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.
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.
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.
Also, you are generalising by whatever group/box/label. This particular woman, had she been a Muslim, is being treated differently by you because of past experiences you had with people from that same group/box/label.
Yes possibly, I have already given good explanations as to why, and I am sorry that you cant see past that - a better question would be why did no one else offer to help the woman with her trolley, not the hypothetical why Andy might not have helped someone who might not have even said thank you.
You can never do that. This brings me again to:
I beg to differ, I can if I choose to.
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.
Have you had bad experiences with blue eyed people in the past? Was the old woman with the trolley bag blue eyed?
Did you have bad experiences with red haired people in the past? Or with tattoos, or freckles, or with glasses?
Where do you draw the line?
No, no, yes, no, no, yes. You can reverse all of those answers as well except the second one. 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.
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.
You can label groups of people by hundreds of categories. And they are all arbitrary.
Yes, and both yes and no, some of it is concious, some is unconcious - most people cant even tell the difference.
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.?
"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.
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 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."
For someone so fond of science to get to the truth, you seem in need for some further education.
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.
It doesn't have to be explained to those who believe. If it were, it would be called science, not religion.
The difference is, science needs to be proven, religion doesn't. In all these centuries, science has never been able to debunk religion by..., well..., by science. Because it doesn't work that way.
No, it has not, and as I have said before, I can not possibly prove that god does not exist, in the same way I can not prove that faries do not exist. But that has nothing to do with the question, I simply wanted an answer to the mention of "this-higher-intelligence", what higher inteligence, he could have simply been referring to advanced Alien lifeforms.
This person might as well be an agnostic, judging from the quote you reacted to.
Even more reason to ask, there was not the totally self assured I know god exists, and I know you cant prove otherwise, so I will carry on believeing in ghosts answer that is often recited.