cared for well, can last an incredibly long time. To get all guns back would require a hell of an effort, and plenty tax dollars to boot.

And to answer your question about whether I would really be willing to kill someone in self-defense, yeah. If someone threatens my life, IMO, they no longer deserve to keep theirs.

I still disagree, and here is why.

You are saying that you want the right to have a gun (which you currently have) so that, just in case a criminal ever comes at YOU with a gun, you will be prepared.

The fact remains that, if guns remain legal, the chances of you being attacked by an armed aggresor are exponentially higher than it would be if they were banned. Fighting for the right to arm yourself is just fighting for the right for the guy who might, theoretically, threaten your life to be armed as well.

You're shooting yourself in the foot, so to speak.

Hypothetically speaking, if handguns and the like were banned tomorrow, hundreds of thousands of handguns would be hidden from the law becasue of the paranoid attitude you have mentioned that exists throughout the world. In fact, I might even say that as much as 15% of existing arms would go unchecked.

But do you really believe that the 0.2% of the population that will horde that 15% of outlawed arms will attack and murder as many people as all of the armed, criminal, paranoid and/or careless people that have those weapons now?

You say that you want to remain armed so that, if you happened to be one of those very, very unlucky people who happens to be attacked by one of the few that kept thier firearm illegaly, you wouldn't have to be faced with the unfair disadvantage of being unarmed yourself.

Yes...that would be very sad and frustrating for you, and for your survivors to think that you might have lived if you had been armed and able to shoot back. (or maybe he would have shot first and you died anyway, or maybe you BOTH would have died). That seriously sucks.

However...for your selfish claim to arms, ten thousand similar incidents will occur, that would not have if neither party had guns, and a great many of those will occur in deaths.

The fact is...guns depersonalise the act of murder. All one has to do is point the device at the person they dislike and push the "Die" button.

Very few of the hundreds of thousands of people who commit murder every year by gunfire would be willing to commit the same act by driving a knife into that person instead, or bashing them on the head with a club.

...many, many still would, but the number would decrease dramatically.


For every life that is SAVED by the ownership of personal firearms, many many more are LOST because of how easy they make the act of murder, not only in the simplicity of the physical action involved, but in the ease on the concience for the person comiting the murder, becuse it allows the act to be done at a distance, without the murderer even needing to get any bood on their hands.


Great...someone attacked you at gunpoint, but when you pulled out your own firearm he ran away and no one got hurt. Good for you. ...exept the very same day that you celebrate your own life and thank your right to own that firearm, 27 people die by lethal gunshot wounds from the same model handgun.

...hooray for handguns... "Yeah right..."

I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, that is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! ARE YOU LISTENING MARTHA BURKE?

*sigh* I don't know about this one. There's nothing wrong with segregating things, as long as both sides are treated equally. Quite frankly, though, I wouldn't want to be a girl scout. Boy scouts get to do so much cooler stuff. Just because I'm a girl, doesn't mean I want to sit around and do girly stuff, maybe I wanna go outside and do outdoorsy type stuff. I think, ultimately, I disagree with this one. If I was a child, boy scouts would suit my personality much more, so why should I have to be left out just because I lack certain equipment? The fundamental differences between boys and girls is slight, most of the differences exist because society has imposed them.

This is a silly argument if you ask me.


If girls want to join the BOY SCOUTS because they like what they do more than what the GIRL SCOUTS do, then they should either form a new organization that Will allow both Boys and Girls, or complain to the GIRL SCOUTS to incorperate more varied activities that real girls actually want to do.

...not pester the group for boys who want to act like boys with other boys.

You, luckily enough, are a boy, and thus were capable (though I don't know if you actually did) of being in Boy Scouts, and doing cool stuff. I wasn't. A child of the age that I was when I wanted to join Boy Scouts can hardly be expected to organize an organization. I would have loved to be in some sort of organization that incorporated both boy and girl activities for both boys and girls, but I was maybe...7. A 7 year old can't start an organization on their own, and most adults don't listen to them if they say they want a new organization. I'm 19 now, and capable of doing something like that if I wanted to, but, I no longer want to. And so that is how it will be. Thousands of female children will be frustrated during their childhood because no organization exists that accommodates their needs. By the time they are old enough to make something happen, it is too late for them.

