The best response I ever gave to a bully was the time in 5th grade a bully was getting up in my face. I stood up to him and he punched me right in the gut. I sucked it in and stood there as if I didn't feel a thing for about a minute. Then he just kinda shook his head and walked off, and never bothered me again. I neutralized his violence without resorting to my own violence, and I didn't "give him my lunch money" either.Originally Posted by Sasquatch
To be the man you have to beat the man.
I DO WHAT I WANT. YOU HAVE PROBLEM?
Um to the person about police, its just alot of cover ups we dont see and that they abuse their power alot and using tax payer money on overtime that can total up to over 300K a year..>_> I feel that we need more requirements rather than just a HS diploma which means ANYONE can go out there and shoot someone saying its in self-defense. Its why some police dudes would steal someone's Fajitas in SF and then claim the person attacked THEM instead...sure not all of em are bad but if crap arrives and you dont cover it up with the rest..you know you are so screwed..
Going against the cops? look, without the cops, this world would be in serious hell.
Think about it.
Heh, I'll dropp the communist issue, I'm still holding on my arguments, but I see that we'll be spinning in a circle if it goes on like this. Also, I'm not really up for long posts as my fingers are pratically destroyed at the moment, I play guitar, you see.
That's where I win my argument. But it's called a change in culture, not brainwashing. I dont want to transform them to dumb people, and I would never like to keep people from having oppinoins. I'd rather "brainwash" them to pacifists, hippies, lovers of peace and other people.Essentially, yes. Have you taken a good hard LOOK at society recently? Brainwashed.
We, I'm no we. And I'd rather side with Japan on this issue, tough, becouse of the Hiroshima bomb, and becouse I prefere "their" culture by far over the American one, and I prefere "their" food. Oh and "they" dont have a John Wayne. They had the Rape of Nanking, so to be honest, I'd rather side with nether of the two groups... But I would never fight a war with the American flag on my back, that's an outrage, they're to matherialistic.Actually, the war with Japan could have gone on for another DECADE if we stuck with conventional weaponry. Their government was designing a new super-plane (by back then's standards) that was faster than anything we had by far, had better firepower, was more manuverable, and could carry a heavier missile/bomb payload. Analysts believe that the things could have taken on our planes in 3 to 1 odds, and still won the battles. And, whatever you want to say about it, the Japanese pilots were just *BETTER* than ours in the sky. Mostly because our pilots wanted to live, and theirs would rather die in combat than return in defeat. Oh, we would have eventually won, after their population started starving to death, but not any time before then. So, sometimes, the ultimate weapon is the only weapon that works.
The Americans wouldn't have won that war, it would end up as a tie, like the Vietnam war, I think. Why would they start to starve? Them Americans would also start to starve, especially after the Japanese had made that super plan, they would take out the american food resorts, I guess.
But you forget a fundamental thing here, tough: This is a war. Violence was alreddy in use. Why was it alreddy in use? becouse sommeone started to use violence in that war, I have no idea who, tough, but this is just a prrof that violence leads to more violence. I think the Japanese started with an attack agaisnt China. China called for help and the US responded. Then the Japanese came to attack the US, also becouse they sided with Hitler and Mussolini, Mussolini sided with Hitler becouse the alternative ally was the US, and he found them to be way to materialist.
Why should I have about Vietnam in my history lession? I'm not American, why should I care about the Vietnam war? why do you assume that I'm an American? this is an offence.haven't you ever heard of this? Or did Vietnam escape your history lessons.
I didnt learn much about various wars in my class becouse unlike the US, my Nation dosnt try to participate in every war that excist, and it dosnt interfeer with foregin nations at the same level as the US. I'm a Norwegian person, why should the US even be involved in this debatte? this is an outrage!
I've never heard that, but what does it change?
Great! You lost it. I couldn't be more happy. You'd lose ether way becouse they were just better wariors, with traps and such.America LOST that war (uh, "police action"), not because we got beat in the field, but because the people back home WANTED US TO LOSE!!! Therefor, public reaction crushed that army.
Oh, and they didnt win ether.
They could have taken India back afterwards. And beside, they knew it. A militant violent man would never boycott food for peace, he'd rather fight.I know Ghandi's people were pacifists, no one would disagree with that, but the only ones who knew it THEN, were his people.
Power, but no violence.As for King, his marches were certainly non-violent, which is why they attracted so many non-blacks. However, it was a CLEAR show of force. Klan members could have marched strait at them, and been trampled underfoot as they moved forward. Numbers are the greatest power humans have. And his way drew in numbers, and thus power.
