Please log in. To create a new account, enter the name and password you want to use.
If you supplied an email address when you signed up or added a email later, you can have your password reset.
This user name doesn't exist. If you want to create a new account, just verify your password and log in.
This user name exists. If you want to create a new account, please choose a different name.
Enter the current email address you have registered in your profile. You'll get an email containing your new password.
You have no email address in your profile, so you can't have your password reset.
Password reset. Check your email in a few minutes
That account does not exist.
The email address specified is not registered with this account.
Delivery to this email address has failed.
Mnessie said: If we can share our views in a neutral [...] manner [...]
tl;dr
this (i think) disassociates the point of believing in anything. to be neutral - taking the objectionable viewpoint/stance/[what have you] - implies that you don't show partiality. simply "believing" in something means that you have favoritism towards it, thereby negating your neutrality. being neutral is akin to being a shell: empty inside.
1984 makes a great point about this - newspeak: slimming the dictionary to negate partiality, eventually being left with a single word (i know there's other implications about newspeak but i'm just using this one).
if you strip away partiality about a belief, then the belief itself holds no meaning.
consider the "Absolute Observer" (no, not the manga). s/he wields a life such that his/her mind is completely open to new concepts, theories, ideas, morals, etc., and has no particular one s/he likes over the others. what exactly would such a person believe? surely s/he couldn't believe them all because what if there were sharp differentiations between two ideals? to uphold "Absolute Observance" and remain untainted by favoritism, s/he would have to be able to not be able to distinguish between truth and lies, but ultimately having supporting evidence for both. rather a conundrum, no?
in the end, being neutral and having an objectionable stance is much like being politically correct: you (not you specifically mnessie, but you as in a general audience; and if that includes you, oh well) just don't want to offend anyone by standing for what you believe in and remain forever riding the fence. no one wants someone who's indecisive; seeing as how SK7000 mentioned christianity, i'll use the bible, which i think puts it a good way when it says:
you are neither hot nor cold and i will spit you out of my mouth.
^something or another along those lines...
said [typed] all that to say this: there's nothing wrong with being biased towards something.
continued explanation
it's alright to debate stuff like heaven/hell, homosexuality, abortion, obama/romney, etc., so long as it's not like:
i suppose the most prime example would be my OChem class: we bullshitted about almost everything under the sun where each person had their own stance and no one looked down on the others for not having similar beliefs. perhaps i was just lucky to be in a class of mature people? idk...
Davis_500
12 months ago1984 makes a great point about this - newspeak: slimming the dictionary to negate partiality, eventually being left with a single word (i know there's other implications about newspeak but i'm just using this one).
if you strip away partiality about a belief, then the belief itself holds no meaning.
consider the "Absolute Observer" (no, not the manga). s/he wields a life such that his/her mind is completely open to new concepts, theories, ideas, morals, etc., and has no particular one s/he likes over the others. what exactly would such a person believe? surely s/he couldn't believe them all because what if there were sharp differentiations between two ideals? to uphold "Absolute Observance" and remain untainted by favoritism, s/he would have to be able to not be able to distinguish between truth and lies, but ultimately having supporting evidence for both. rather a conundrum, no?
in the end, being neutral and having an objectionable stance is much like being politically correct: you (not you specifically mnessie, but you as in a general audience; and if that includes you, oh well) just don't want to offend anyone by standing for what you believe in and remain forever riding the fence. no one wants someone who's indecisive; seeing as how SK7000 mentioned christianity, i'll use the bible, which i think puts it a good way when it says:
^something or another along those lines...
said [typed] all that to say this: there's nothing wrong with being biased towards something.
continued explanation
[PERSON A] "Fuck you, GOP pro-lifers!"
[PERSON B] "Up yours, murdering faggot!"
flame flame flame.
i suppose the most prime example would be my OChem class: we bullshitted about almost everything under the sun where each person had their own stance and no one looked down on the others for not having similar beliefs. perhaps i was just lucky to be in a class of mature people? idk...