As far as pestering the boys, I don't see how a child would bother them that much if she did everything they did, and enjoyed it all as much as they did, simply because she lacks certain genitalia.

I agree that girls should be able to do the things that the BOY SCOUTS do if they want to. I think the idea that girls should only join the (sash wearing, cookie baking, doily knitting...)GIRL SCOUTS is stupid too.

However, many children prefer to spend some time with groups of only thier own gender from time to time. I think the existance of both scout groups as gender exclusive groups is totally fair.

It totally sucks that generations of girls have been denied the opportunity to do "boyscoutish" stuff, and that thousands more would still miss the chance if someone started the process of stanting a new organization today, but pouting about past mistakes doesn't solve anything. I feel your pain, but changing the BOY SCOUTS and forcing them to become "NOT the Boy Scouts" isn't the answer. ...at least, not right away.

I think the GIRL SCOUTS and BOY SCOUTS should really combine into a single organization that overlaps. Girls would still be called "Girl Scouts", and boys "Boy Scouts", but the two groups would have both seperate, and combined events and meetings, allowing the members to both spend time with only thier gender kin sometimes, but mingle sometimes as well.

...the "Girl Scouts" could get access to the CAMPS, and all of that stuff, and the "Boy Scouts" could bake cookies (I like baking cookies) and learn to sew their own camp pillows, etc, etc. Eventually, I think people would realise that little boys and little girls really do like to do the same things, and the two groups would just melt together into, simply, the "SCOUTS".

That would be my IDEAL solution, anyway.

If that can't happen, there ARE groups like 4H and others that DO take mixed genders, which allready exist.

Overall, though, I think if the Girl Scouts like the activities that the Boy Scouts do so much, they should protest and make the Girls Scouts add those activities to the Girl Scouts, in addition to the traditional stuff they allready do. That makes alot more sense to me than walking up to a Boy Scout troop and say "hi...I'm a girl, but I want to do what you are doing...let me in." The group IS, after all, still called the "BOY Scouts".

(Oh...and I was a Boy Scout for a while. ...the group is overated. I dropped out becasue I got tired of tying knots and doing "homework"-like nature worksheets all year long, just so I could go to scout camp once a year. ...It was boring...)

Anyway, sorry we disagree. I respect your opinions, but I’ve formulated mine after great thought and heavy consideration of many issues within my own mind. Most of the time, I’ve already considered a new angle that someone may bring up, in regards to my opinion. As a result, I am very difficult to sway. I’m not trying to sway your opinions, by any means, just clarifying why I have the ones that I have.

Hey now...

If you are going to start a topic like this, you really need to be willing to at least listen to what others have to say. ...and then continue to disagree if you heard nothing significant enough to change your mind, if that is how you feel.

I appreciate that you have put as much thought into these topics as they deserve, but now it sounds like you are suggsting that I have not.

...that, or you are saying "...I'm not LISTENING...".
*put's fingers in ears and goes "la, la, la, la, la..."*


That's more than a little rude.

[Lupin]

The fact is...guns depersonalise the act of murder. All one has to do is point the device at the person they dislike and push the "Die" button.

Hm, I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but, have you ever fired a gun before? All of the people I know that own guns have never treated it like that.

Very few of the hundreds of thousands of people who commit murder every year by gunfire would be willing to commit the same act by driving a knife into that person instead, or bashing them on the head with a club.

I'm almost postitive you haven't asked everyone who has comitted a homicide that question, so I doub't you're qualified to make that statement.

[Vuldari]

The fact is...guns depersonalise the act of murder. All one has to do is point the device at the person they dislike and push the "Die" button.

Hm, I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but, have you ever fired a gun before? All of the people I know that own guns have never treated it like that.

Yes I have...and I hate them so much, I refuse to touch handguns now. ...even the BB gun my mothers boyfreind has. (I like to play with paintball guns though.)

I never said that murder was easy to do for anyone. I couldn't pull the trigger to kill someone. ...I know I couldn't.