People clearly realized that they should give blacks a chance, politicans aswell.
5th grade? yes.The best response I ever gave to a bully was the time in 5th grade a bully was getting up in my face.
Hes culture was alredy changed, he was alredy using violence thoward you. You could have done something else, buy there shouldnt be a reason.
If you feel to be violent, it's better to use violence.
But if you can see another solution, it's clearly a better one.
Or we could do this:To be the man you have to beat the man.
I'm the man.
Therfor I decide that you're the man, and that lady over there is "the woman."
Hey, were all the "man" or "woman" together! We're all very special induviduals.
So your logic stands as following:I feel that we need more requirements rather than just a HS diploma which means ANYONE can go out there and shoot someone saying its in self-defense.
If you got an high education, you're a gentle man, nice guy, you never lie and you're great!
I must say that I disagree with this.
There should be stronger laws against guns, that's all. In all the world. Gun fabrics should be demolished, tanks should be destroyed, there should be no military, every existing gun should be destroyed, bombs to. Only hunters should be allowed to keep them, and these guns should be armed with sleeping bullets, they should carry a knife to kill the animal with afterwards.
Of course, this would take ages to do, but it's worth it.
Tought about it. We'd be in serious hell on some issues such as rape, but "harmless" drugs such as Marijuana would be legal, what means that there would be less criminal youngsters in every rich country, think about that.Going against the cops? look, without the cops, this world would be in serious hell.
Think about it.
Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54
I fail to see how you've won the argument. I'm not familiar with Norwegian culture, but I HAVE seen this both in America and in parts of Europe such as England and France.That's where I win my argument. But it's called a change in culture, not brainwashing. I dont want to transform them to dumb people, and I would never like to keep people from having oppinoins. I'd rather "brainwash" them to pacifists, hippies, lovers of peace and other people.
Essentially, we've been brainwashed into materialism and non-thinking. And yes, you would be brainwashing them. And it wouldn't be for the better either. The thing with your ideals, is what do you do to those who disagree? You know, there are a lot of people who say "I'm going to stand up and fight for what I believe in, I REFUSE to let someone trample over my rights." What happens to these people? They don't agree with you and they don't fit in your world view. They don't believe entirely with what you arbitrarily decide to be what is right.
However, they'll be a hell of a lot better equipped to deal with the people who say "Wow! Look at all these wimpy pacifists! I'm going to start taking what I want from them because they won't fight back, they'll just lie down and take it!"
And I am going to state right now that I do not believe total brainwashing is possible. There are always people who will rebel against something. People are who they are, and some people just have the inherent belief that might makes right. If you are going to be a pacifist, just hand over all your property to them now, because they're going to have no qualms about beating you until you give it to them.
To beat the man, (WOOOOOOOO) you gotta be the man.....or something. Seriously, get into power and you can beat the other MAN.
I'd like to have a military there untill the rest of the world has followed my footstepps.
What to do with those who dissagree? Not much, they'll change eventually, like the majority changed from being homopobes to being pro-homosexuals in just a few years.
As soon as they realise that people are worth more then items, they'll follow the humanitary move and care less for items.
It's fine that we disagree on the subject, you seem like a nice chap, you're anti materialism so you would be more then welcome in my utopia.
Rebells? Not likely, if the evolution goes as it should go, but perhaps, however these people will be disrespected by a greater majority, like the Nazies today, basically.
Look, I'm takling about years and years of evolution to archive this. You wont be alive, I wont be alive ether. Who knows, maby we'll all go down in 20 years becouse the rainforest will be gone then if they keep it on like this.
Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54
If you have a military you're in direct violation of your pacifistic ideals. Pragmatism aside, military power is a show of force. If you have an army, you are a direct threat to every other country out there. People aren't going to just "follow suit", they'll make their own armies to prevent an invasion from you, if not to test the mettle of your forces. You can say you're a pacifist all you want, but the best you can hope for is that people will leave you alone, unless you have something they want. At that point, they'll just come over and take it. If you resist, as is the point of an army, there goes your pacifism.I'd like to have a military there untill the rest of the world has followed my footstepps.
What to do with those who dissagree? Not much, they'll change eventually, like the majority changed from being homopobes to being pro-homosexuals in just a few years.
As soon as they realise that people are worth more then items, they'll follow the humanitary move and care less for items.
