[ Poll ] On which group do you most look "down?"

Which do you rank as lowest, not including criminals:

Creationists		14.3%	[ 25 ]
Christians		14.3%	[ 25 ]
LeVeyans/Satanists		13.1%	[ 23 ]
Racists		58.3%	[ 102 ]

Total Votes: 175

[-PluR-Zen]

HelloNoora

-PluR-Zen

Broadly I frown upon close-minded people. They annoy me to no end. I'm sure they serve a purpose in the world but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

This post intrigues me. Could you give us some examples of close-minded people and how we might spot them?

People unwilling to accept the views of other as relevant regardless of how trivial or important they might be. Just because a point of view is incomprehensible doesn't necessarily imply that it's wrong.

Now, when are certain points of view "wrong"? When they don't make sense in a given context. E.g. if a notion can be demonstrably proven as false. Alternatively, when the majority is against your point of view you're technically 'wrong' (or so says democracy.) Sure, the more support you garner for your PoV, the less wrong you are but you're still on the opposite side of popular opinion and you'll have to deal with it.

[HelloNoora]

-PluR-Zen

HelloNoora

-PluR-Zen

Broadly I frown upon close-minded people. They annoy me to no end. I'm sure they serve a purpose in the world but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

This post intrigues me. Could you give us some examples of close-minded people and how we might spot them?

People unwilling to accept the views of other as relevant regardless of how trivial or important they might be. Just because a point of view is incomprehensible doesn't necessarily imply that it's wrong.

Now, when are certain points of view "wrong"? When they don't make sense in a given context. E.g. if a notion can be demonstrably proven as false. Alternatively, when the majority is against your point of view you're technically 'wrong' (or so says democracy.) Sure, the more support you garner for your PoV, the less wrong you are but you're still on the opposite side of popular opinion and you'll have to deal with it.

Is it not so that the number of persons believing "X" has no bearing on the truth or validity of "X"? I always remember this logical falacy because Jesus was crucified by the vote of the majority.

[Storm Waltz]

HelloNoora

cirtneccE

HelloNoora

My position: Not including criminals, racists are the lowest of the low.

....Really? What about sexism, prejudice against certain religious groups, prejudice regarding social class, prejudice regarding age groups and prejudice against homosexuals, bisexuals, ect? Are any of those more noble?

There are different levels of racism too, some people are violent and crude, others are less shrill but can't help feeling discomfort.

I think... you're just hoping someone will pat your butt and praise you for not being racist. Its just another way to feed a sense of superiority.

The criteria for this thread is to select one of four groups that you "most" look dodwn on. Respondants are free to post others so long as they exclude criminals for the sake of argument.

In my OP I took an aggressive stance: "Racists are the lowest," to provide the topic with an argument. If you do not agree that racists are the lowest on the poll option or if you can think of some other group more deserving, then your part was to discuss that.

You wasted time insluding the OP by speculating as to hidden agenda.

cirtneccE

Do you.... want me to define sexism for you? I... don't think you're able to interpret what you're reading. Maybe you could try to highlight which of my remarks are racist.

I have had enough of your butt pats for the day. biggrin However I will "highlight which of [your] remarks [came off as a hint you] are racist. The comment about feeding a sense of superiority appears to come from a sense of inferiority in yourself. Since the topic is racism and you are resistant to this as a problem, therefore I deduce that you are covering for your own problems with this.

No... you misunderstand what it means to be racist. A racist comment would mention a race (kinda straightforward). You think I have an inferiority complex. They are two different things. There is no hidden message. Its... straightforward.

The point of the message was that racism wasn't any less noble then other prejudices like sexism. I could quote what was written but I get the feeling that I'd have to do that a lot and its tedious, y'know?

Racism=bad. I think that people who expect to be praised by constantly repeating phrases like that are obnoxious because well.... its pretty well known that racism=bad. It feels like you want to be praised for knowing something that is well,... well known! Whats there to discuss? Whats worse? The world isn't black and white, you can't really measure if racism is worse then homophobia, especially since there are different degrees of it. I could quote what I already stated but... I should't have to be more straight forward,

It also feels like you want me to be racist... so you have a reason to dismiss everything stated. How's this?

People plead for praise and need the world to be black and white=low.

[-PluR-Zen]

HelloNoora

-PluR-Zen

HelloNoora

-PluR-Zen

Broadly I frown upon close-minded people. They annoy me to no end. I'm sure they serve a purpose in the world but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

This post intrigues me. Could you give us some examples of close-minded people and how we might spot them?

People unwilling to accept the views of other as relevant regardless of how trivial or important they might be. Just because a point of view is incomprehensible doesn't necessarily imply that it's wrong.

Now, when are certain points of view "wrong"? When they don't make sense in a given context. E.g. if a notion can be demonstrably proven as false. Alternatively, when the majority is against your point of view you're technically 'wrong' (or so says democracy.) Sure, the more support you garner for your PoV, the less wrong you are but you're still on the opposite side of popular opinion and you'll have to deal with it.

