The parents are responsible for this. Liberal pussies have nothing to do with it. At all.
Oh yes they have, they have made it illegal for parents to smack their own children, people have even been arrested for it, are you telling me that the parents put that law into place to stop them from smacking their own children - they didnt.
I would never suggest that parents have nothing to do with the upbringing of their children, and some parents are so bad at it they simply shouldnt be allowed to have them.
I've only been slapped by my parents twice in my whole life. These I remember vividly. The other times might have been a tap on my hand which proves to be efficient to very young children, and causes no trauma of any kind.
Consider not all countries have the same (strict) laws as the UK, yet this problem of youngsters not having respect towards other people is seen in a lot of countries, not just in the UK. They can be seen in countries where a correcting tap is considered useful.
The liberal pussies in those countries therefore can't be responsible, the remaining factor are the parents. Note: there are ways to bring up children without taps or other types of physical corrections, not all people from former generations have been physically abused during childhood.
Pointing out a bruised apple levels you up? Maybe in a computer game.
If only it was that easy - a little respect gained from pointing out a bruised apple, really. If that's all they need to do...
Are you telling me that if you had just picked up a bruised apple and you had not noticed but someone pointed it out to you, you would not respect them more.? - Also you seemed to miss out that important word "little", not a lot, but a little.
I wonder, if next time you walk in the supermarket, you remember the person who pointed out the bruised apple to you (assuming a reversed scenario from yours).
Perhaps you have photographic memory, and you're able to remember all the people who climbed and fell down on your ranking system, and how many respect points they have at that time.
It just sounds too elaborate to actually work.
Respect is not a trade commodity.
You don't respect someone because you expect something in return.
Respect, kindness, politeness are all altruistic traits.
You don't expect anything in return, but ofcourse it's nice if it happens.
You obviously have not thought about the point deeply enough, think of something you cant see, and has no value to anyone else.
Can you explain this a bit more detailed?
You can never do that. This brings me again to:
I beg to differ, I can if I choose to.
You can. I think you know what I meant though.
You are judging people and reacting from that judgement by whatever arbitrary category they belong to.
If you keep on doing this, you go past their individuality. Had the old woman been a Muslim, she still might have thanked you, even if your past experiences tell you that chance is slim.
Also, you make it very hard for this group of people to go up your respect ladder. By not even giving them a chance to react in a positive way, they will keep at the bottom of your ladder. Once they are below, let's say 25 respect points, they are beyond the point of no return, no matter how many kind Muslim women there are.
So I will keep to my "You don't respect someone because you expect something in return".
To be more precise: you respect all people until you have reason not to.
This doesn't mean: you respect all groups of people until you have reason not to.
I seem to remember writing a long paragraph all about stereotypes, please refer back to that. And again, yes I can, I can choose to give no one any respect at all for any reason, or I can choose to do the opposite, you seem to remember who's respect you are talking about, I have not forgotten that, and although I respect your ideals and opinions on the subject, but in this situation you are very unlikely to get me to change my mind. Only my own personal life experiences will change that.
Some English football supporters have a name of turning interlands into riots. Some English tourists have a name of not being able to hold their liquor and turn to be quite obnoxious towards other people.
By your statement, football organisers and touristic countries are in their right to ban all the English, based on their past personal life experiences with these groups.
Or should they judge each Englishman individually...?
When it comes to generalisations about peoples behaviour, attitudes, levels of politeness etc they vary a great deal, but the generalisations you have just given are off the mark somewhat. How about people wearing muslim dress, goths, pissed teenagers, schoolkids, young families, old couples.
The part in bold is exactly what I've been trying to say all along.
I've got no problem asking something or offering help to any of the groups you mention. Someone I know has the appearence of a cross between punk and goth, he's got tattoos, a mohawk and a lot of ironware in his face and I consider him one of the kindest people I know. To some he might seem daunting, but I've learned you can never judge a book by its cover.
All of these groups will generally be quite different in their outward appearance, and they will all respond differently to the same question, of offer of help. From some you will get smiles and politeness, from others you will get verbal abuse, others will just ignore you. Which group are you MOST likely to offer assistance to, or ask directions or the time of day.?
I have met arseholes of all varieties, I have met rude people of all varieties, and until my life experiences of those "groups" of people changes then I will stick with what I know, and my instincts.
Again, bold from me. You can't tell what their reaction will be from their appearance.
The only thing you can do is respect every individual until proven otherwise. And not: respect every group of people until proven otherwise.
As I have said, everyone starts with 50 out of 100 in my book, if everyone started at 100 out of 100 then people can only lose respect, is that what you do.?
of people start out with 50 out of 100. Not people, as in individuals.
You said yourself, you probably might not have helped the old woman were she a Muslim. You would have just labelled her the number for the group of Muslims, not the 50 you should have, because it's doubtful you met her earlier, wouldn't you agree?
"If you can't beat them, join them". Once you have, you don't pose a threat to "them" anymore, and they won't pose a threat to you.
The best advice to people who are afraid of Muslims in general, and the Islam specifically, is become a Muslim. No more threat. Allah o akbar.
I know you just said [entering devil's advocate mode] before that, but that is the single most stupid, pathetic, and worthless and self-hate filled thing I have heard anyone say for a very long time.
Self hate? heheh, sorry you missed the irony of that: the list judge56988 suggested just oozes fear. If I were as fearful as some people seem to be, this might be what I'd actually do
it is stupid but not more so than the list.
An atheist is someone without religion. The absence of religion.
Not someone who doesn't believe in "the right God(s)".
Someone believing in Thor (or any deity) can never be an atheist, from whichever frame of reference you are viewing it.
"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
Not religion, religion is a different matter, so I say again, unless you believe in every single god that has ever existed you are an Atheist, so unless you believe in the existance of Thor you are an Atheist.
There must not be any religious people left, only atheists. There are bound to be 1 or 2 gods forgotten over time...
You have things reversed. You only need to believe in 1 single god to not be an atheist. Atheist comes from atheos: "without god(s)" or "godless", so if you have 1, you stop being an atheist.
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
There will never be a terrorist labelled as an atheist extremist. Where is their "bible"? There are no set of rules, "thou shalt not...". Which ideologies are there to be extreme about?
You can never label a person by a characteristic they don't have.
Maybe he was a "non-voting extremist", a "non-biking extremist", or indeed a "non-religious extremist". The label is just non specific, and therefore can't be used to label someone.
But people do all of the time, eco-terrorist for example, animal-rights terrorist, and my favourite, the label being used in the media all of the time right now - Muslim as a race of people - that is an interesting label, especially when mulims kill each other because they are not all the same.
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Again, a group of people will not be labelled "non-eco extremist" or "non animal rights terrorist". The absence of an ideology can not label a group of people as such. People get labelled by the ideologies they do
have, not by ideologies they don't have. Atheists don't have religious ideologies.
Can you show me any rules or guidelines an atheist should adhere to, and which he could take to the extreme?
For someone so fond of science to get to the truth, you seem in need for some further education.
Has been discussed here earlier, sadly the thread has been deleted. You can google it.
Just the line "I understand the theory, but I have a theory of my own
" is enough for me.
You have posted countless comments like these. Don't you understand that religion, belief, is a leap of faith?
Leap of faith:-
"The act or an instance of believing or trusting in something intangible or incapable of being proved."
Have a look at my last response, I could possibly be considered to having taken a leap of faith myself on that point, why dont you steer my in the right direction.
I still have not seen or heard a single compelling argument for the existance of God
That's my reason for making my comment.
There is no evidence. No one, religious or not, is disputing that. Your question is meaningless because religious people don't need an answer to that in order to believe. That is the leap of faith.