It's fine that we disagree on the subject, you seem like a nice chap, you're anti materialism so you would be more then welcome in my utopia.
Rebells? Not likely, if the evolution goes as it should go, but perhaps, however these people will be disrespected by a greater majority, like the Nazies today, basically.
Look, I'm takling about years and years of evolution to archive this. You wont be alive, I wont be alive ether. Who knows, maby we'll all go down in 20 years becouse the rainforest will be gone then if they keep it on like this.
A utopian society is an impossible ideal because we are human and by nature imperfect. Not everyone will agree with how to do things, and a world this large cannot be unified under one banner without a show of excessive force. Expecting things to fall into place because it's the "right thing" is asinine, not everyone agrees that your way is the right way, for one thing, and even if a general consensus were reached that your way was, indeed, correct, there would still be those who would detest it and rail against it. And as you profess to pacifism, that means that you might have an army, but you'd be loathe to send them out and actually fight, making it that much easier for the dissenters to walk all over you.
I'd have an army just for show. It wouldnt be big, and our arms would be horible. I'd never use any money at all to make it better. I'd dropp it as soon as I'd have signed a contract with the surounding countries and agreed uppon certain anti-war issues.If you have a military you're in direct violation of your pacifistic ideals. Pragmatism aside, military power is a show of force. If you have an army, you are a direct threat to every other country out there. People aren't going to just "follow suit", they'll make their own armies to prevent an invasion from you, if not to test the mettle of your forces. You can say you're a pacifist all you want, but the best you can hope for is that people will leave you alone, unless you have something they want. At that point, they'll just come over and take it. If you resist, as is the point of an army, there goes your pacifism.
I agree that an utopian society might look impossible in our curent state, however as close as we can get is however a posebility.A utopian society is an impossible ideal because we are human and by nature imperfect. Not everyone will agree with how to do things, and a world this large cannot be unified under one banner without a show of excessive force. Expecting things to fall into place because it's the "right thing" is asinine, not everyone agrees that your way is the right way, for one thing, and even if a general consensus were reached that your way was, indeed, correct, there would still be those who would detest it and rail against it. And as you profess to pacifism, that means that you might have an army, but you'd be loathe to send them out and actually fight, making it that much easier for the dissenters to walk all over you.
What makes war?
Money, therfore we need to dropp money.
Religeon? we need to make sure freedom of speech is a respected reality in this field.
Also, pollution destroys humanity and animals, therfor we need to derstroy pollution.
Decease kills everyone, therfor we need to fight deceases, and we need to give people free health care so everyone can have a chance at this.
These are very basic things, as you see, but they are hard to reach. But the only one that might even look impossible today is the abolishment of cash, but we'll get there, eventually.
If you want to change humanity, you should start with the kids. It is perfectly possible to get rid of racism if kids are teached up to know that each race are equal, I guess you get where I'm going.
If some of these people were to protest, they'd be outnumbered by the democratic majority, untill their theory would eventually dissapear, like the burning of wiches dissapeared, and like the fetish rich English men had to see super deformed people (like the Elephant man).
Look, homophobia will be gone in the majority of the world in just a few years, I'm sure about that.
And yes, if sommeone protested, they would go in charge, I could of course take him to jail if I wanted to, becouse I would not be using violence to do that. If hes words reached to a majority, I'd just give him my possition. But I wouldnt be alive for that decission, I'm just saying that if I was alive, and everyone's admin, I'd do that.
An admin is just a basic regular person that makes sure that everything is in place in an anarco communistic society, I dont know enugh about this philosophy so I'd rather not go to that discussion.
I'm more concerned about how much freedom we can make.
We could remove Nazism. Some might dissagree and say that this is just the same as preventing the valuable "freedom of speech," but it isnt. It's just the same as to teach a child a different, more logic way of thinking then what theyr nazistic parents might teach them, they get to chose wether their parents are right about jews and niggers, or wether the friendly foringer isnt an exeption to hes race and nationality.
We need to start with the kids.
Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54
Then you'd get trampled over by another country with a much stronger army. A small, ill-equipped army for show is little better than having no army at all.I'd have an army just for show. It wouldnt be big, and our arms would be horible. I'd never use any money at all to make it better. I'd dropp it as soon as I'd have signed a contract with the surounding countries and agreed uppon certain anti-war issues.
