Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't believe I mentioned any sort of slippery slope. I was asking more about a double standard. I'm genuinely curious why some people argue that states can and should thumb their nose at the federal government on some things, but not others.
The explanation is simple, and you already know it: Because that is the preference.
It is not a matter of what "can or can't be done"...it is a matter of what is preferred to be done.
All people would like things to be the way they would prefer them to be. Some will even endeavor to compel their preference.
There will almost always be those with differing preferences.
It will then be based upon "might" (regardless of the source of that "might") what "preference" prevails over others. People can chose to be magnanimous and defer to the preference of others over their own...or not.
That is The Way of The World.
I think you're correct. The majority says, essentially, "We can do anything we want because we're in the majority and we have the power...we can do what we wanna do, where we wanna do it, and when we wanna do it". That's a head-trip, too.
And what is the result? The minority or minorities feel marginalized. And they react. In some countries in results in violence. I certainly saw it in my time in Thailand where there was so much religious violence in the deep peninsular south (especially the 3 southern-most provinces) where violence was so bad that it was dangerous to travel there due to bombings and other unrest by the minority-Muslim population due to their abuse by the majority Buddhist population. We're seeing it this week with Hamas ("Islamic Resistance Movement") fighting once again in the never-ending struggle between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East. And yes, in a much lesser way we see it right here on this forum where it is a war of words.
And what do we see in this forum. The minority (the atheists...but sometimes also the Mormons...and sometimes other religious minorities) get angry and people like BF and other dominants say, "Gee, we don't get it...why are people picking on us?"
I may be misinterpreting you, but it seems like you're saying...no wait, it doesn't seem like you're saying "get over it"...you are saying "suck it up buttercup". But it seems like you're saying it to the minorities.
Here's what amazes me: that people like BF can't figure out why others don't like being marginalized. I mean "duh". Why the insults and the mockery? To be honest, they are simply tools to be used against a bully (whether individuals or collectively). After all, we tell "them" why, and they say they don't get it, so we tell them again, and they don't get it, and we tell them again, and they don't get it...and on and on.
ABove, where you say: "People can chose to be magnanimous and defer to the preference of others over their own...or not"...it seems as if it's always the people with the least power who are supposed to be magnanimous. Who should be more magnanimous...the rich or the poor...those in power or those with less power. Considering that one definition of the word 'magnanimous' is "generous or forgiving, especially toward a rival or less powerful person"...
And a thought occurred to me this very morning -- that one of the reasons that I walked away from christianity was their lust for power.
To to BF and others who don't get it -- the above post explains it...once again...and you still won't get it.
In other words, if I feel spurned there's no limit to my victim hood. Please consult me before going about your daily life and btw I am exempt from the follies of man including teaching some they are lesser beings.
Don't believe I mentioned any sort of slippery slope.
No, you did not mention the answer to your question. This is usually how questions work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaptistFundie
I was asking more about a double standard. I'm genuinely curious why some people argue that states can and should thumb their nose at the federal government on some things, but not others.
Is that a double standard, or is it an awareness issue?
It is interesting how atheist evangelism sees every world event through the lens of religion as if atheists are uninvolved in these events. Politics is off limits on this forum so we cannot really discuss the politics and power in the apartied Israeli - Palestinian situation. Religion is the least of it. Wishywashy as usual.
It is interesting how atheist evangelism sees every world event through the lens of religion as if atheists are uninvolved in these events. Politics is off limits on this forum so we cannot really discuss the politics and power in the apartied Israeli - Palestinian situation. Religion is the least of it. Wishywashy as usual.
And I suppose religion had nothing to do with the partition of India.
It is interesting how atheist evangelism sees every world event through the lens of religion as if atheists are uninvolved in these events. Politics is off limits on this forum so we cannot really discuss the politics and power in the apartied Israeli - Palestinian situation. Religion is the least of it. Wishywashy as usual.
Yes, you are fighting with your hands tied and it's no secret.
And I suppose religion had nothing to do with the partition of India.
The lack of intellectual curiosity and knowledge of world history is mind blowing. Again politics is off limits in this forum but I suppose you have some special posting privileges the rest of us do not have.
Do you know Muhamad Ali Jinnah was an atheist?
It is interesting how atheist evangelism sees every world event through the lens of religion as if atheists are uninvolved in these events. Politics is off limits on this forum so we cannot really discuss the politics and power in the apartied Israeli - Palestinian situation. Religion is the least of it. Wishywashy as usual.
And so the struggle will continue until "Do unto others..." becomes a part of their action instead of just their words.
I think you're correct. The majority says, essentially, "We can do anything we want because we're in the majority and we have the power...we can do what we wanna do, where we wanna do it, and when we wanna do it". That's a head-trip, too.
And what is the result? The minority or minorities feel marginalized. And they react. In some countries in results in violence. I certainly saw it in my time in Thailand where there was so much religious violence in the deep peninsular south (especially the 3 southern-most provinces) where violence was so bad that it was dangerous to travel there due to bombings and other unrest by the minority-Muslim population due to their abuse by the majority Buddhist population. We're seeing it this week with Hamas ("Islamic Resistance Movement") fighting once again in the never-ending struggle between Jews and Muslims in the Middle East. And yes, in a much lesser way we see it right here on this forum where it is a war of words.
And what do we see in this forum. The minority (the atheists...but sometimes also the Mormons...and sometimes other religious minorities) get angry and people like BF and other dominants say, "Gee, we don't get it...why are people picking on us?"
I may be misinterpreting you, but it seems like you're saying...no wait, it doesn't seem like you're saying "get over it"...you are saying "suck it up buttercup". But it seems like you're saying it to the minorities.
Here's what amazes me: that people like BF can't figure out why others don't like being marginalized. I mean "duh". Why the insults and the mockery? To be honest, they are simply tools to be used against a bully (whether individuals or collectively). After all, we tell "them" why, and they say they don't get it, so we tell them again, and they don't get it, and we tell them again, and they don't get it...and on and on.
ABove, where you say: "People can chose to be magnanimous and defer to the preference of others over their own...or not"...it seems as if it's always the people with the least power who are supposed to be magnanimous. Who should be more magnanimous...the rich or the poor...those in power or those with less power. Considering that one definition of the word 'magnanimous' is "generous or forgiving, especially toward a rival or less powerful person"...
And a thought occurred to me this very morning -- that one of the reasons that I walked away from christianity was their lust for power.
To to BF and others who don't get it -- the above post explains it...once again...and you still won't get it.
Excellent post
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
