|
Post by Miranda Marlowe on Oct 18, 2007 11:28:19 GMT -5
I may seem pessimistic when I say this, but I don't know if there is a way to stop it. The members of this "vicious circle" aren't going to listen to anything people try to tell them, to educate them, and definitely aren't going to change their ways. I have seen good people, with good parents, start failing in school, not because they are in the wrong crowd, but because they are trying to stay away from the wrong crowd. I have seen people, in a desperate attempt to stay unnoticed by bullies and such try to act "cool" and lose everything in the process. They don't seem to realise that being successful does not make someone a "nerd". It would be very, very difficult to get through to these people, I have seen attempts fail miserably.
|
|
|
Post by Alcyone on Oct 21, 2007 15:17:14 GMT -5
*bitter laugh*
When I was eight, I traveled to Washington DC for vacation. On the news one day, the anchorman was talking about how the police are cracking down on the law, curfews established to keep minors away from the street unless in the company of an adult because of the death rate. 18 people killed in a month, I believe it was.
I turn around to my mother and ask her why they were so strict. It was just eighteen in a month. Back home in Puerto Rico, thirty were killed in a weekend when the death rates were high. Low was 5-10 in a weekend not even the entire week. I couldn't understand why these people were overreacting when there were so few being killed.*
Becoming inured at its finest.
It's a bit of everything. Family, society, culture and education all play a role. Economy is also huge. An affluent economy usually signals an upsurge in value, education. Lowered economy means a steady dragging into the lowest levels of hell.
*Regarding death toll, my country is horrifyingly overpopulated. Over a thousand people per square mile and I live on an island 100x35 miles squared. We're an American colony yet our greatest source of money comes from the black market, drugs to be exact. We have a representative in Congress yet he has no vote and voice in paper only. Because of that, our fate hinges precisely on Congress. If they decide that we'll become a state, we will. Likewise, if they decide to drop us, we'll be forced into indpendence. The majority's opinion would count for nothing if Congress decided to cut us loose. And our ties to the US are the only thing keeping us afloat. We're left alone, we'll be near the bottom of the list of third-world countries. What fun.
|
|
|
Post by Lon-Dubh on Oct 25, 2007 7:29:54 GMT -5
It is very interesting to look at the different values separate cultures adopt around the world. In some places, like America, homicide and treason are considered the highest of capital crimes. Whereas, in other countries, rape is a more serious offense.
Like Alcyone pointed out, homicide rates of what is normal vary throughout the world. I think this very fact shows that the environment you grow up in vastly affects later decisions.
Different values and other such things are stressed in different places in the world. In many Asian cultures, family is considered one of the most important things in life to cherish, and subsequently relatives aren’t commonly spread across the country. It is considered in many societies to be important to have a sense of loyalty, especially to family, but to friends as well.
Whereas, in America, the culture is very different. Children are raised to be independent, self-functioning people—people who are able to live without the support of family. Many relatives are spread all across the country in pursuit of jobs or where their careers have taken them. I have some family in California, some in Arizona, Florida, Utah, Colorado, and even across oceans in Amsterdam. In other countries, this spreading of people in pursuit of their careers would be unacceptable, or be considered shallow and self-centered. But, in reality, that’s just how the people in America are raised. A lot of European and Asian people consider Americans shallow, cold, and overly self-assertive to the point of being insolent according to their culture. While, at the same time, many Americans see Europeans as overly formal, to the point of being aloof.
I think a lot of disputes and problems between separate nations originate from culture. If the whole world had very similar culture, that is to say: children were taught all the same moral values and behaviors, people celebrated similar holidays, held the same things in importance, or even spoke the same language. Were these things to be parallel among nations, I think there would be a lot less bloodshed all around. But then, these are the things that show our identity. Every country is proud of its cultures and customs, it is what defines us and makes us different and unique from others.
So which is better: Having diverse cultures with war, or having similar cultures with less bloodshed, but at the risk of conformity?
|
|
|
Post by Absolution on Oct 25, 2007 18:12:04 GMT -5
I think a country can have a good balance between multiculture and conformity. Some countries are very well known for being diverse as well as peaceful. Again, it depends on what people are raised to believe.
|
|
|
Post by lifeslittletwist on Nov 8, 2007 10:53:42 GMT -5
Having diverse cultures with war. Actually, I'm just learning this in my Contemporary Church class (it's a Catholic school so it's a bit biased but it makes some good points). People can learn so many things from having diversity and being able to grow. I'm Catholic, but I also have friends that are Mormon and Wiccan. This teaches a person to be tolerant, and to me it's a necessity. Otherwise, people will never be able to develop. It would be nice for there to be no bloodshed, but conflict needs to exist in the world for development to happen.