Takes us right back to socialism, which we've already pointed out doesn't work. However, I'm more than happy to do so again. Destroy money? Destroying money effectively eliminates any incentive to work. If you're given the same things no matter what you do, why bother? Money is IMPORTANT. It developed for a reason. Money allows humans to be given a deep-seated need: compensation for the work they do. If there is no money, humans have no incentive to try hard. It's happened before and it will happen again. I've heard a story of someone who was in a communist country. They went to eat at a restaurant. After eating, they noticed no bill came. Eventually, they gravitated towards the counter and asked. The owners simply replied that they were given the same amount of materials to make the food every day. They had no real reason to try to collect on the bill (the money would be taken by the government to propogate the system anyways) and they had no real reason to try their hardest to make the food good.I agree that an utopian society might look impossible in our curent state, however as close as we can get is however a posebility.
What makes war?
Money, therfore we need to dropp money.
Religeon? we need to make sure freedom of speech is a respected reality in this field.
Also, pollution destroys humanity and animals, therfor we need to derstroy pollution.
Decease kills everyone, therfor we need to fight deceases, and we need to give people free health care so everyone can have a chance at this.
So if someone disagrees they go to jail? Some utopia.And yes, if sommeone protested, they would go in charge, I could of course take him to jail if I wanted to, becouse I would not be using violence to do that. If hes words reached to a majority, I'd just give him my possition. But I wouldnt be alive for that decission, I'm just saying that if I was alive, and everyone's admin, I'd do that.
And here we get to the crux of the argument. We do NOT have the right to tell ANYBODY how they should think. Do you have any idea how easily that lends itself to being abused? We start with that, OK, things are going great. But wait! There's this other way of thinking that doesn't conform to our narrow vision of what the world needs. Time to outlaw that! Hey, maybe we can get a group together, let's call them the "Thought Police", to incarcerate or "reeducate" everyone who isn't thinking right. Isn't that a great idea!?I'm more concerned about how much freedom we can make.
We could remove Nazism. Some might dissagree and say that this is just the same as preventing the valuable "freedom of speech," but it isnt. It's just the same as to teach a child a different, more logic way of thinking then what theyr nazistic parents might teach them, they get to chose wether their parents are right about jews and niggers, or wether the friendly foringer isnt an exeption to hes race and nationality.
We need to start with the kids.
Last time I checked, Japan are not allowed to have an army stronger then for defense only, what means that many nations have a stronger army.Then you'd get trampled over by another country with a much stronger army. A small, ill-equipped army for show is little better than having no army at all.
They're not being over run.
Norway's army is less strong then the US army, yet this nation is not being over run by the US.
I'd have an army for defence untill everyone have agreed uppon removing the army. If everyone keep it for defence, there's no point in keeping it.
We didnt agree on that.Takes us right back to socialism, which we've already pointed out doesn't work.
Yet there are other communists that does this work for humanity today. Yet we have volunteers, we have friendly people today. Of course people would do their best. It's for their own intrest, tough, to see how good they can push themselves. Every good invention has been invented for the good if the people. Einstein didt think for money. Doctros save lifes, if they did this for the money they would all be brutal egoistic people, really, that didnt care about the lifes they saved. Money has this influence on us, it gives us greed, greed is unhealthy.Destroy money? Destroying money effectively eliminates any incentive to work.
And the abolishment of cash is communism, not socialism.
So now we need items to tell us how hard we work? now you should realize how low our race has fallen. Before, we'd be happy just to hear that we're doing great.compensation for the work they do.
Do you really want to have a job you hate just for the income? I gues you'd be more happy if you can take whatever job you'd like.
SomeI've heard a story of someone who was in a communist country. They went to eat at a restaurant. After eating, they noticed no bill came. Eventually, they gravitated towards the counter and asked. The owners simply replied that they were given the same amount of materials to make the food every day. They had no real reason to try to collect on the bill (the money would be taken by the government to propogate the system anyways) and they had no real reason to try their hardest to make the food good.
Communist country? wow, that story must be atleast 200 years old. Not even that... 1000 years, maby?
There has not been a communist country in a long, long time.
You're takling about a socialist country, in wich there are many alternatives. We have Stalins USSR, even communists are opposed to hes brutal regime. Lenin, a bit better, but to strict for my oppioin.
Castro? now that's more like it, he's still strict, tough.
Ether way, they had no real reason? that means that the change has come to quick. People need to be tought that people are more important then cash, that they have to try harder just for the fun of it.
And he didnt want to collect the income? what means he's an egoist that didnt care about the enviroment, and the free health care. This would change as soon as he turned sick and would need health care.