Very few of the hundreds of thousands of people who commit murder every year by gunfire would be willing to commit the same act by driving a knife into that person instead, or bashing them on the head with a club.

I'm almost postitive you haven't asked everyone who has comitted a homicide that question, so I doub't you're qualified to make that statement.

So you are saying you think it is just as easy to grapple someone and thrust a blade into their body repeatedly, gushing blood all over you, and feeling the person struggling for thier life in your hands as the life sloly leaves their body as it is to walk into a room, aim a gun and fire untill the person stops moving?

The emotional impact afterward can be almost the same, but there are alot of people who would just barely build up enough courage to pull the trigger on a gun, but would wimp out if they had to make the deed more "personal".

You don't have to "do it" to know what emotional roadblocks would be involved. It's just logical.

[Scott Gardener]

Whether or not you agree with his ideas (and whether his delivery is good or not), doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. There's no crime or inherent incorrectness in being Republican....

Perhaps, but, one word of caution. Open-mindedness can be an evolutionary disadvantage for ideas, compared with closed-mindedness.

People who share a belief of open-mindedness and tolerance will be receptive to new ideas, and hesitant to push their own beliefs. They thus tend to be more recipients of ideas.

People who are closed-minded and dogmatic are often also militant about their beliefs. Radical, Fundamentalist interpretations of religions like Christianity and Islam, interpretations that insist that these world-views must be spread at all costs, will drive their believers to push these beliefs onto others. Those who are open-minded are thus open to being converted to a closed-minded system.

This trend has been the downfall of a lot of cultures through the ages, when militant "missionaries" of the more aggressive religions showed up. It's how the Dark Ages happened.

[Lupin]

Very few of the hundreds of thousands of people who commit murder every year by gunfire would be willing to commit the same act by driving a knife into that person instead, or bashing them on the head with a club.

I'm almost postitive you haven't asked everyone who has comitted a homicide that question, so I doub't you're qualified to make that statement.

So you are saying you think it is just as easy to grapple someone and thrust a blade into their body repeatedly, gushing blood all over you, and feeling the person struggling for thier life in your hands as the life sloly leaves their body as it is to walk into a room, aim a gun and fire untill the person stops moving?

I am saying that until such time as you ask everyone who has comitted a homicide in that fashion, that statement is purely your opinion, and you should represent it as such. (That appeal to emotion doesn't make your statement any less of an opinion.)

You don't have to "do it" to know what emotional roadblocks would be involved. It's just logical.

Emotions are rarely, if ever, logical.

[Scott Gardener]

Emotions are rarely, if ever, logical.

You sound like one of those people who hang out at Starbases, handing out fliers about Surak, preaching about vegitarianism, and talking about their pilgrimage to Mount Selaya.

[Lupin]

You sound like one of those people who hang out at Starbases, handing out fliers about Surak, preaching about vegitarianism, and talking about their pilgrimage to Mount Selaya.

Heh, I was considering adding a clause about how were're not Vulcans in there.

[Renorei]

Anyway, sorry we disagree. I respect your opinions, but I’ve formulated mine after great thought and heavy consideration of many issues within my own mind. Most of the time, I’ve already considered a new angle that someone may bring up, in regards to my opinion. As a result, I am very difficult to sway. I’m not trying to sway your opinions, by any means, just clarifying why I have the ones that I have.

Hey now...

If you are going to start a topic like this, you really need to be willing to at least listen to what others have to say. ...and then continue to disagree if you heard nothing significant enough to change your mind, if that is how you feel.

I appreciate that you have put as much thought into these topics as they deserve, but now it sounds like you are suggsting that I have not.

...that, or you are saying "...I'm not LISTENING...".
*put's fingers in ears and goes "la, la, la, la, la..."*


That's more than a little rude.

I think that you have either misinterpreted me, or I have not made myself clear. I am more than willing to listen to other's opinions. You are entitled to them, and I have no doubt that you have put a great deal of thought into formulating yours. But, so have I. My statement at the end of my post was merely to say that, while I have no problem hearing other's opinions, it doesn't mean mine are going to change.