|
|
|
Post by WaruiUsagi on Nov 8, 2007 21:15:49 GMT -5
Well, I can back up what Lon-Dubh said about family being the sole focus of most Asian cultures - you never bring any kind of disrespect to your elders. That's why suicide isn't illegal. It's better to kill yourself if you fail then to contiue being a disappointment to your family. The suicide rate there is incredibly high. 47,000 Japanese people commited suicide in Japan in 2006. Something else I noticed - which, as you've also pointed out - is that individuality is actually discouraged in Japan, unlike here in Australia and America. People in Japan associate themselves with a group, rather than by their individual position in life.
An example might be that, an Australian or an American might say (when asked about their job), might say, "I'm the Vice President of the company." Whereas in Japan, they would simply mention the company they work for, rather than state their exact status, because being seen as part of that company is far more important.
Here in Australia, we're actually very lucky when it comes to crime. It's a huge deal if someone is shot - it'll be all ovr the TV, newspaper, magazines, radio...It's because having guns here in illegal, and so when someone manages to get their hands on one, it's serious news. It's a pity to see people abuse their rights. You're lucky, in a way in the US; being able to carry guns for protection - but it's a shame to see so many people use them for their own selfish gains, because so many people get hurt.
Our economy was heavily hooked into South East Asia abou twenty years ago, and is only just now really starting to take off. The only problem is that because the economy is doing so well, the governmet seems to eel that they can charge people more. Interst rates are skyrocketing, and familes that were barely coping before are now seriously struggling. We have the really big elections coming up soon, and I can honestly say that I won't be sad to see John Howard go. Geroge Bush is supporting him in his campaign as well, which couldn't be a stupider move for John Howard to make. If there's one thing Australian's hate more than John Howard, it's George Bush. What, with calling us Austrians and all at the APEC summit. Idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Lon-Dubh on Nov 10, 2007 11:43:08 GMT -5
Guns are rather a large controversy in the U.S. at the moment. Like WaruiUsagi pointed out, they are legal in the US, unlike in many other countries. For anyone who doesn’t know the intricacies of American Law, it’s in the Fifth Amendment (of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution) that one: the People have the right to a fair and speedy trial, and two: the people have the right to bear arms.
However, this amendment, no matter how good willed, has almost always caused problems. Though there are certain regulations, varying between states on which firearms it is lawful to have, anyone with a license can hold a gun. Though that is good in the fact of self-protection etc, it also, for obvious reasons, causes a lot of problems.
But, despite all of the issues that come with allowing the general populace to own guns, it is highly unlikely that this will ever change. The thing is, most Americans are what you might call “sensitive” about their rights. The Bill of Rights makes up the very seemwork of America, so it is very unlikely anything will ever been done to alter this.
The funny thing about this whole thing is, that most people don’t realize how close the government, which is supposedly supporting the free-will and rights of the people, is close to infringing upon these rights. Take for example a major Supreme Court case: There was a grandmother and her husband living in a house, one which they had lived in for fifty years. It was a good piece of property, and the couple had every intention of living there until they died. Then along comes a major corporation. They want to build a store in the people’s land, because of its good location. So they offer the couple money to buy it, and the owners refuse. So what does the corporation do? They have the people’s land condemned, supposedly, because the corporation’s cause is for the best of the community. This means, they have the government declare that the couple must sell; only because the land was condemned, the people receive only a fraction of the amount of money they were first offered.
It is the right of the government to condemn land, however, they are horrendously abusing their power. The law that allows this was set forth during the times of the American Civil War, in the intent that the government has the right to use property for something like a hospital.
I think it is alarming to look at where my country is heading, and where a lot of countries seem to be heading: corrupt or incompetent politicians (cough- George Bush- cough) corrupt legal systems, and the leaders of the country more concerned about their own ends than the people they are supposed to be governing.
|
|
|
Post by [[Dazzle*Me*Edward]] on Dec 3, 2007 20:44:51 GMT -5
Lon-Dubh: i totally agree with what you said. Alot of the peole in this country are abusung their power and it's just wrong.