I'm talking about those who brutally disagree, with violence and rebellive moves.So if someone disagrees they go to jail? Some utopia.
He couldnt force people to follow him becouse they would have nothing to gain on that and nothing to lose if they didnt, unless he killed them or theyr family, however he's be forcing them with him, what means that they'd turn away as soon as they could.
I'm not saying that we shal outlaw it, I'm saying that we should change our culture into this belief that people are all people, foregin or not, and that we shal allways judge people differently. If he's Italian, he's not neccecaraly into soccer, becouse he's another person. If there's a jew, he should be respected, being a Jew isnt a chrime.We do NOT have the right to tell ANYBODY how they should think. Do you have any idea how easily that lends itself to being abused? We start with that, OK, things are going great. But wait! There's this other way of thinking that doesn't conform to our narrow vision of what the world needs. Time to outlaw that! Hey, maybe we can get a group together, let's call them the "Thought Police", to incarcerate or "reeducate" everyone who isn't thinking right. Isn't that a great idea!?
I'm saying that this kind of teaching should be tought in school, to small kids, I'm not forcing anyone to go with this at this stage, not even aftert. If a few of those kids with nazie parents turn into Nazies afterwards, I will not care, becouse atleast some of those with nazie parents will not be nazies anymore. The children of these nazies will then go tought the same, and we'll filter even another layer of possible nazies. This way, we'll eventually take it down.
Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54
What i mean was that police many times shoot first and ask later, only to give the reason of self-defense. Other times they try to agitate the person into anger and then make them get a little violent, and shoot the crap off you. I have seen some people getting their wallet after getting pulled over and then getting shot because the police thinks the person has a gun :rolleyes2 I wont trust some 18 year old who graduated out of HS to be a cop and get all this authority and be able to hold a gun thinking he is all that. Heck i dont trust just about any cop cept this friend's dad who is a cop. I dont mean that policemen are all bad people, but really, if they knock on my door i am not even going to answer them unless they have a warrant. I just cant trust 98% of government officials(and in the case of policemen, some just graduated from HS as well, teens and kids thinking they are just all that because they are cops. Its what every kid that wants to be a cop is, they wanna be cool and authorative and hold that gun with power especially when they cover up for each other). If a small government assessor recorders office at where my uncle works at has so much politcal drama as it is against him and with so many workers, you can bet its everywhere..just not easily seen by the general public.So your logic stands as following:
If you got an high education, you're a gentle man, nice guy, you never lie and you're great!
I must say that I disagree with this.
There should be stronger laws against guns, that's all. In all the world. Gun fabrics should be demolished, tanks should be destroyed, there should be no military, every existing gun should be destroyed, bombs to. Only hunters should be allowed to keep them, and these guns should be armed with sleeping bullets, they should carry a knife to kill the animal with afterwards.
I am sorry i believe everyone should have a gun, you are not going to shoot someone if the person can shoot your head off too. I feel we need laxer gun laws however we shouldnt just hand them out as well..a license maybe. Your proposed idea is so unrealistic its just...lol? In any case you remind me of Redneck v2.3 O_o so i will greatly disagree with just about everything you say.
I don't thrust anyone with a gun.
People with guns are involved in shoting, they treathen the hous thiefs by pointing guns at them. It's better to be robbed then to shot an armed hous thief that would'nt shot you unless you threatened the house thief.I am sorry i believe everyone should have a gun, you are not going to shoot someone if the person can shoot your head off too.
Guns are dangerous for kids, also. They might find them and use them against others.
Guns should be illegalized. I realize that this is hard as they are allreddy in circulation, but we could start a nice, long lasting, but very rewarding project that collects every gun ever released, every bomb and every destructive wepon. Durning this process, police officers should be able to hold guns.
That, or the only ones with guns should be criminals and police officers.
People are to paranoid, if you keep a gun in your house, you're just as much of a threat to society as any avredge pick pocket criminal and armed nazi there is. You're directly supporting death penalty, and murdering happens so rarelly, it's strange that the gun laws are so slack.
If you hold a gun, you can kill people. Guns kill people, not people.
By holding a gun, you're directly tempted to use it.
Even worse, you're giving a horible influence to your child.
