In a rare piece of irony, isn't that prejudice against pessimists?Sayvara post=18.69843.673207 said:
Poll: Will we ever see the end of prejudice?
- Thread starter ike_luv
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Let me put this in the Tf2 sniper's word: As long there is two being on earth. Someone will want someone dead.
In this case: As long there is two being on earth. There will always have conflict.
In this case: As long there is two being on earth. There will always have conflict.
I do like that you're at least kicking back against the cynicism. It was expected, but I hoped that a few people were able to at least HOPE! Instead of accepting it.Sayvara post=18.69843.673207 said:
To quote MiB(1), "A person is smart... PEOPLE are dumb". So surely if 1 person can learn to compromise their prejudice for understanding and open mindedness, then (careful how I phrase), individuals can gather as a group and spread a more positive attitude! Cheesy I know, but I'd rather be optimistic and happy, than constantly criticising the world I HAVE to live in!
Indeed, the truth is yours to form. Hence prejudice. If there was some rule or standard by which we had to live to call something "fact" beyond our own experiences, prejudice would have a hard time of it. But there isn't, so people just make shit up as they go. And they always will, because thats the only thing we can do. It just so happens that some of the shit we make up will be...shit. Surprise, right?ike_luv post=18.69843.673232 said:
Wrong. There is always the option to say "I don't have an opinion in the matter because I don't have sufficient information to form one". There is no requirement that you must form an opinion about everything. It is perfectly valid to say that you don't know anything about the thing/person/phenonemon in question and therefore choose to not form an opinion.dukeh016 post=18.69843.673254 said:
This is for instance what courts do. In the ideal case, a judge/panel/jury comes to the trial hearing with a blank opinion and then listen to all the information presented to them. If the information they are given is contradictory and too insufficient to form an opinion, then the case is not ruled upon on account of lack of evidence, and the defendant is not convicted.
/S
Cynicism is in fashion. Cynics (like for instance Yahtzee) get praised because it is always easier to make a funny quip at something in a negative tone than it is to make a funny comment in a hopeful positive one.ike_luv post=18.69843.673232 said:
Indeed. What is required is that individuals dare to stand out from the group and say "No, I don't buy all this negativity". When someone says something that to the general group sounds reasonable, one must dare challenge them and ask them to present facts for their supposed case, because most of the time such bullshit doesn't have a factual case to stand on.ike_luv post=18.69843.673232 said:
For instance: someone says that the US legal system is shite because anyone can sue everyone over a hot mug of coffee for millions and millions of dollars, answer in return "Is that really true?". "Well..." they say "...there was this old lady that..."... "Oh you mean Stella Liebeck that was given, not warm or hot, but scalding coffee that in just a few seconds caused third-degree burns on six percent of her body, for which she had to spend time in a respirator, go through skin grafting and debridal treatements, all of which gave her a hospital bill of thousands of dollars and which was what she initially asked to be compensated for?".
Criticism is the first step towards improvement... but the key point it that it must be valid and constructive criticism and not just mud flinging.ike_luv post=18.69843.673232 said:
/S
Enter the bugs.Indigo_Dingo post=18.69843.673081 said:
Anyway...reminded me of another thought. It's similar to the notion that humanity can never all agree 100% on anything. Now, if everyone says 'No, it's not possible' then it's proving the idea that, yes, everyone can. And in fact the people who pop up saying 'Yes, it is possible for everyone to agree on something' are proving that it can't, simply by virtue of them speaking up in a agreement of the topic at hand. Or of course vice versa.
As for pre-conceived notions. Well, for the time being, as long as we're human, we'll always have ideas about almost anything or anyone that are formed before we have any actual real experience with said things. And even after you are or take the time to educate yourself on such matters, some people just can't get over their prejudices even then.
Yes, once the stoopid breeds itself out (I might have to help it....*click*) of Plato's idea of a enlightened authoritarian king happens.
I'd agree with you, but I'm prejudiced against South Park avatars.ike_luv post=18.69843.673046 said:
No seriously, the nature of humans is that of which to outright deny something that is differing from it. It's how slavery started back in the day, why several southern Americans still claim that "The South" will rise up again, and the reason the Saints will never win the Super Bowl (lawl, non-Football Football).
People could maybe one day overcome it, but I severely doubt humankind will ever become that open minded, just look at most politicians, hell, even the entire political system in the world. Or the U.N.'s members during a particularly heated meeting.
Wrong. Courts behave that way because they aren't individuals. No one can live their lives stuck in uncertainty, but we are all doomed to ignorance. We must, at some point or another, make an assertion that cannot be backed up by proper evidence. Of course, its even arguable that such a thing as "proper evidence" will never be found, using the example of abortion. Interestingly enough, abortion also lends more proof against the example of the court. Arguably, the court didn't have enough evidence, but yet it still made the decision because it had to. The law couldn't exist in limbo, just as the human mind cannot function in societal limbo.Sayvara post=18.69843.673273 said:
Arrogance begets arrogance, show some tact or we shall all be very unhappy with each other.
Of course we can! If someone asked me "Well what do you think of the works of Ayn Rand?" I would without doubt say "I havn't got the faintest clue because I havn't read a single of her works. I certainly wouldn't say "Oh I bloody well hate/love them" just because I must give a Yay or Nay. Such a notion is down right rediculous!dukeh016 post=18.69843.673522 said:
No we must not. If we don't know, we can - and should - say just that: "I don't know, so I don't have an opinion".dukeh016 post=18.69843.673522 said:
The law does not live in limbo just because sufficient evidence isn't precented, because there is a default. The default in all free countries is just that: freedom. Unless something isn't specfically forbidden by law or regulation, you are free to do anything you want. Hence, when you come to court as a defendant, the default is that you shall walk out of there again as a free man. The only thing that can make it not so is if the prosecutor presents compelling evidence that shows you should not do so. If the prosecutor fails to present this evidence, you're free to go.dukeh016 post=18.69843.673522 said:
Maybe the confusing part here is the difference beween "lack of evidence of guilt" and "evidence of innocense". Innocent Until Proven Guilty does not mean that lack of evidence of guilt means that the court says that you did not do the things you were accused of. Lack of evidence simply means it cannot be proven that you did it. Whether or not you actually did it remains an open question, but the court cannot send you to jail over it.
And human individuals can most certainly reason the same way. If I don't know, then I simply do not know. "Hey S, what do you think about this murder case that has been written about all over the papers". "Well I wasn't there so I havn't got the faintest idea". "Aw come on, You must have an opinion! What do you think, is she guilty or not?" "I don't know, I have no opinion!"
What's so odd about that?
As for myself, being a technologist and a natural scientist, I hate having opinions when I don't have something solid to base them on. If nothing else because I risk ending up in a situation where someone in a devastating and irrefutable manner proves that my opinion was utterly wrong. I - just like anyone else - hate being wrong. Hence, I do what I can to not put me in such situations by not having opinions about things I don't know anything about.
/S
no, some parents teach their children to become prejudice at a very young age and when your beliefs are ingrained in you at an early age, you tend to hold on to them and teach them to your children. and so, the cycle is perpetuated. not to mention people become very irate when their beliefs are questioned and/or challenged and that makes them even more unreasonable. i really doubt will ever see the end of prejudice, but one can dream.