Politicians in their campaigning talk about what they will to "help to the people" but they are elected into office only a fraction of that( sometimes not even that much) are actually followed thru with. If innocent people that have commited no wrong in the community can just be stripped of rights and have what is rightfully theirs taking away....what does that say for some of us??
|
|
|
Post by kakakakatie on Jan 13, 2008 16:36:02 GMT -5
i think guns are awful.....end of my view. i believe people have abused the right of guns so much all of th guns in the world should destroyed nd hunters can go bac 2 archery.....i m dead set against guns nd violence...so . i honestly think people should stop wars, violennce and animal teating/abuse because from my point of view it is not how God wanted his world to be. i honestly think that because if how the world is today, with so much hate, children will grow up, never knowing or caring about the cthe good in the world then be very sorry for it when they learn about how faith and love is all you really need in life......think about how the world would be soo different if everyone was only beleving in love. and dont forget that love brings faith and harmony...................
|
|
|
Post by Lon-Dubh on Jan 26, 2008 20:57:04 GMT -5
Recently, I’ve been debating a topic about Civil Disobedience. For all of you who aren’t readers of Thoreau, civil disobedience involves the intentional violation of laws in order to defend justice. An example of this might be refusing to pay taxes because that money is going towards paying for a war. Anyways, the question ultimately affiliated with this topic is: is it just for you to defend your own rights if the rights of other’s are compromised? Say you use civil disobedience to disobey a law you feel is morally offensive; that could be violating the rights of one of the people who voted for the law to be passed. Where does the authority of any given government cease to hold power? Is it on the physical level, on the moral level? Does it fall within people’s rights as a whole to oppose a government they feel is unjust, in so doing, possibly oppose other’s choices? And if we adopted this philosophy, would our world fall into anarchy, or would it simply be a more just place?
|
|
|
Post by razgirl on Mar 8, 2008 11:42:10 GMT -5
I think that it doesn't matter whether vampires/werewolves exist or not. The world cannot be perfect, and there would just be another creature to fill our place. Either way, we really have no hand in whether or not there is plague.
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Mar 21, 2008 15:44:41 GMT -5
If we were to learn from everything we did right we would not learn much, It I essential that has beings we understand that a perfect life does not exist we all sin and on some level we all demonstrate virtue it al depends on the context of the situation and most of all the people in question, we may not me perfect but we can do our best to try to live a virtues life will it pan out who really can guess?
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Mar 21, 2008 15:52:24 GMT -5
It would be very unwise and thingyy of use to think that we will remain at the top of the food chain, we are not immortal, and we will never be. More importantly we would not be the first species at the top to die off, look at the dinosaurs. Now weather vampires or werewolves exist I can not say but the idea of another species taking over is very plausible after all it is not the strongest of the species that survive but the one most responsive to change.
Warning: Please DO NOT double post.
|
|
|
Post by londonmarie on Mar 24, 2008 23:53:50 GMT -5
I agree. I believe that humans as a race tend to believe that we are at the top of the food chain. The only reason why we're there is because of the amount of "intelligence" we have. So we can think, and talk, but then that makes us responsible for our actions. And if we're so smart then why are we destroying the environment we live in?
I think we delude ourselves into thinking that the world can't survive without us. There's a poem by Sara Teasdale called Soft Rains Will Come, and at the end of the poem there is this line "And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn, Would scarcely know that we were gone." If you observe animals in true wilderness, you'll see that they surivive on their own, perfectly well without human interference.
Sure there have been quite a bit of protection set for wildlife, but then someone turns around and revokes the protection, or there are people who just don't care and they violate the laws for their own self advancement. What I hate is people who hunt just for the pleasure of it. I understand if you hunt for food. One of my friends they hunt, but they only hunt the allowed amount, and they use the whole animal.
It makes me so mad that people kill an animal for just a part of it. Like with Indian elephants, people killed the elephants when they could have knocked them out, just for their tusks. I don't know what elephant tastes like or if people actually do eat elephant, but that seems such a waste to me.
Which brings me to this, I'm afraid of sharks, they kind of freak me out. I think baby sharks are adorable, but there were these people (I think a couple of years ago) who went out to sea and caught all these sharks, and all they did was cut off all their fins, then throw them back into the water. Without their fins, they sink. They slaughtered hundreds of sharks, sure they didn't kill them, but they might as well have. Sharks have an extremely sense of smell when they smell blood, so these sharks, that had their fins cut off, some of them were torn apart....alive. And then with the dolphins. I was so angry when I heard about that.
|
|
|
Post by jane on Apr 5, 2008 18:49:55 GMT -5
I agree with londonmarie. We do slaughter too much. Soon, the only thing that will be in the ocean is jellyfish, unless people find some part of them that they can use, and slaughter all them, too.
|
|