Economic Left/Right: -9.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.54
That's because they're aligned with America, and attacking Japan is tatamount to attacking America. We have military bases there, and it provides a good staging ground if we need to go into Asia (as does South Korea) so we're willing to protect our interests. The America Army is one of the finest trained in the world, my friend mentioned something about one soldier being worth somewhere around fifteen or more of the opposing force. Thus, one of our guys, on their own, can take down about fifteen of theirs before getting killed.Last time I checked, Japan are not allowed to have an army stronger then for defense only, what means that many nations have a stronger army.
They're not being over run.
Norway's army is less strong then the US army, yet this nation is not being over run by the US.
I'd have an army for defence untill everyone have agreed uppon removing the army. If everyone keep it for defence, there's no point in keeping it.
I'm talking about the rest of us in this thread, although you did back down from the point.We didnt agree on that.
No, it isn't, and no, they wouldn't do it. Volunteers do what they do because they have the CHOICE. Some people CHOOSE to volunteer and CHOOSE to pursue careers for many different reasons. However, that doesn't mean ALL of us wish to do that, nor should we be expected to do it. Charity is all well and good, but we humans are specifically wired to look out for number one. It's a survival method and a darn good one at that. How many people work in an office job? Spending hours upon hours in cubicles their entire life. You can be darn sure they don't do it for the good of mankind. They do it because they want the money to live and to be able to do things they want to do.Yet there are other communists that does this work for humanity today. Yet we have volunteers, we have friendly people today. Of course people would do their best. It's for their own intrest, tough, to see how good they can push themselves. Every good invention has been invented for the good if the people. Einstein didt think for money. Doctros save lifes, if they did this for the money they would all be brutal egoistic people, really, that didnt care about the lifes they saved. Money has this influence on us, it gives us greed, greed is unhealthy.
And the abolishment of cash is communism, not socialism.
Try around 60-80 years old. I believe it was somewhere in Europe, I'll have to ask next time I see him. And no, it wouldn't. He'd demand health care and he'd get it, as would all of the other people who did the exact same thing. And the government would have to provide it too. Guess what happens to the economy after this? People can be VERY lazy, and if someone is placed in such a system, you can be guaranteed that many of them would choose this path. If I got stuck as a waiter for the rest of my life, you can be darn sure I would.Some
Communist country? wow, that story must be atleast 200 years old. Not even that... 1000 years, maby?
There has not been a communist country in a long, long time.
You're takling about a socialist country, in wich there are many alternatives. We have Stalins USSR, even communists are opposed to hes brutal regime. Lenin, a bit better, but to strict for my oppioin.
Castro? now that's more like it, he's still strict, tough.
Ether way, they had no real reason? that means that the change has come to quick. People need to be tought that people are more important then cash, that they have to try harder just for the fun of it.
And he didnt want to collect the income? what means he's an egoist that didnt care about the enviroment, and the free health care. This would change as soon as he turned sick and would need health care.
[quote]I'm talking about those who brutally disagree, with violence and rebellive moves.
He couldnt force people to follow him becouse they would have nothing to gain on that and nothing to lose if they didnt, unless he killed them or theyr family, however he's be forcing them with him, what means that they'd turn away as soon as they could.[quote]
If you have no weapons you're going to have a darn hard time subduing him without violence. You can sit around and plead all you want while he cracks your skull with whatever hard, heavy object he can pick up. If you have enough of these people, you're pretty screwed.
You can educate all you want but you seem to be operating under the "putty" line of thinking, i.e. the line of thought that states that humans are completely driven by nurture. I disagree and while I cannot prove it I've a good deal of evidence that can support it. Just look at how radically different siblings can be, and how much alike twins can be. People are different, with different ideas and different values, and there are certain traits that we often exibit. If we don't have to work to do something, we generally won't work. Work is a chore, it isn't fun and we don't want to do it. Not everyone can have a job they want, and those who don't are much less inclined to work hard if they don't have any incentive (i.e. a big fat paycheck that they can use to get what they want).I'm not saying that we shal outlaw it, I'm saying that we should change our culture into this belief that people are all people, foregin or not, and that we shal allways judge people differently. If he's Italian, he's not neccecaraly into soccer, becouse he's another person. If there's a jew, he should be respected, being a Jew isnt a chrime.
I'm saying that this kind of teaching should be tought in school, to small kids, I'm not forcing anyone to go with this at this stage, not even aftert. If a few of those kids with nazie parents turn into Nazies afterwards, I will not care, becouse atleast some of those with nazie parents will not be nazies anymore. The children of these nazies will then go tought the same, and we'll filter even another layer of possible nazies. This way, we'll eventually take it down.
Posting Permissions