[Shadow Wulf]

But having guns is the american way....thats the main reason we're still on top.

[white]

In fact, that's probably one of the main reasons we'll soon be near the bottom.

[Figarou]

But having guns is the american way....thats the main reason we're still on top.

now where did you get that from?

[Vuldari]

But having guns is the american way....thats the main reason we're still on top.

now where did you get that from?

Indeed... WTF?

[Lupin]

But having guns is the american way....thats the main reason we're still on top.

now where did you get that from?

Indeed... WTF?

*Looks at Shadow Wulf's avatar.* Who knows what goes on in his mind.

[Akela]

Well that was awkward, what the heck does a civillian owning a firearm have to do with "American Supremecy"?

[Vuldari]

Well that was awkward, what the heck does a civillian owning a firearm have to do with "American Supremecy"?

"our civilians can beat up your civilians"?

...I don't know...beats me.


Anyway...

I'm sorry for twisting your words Excelsia. I overreatced.

Even though I have not lost any close loved ones to handguns myself, I am still very emotionaly charged about the topic and am quick to get frustrated when my own friends are supporting what I am certain is wrong.

I think I need to back out of this conversation for a little while. At the moment, I am feeling far too much anger about the whole "gun controll" inssue in general to give any fair, unbiased opinions on the matter.


The words I would like to share on the matter are not kind...and therefore, I think I should keep them to myself.

(...after all...Angry, insulting words accomplish NOTHING but enotional pain...)

[Renorei]

Sounds good. You can be certain of your what you believe, and I'll be certain of what I believe, but we'll do our best not to say anything that will cause anyone any pain. It sounds as though gun control is for you what abortion is for me ( ). So, I completely understand if you feel it best for you not to talk about it. We all have our soft spots.

[Terastas]

But having guns is the american way....thats the main reason we're still on top.

No, the U.S. is on top because all the European superpowers pounded their economies into the ground in the first world war, China and Japan beat the living crap out of each other in the second world war, and the U.S.S.R. built nukes instead of feeding the people.

We're still on top because we haven't ****ed up royally yet.

And, uh... Scott? I could lament on for hours about how strongest and most numerous does not necessarilly mean the best, but it'd be so much easier to remind you that close-mindedness can be hazardous too.

After all, what happens when two close-minded societies meet? Conflict, of course. And having an open mind doesn't necessarilly mean you're easy-going and will believe the first thing anyone tells you. On the contrary, it means you will listen, but think about it before making any committments to an otherwise close-minded group. In the presence of conflict, an open-minded individual can look at both sides and, with their contrasting arguments, rejects both of them in favor of either a blending of positive elements from the two contrasting beliefs, or a new belief entirely, which in turn grows in popularity until it ultimately outweighs the two sides that have done nothing but preach hatred for the other.

Proof to point:
- Nobody worships Mars or Ares anymore.
- We agree the Earth revolves around the sun.
- Monarchy is dead.
- Tibetan Zen is not dead.
- Nine out of ten Christians agree: God is good.

[Renorei]

I'd like to say something here, about close-mindedness and open-mindedness. I think both Scott and Terastas have valid points and have made good supporting arguments for both sides, however, the original statement wasn't between societies. It was between two people, both of whom are of the same society. That kinda changes the playing field.

Also, I agree with Terastas. Open-mindedness isn't, IMO, automatically assimilating other's beliefs into your own belief system (or even replacing your own), but rather, reserving the right to disagree with them without declaring that they are wrong. None of these issues we've been discussing really have one side that is right or wrong, just a whole bunch of reasons to support either side. It's all up to the individual which one they pick, and either way, they aren't incorrect.

Anyway, sorry for starting that whole 'be openminded' thing anyway. Anytime anyone insults Republicans or Republican beliefs, or declares that they are wrong, I will be there, ready to disagree.

[Vilkacis]

I think one ought to be open-minded enough that he still might accept points he doesn't like and close-minded enough that he might yet reject points he does like.

Or something like that. You should actually use your brain, in other words. We have all these wonderful powers of reasoning and discrimination; it's sad that so many people refuse to use them.

-- Vilkacis