Is it not so that the number of persons believing "X" has no bearing on the truth or validity of "X"? I always remember this logical falacy because Jesus was crucified by the vote of the majority.

And when the temple broke in half they were demonstrably disproven.
Then again, if you ask a Jewish person, the majority was right. Seems like a grey area to me.

Look at it this way:
If you have a referendum on a law and the majority votes it in, does it not become meaningful?
The number of people that believe in X definitely has bearing on its validity, excluding cases where demonstrable proof to the contrary is available.

[Bottle Shock]

What about politicians? Huge corporation and bank CEOs? Technically you can get away with a LOT of s**t and not be a criminal.

Personally, I look down most upon the individuals involved in Walmart's outsourcing policy. Deceptive, racist, greedy, ethnocentric, manipulative and shameless is what they are.

[Unit002]

Creationists. They are the biggest threat to our public school system, intentionally attempting to undermine a century and a half of scientific research in order to brainwash the minds of impressionable children who will believe just about anything because they realize they have no leg to stand on when it comes to sensible adults.

[HelloNoora]

-PluR-Zen

HelloNoora

-PluR-Zen

HelloNoora

-PluR-Zen

Broadly I frown upon close-minded people. They annoy me to no end. I'm sure they serve a purpose in the world but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

This post intrigues me. Could you give us some examples of close-minded people and how we might spot them?

People unwilling to accept the views of other as relevant regardless of how trivial or important they might be. Just because a point of view is incomprehensible doesn't necessarily imply that it's wrong.

Now, when are certain points of view "wrong"? When they don't make sense in a given context. E.g. if a notion can be demonstrably proven as false. Alternatively, when the majority is against your point of view you're technically 'wrong' (or so says democracy.) Sure, the more support you garner for your PoV, the less wrong you are but you're still on the opposite side of popular opinion and you'll have to deal with it.

Is it not so that the number of persons believing "X" has no bearing on the truth or validity of "X"? I always remember this logical falacy because Jesus was crucified by the vote of the majority.

And when the temple broke in half they were demonstrably disproven.
Then again, if you ask a Jewish person, the majority was right. Seems like a grey area to me.

Look at it this way:
If you have a referendum on a law and the majority votes it in, does it not become meaningful?
The number of people that believe in X definitely has bearing on its validity, excluding cases where demonstrable proof to the contrary is available.

I believe in the democratic process, with the wisdom of the courts to back us.

[-PluR-Zen]

Unit002

Creationists. They are the biggest threat to our public school system, intentionally attempting to undermine a century and a half of scientific research in order to brainwash the minds of impressionable children who will believe just about anything because they realize they have no leg to stand on when it comes to sensible adults.

That's one hell of a sentence o.o

Personally I think Creationism can be married to science... Those that are willing to throw proven science out the door in favor of belief are a little wacky to me, but to each their own...

[edit]

HelloNoora

I believe in the democratic process, with the wisdom of the courts to back us.

As do I (though some court precedents are a little nutty.) How does this bear on what I had to say?

[HelloNoora]

Unit002

Creationists. They are the biggest threat to our public school system, intentionally attempting to undermine a century and a half of scientific research in order to brainwash the minds of impressionable children who will believe just about anything because they realize they have no leg to stand on when it comes to sensible adults.

I cannot find them dangerous. My reply to your post: So what?

[HelloNoora]

Bottle Shock

What about politicians? Huge corporation and bank CEOs? Technically you can get away with a LOT of bad and not be a criminal.

Personally, I look down most upon the individuals involved in Walmart's outsourcing policy. Deceptive, racist, greedy, ethnocentric, manipulative and shameless is what they are.

Getting away with it does not mean they are any less criminal. Not sure what you mean about Walmart's outsourcing. How are they racist and ethnocentric?

[HelloNoora]

Storm Waltz

HelloNoora

cirtneccE

HelloNoora

My position: Not including criminals, racists are the lowest of the low.

....Really? What about sexism, prejudice against certain religious groups, prejudice regarding social class, prejudice regarding age groups and prejudice against homosexuals, bisexuals, ect? Are any of those more noble?

There are different levels of racism too, some people are violent and crude, others are less shrill but can't help feeling discomfort.

I think... you're just hoping someone will pat your butt and praise you for not being racist. Its just another way to feed a sense of superiority.

The criteria for this thread is to select one of four groups that you "most" look dodwn on. Respondants are free to post others so long as they exclude criminals for the sake of argument.

In my OP I took an aggressive stance: "Racists are the lowest," to provide the topic with an argument. If you do not agree that racists are the lowest on the poll option or if you can think of some other group more deserving, then your part was to discuss that.

You wasted time insluding the OP by speculating as to hidden agenda.

cirtneccE

Do you.... want me to define sexism for you? I... don't think you're able to interpret what you're reading. Maybe you could try to highlight which of my remarks are racist.

I have had enough of your butt pats for the day. biggrin However I will "highlight which of [your] remarks [came off as a hint you] are racist. The comment about feeding a sense of superiority appears to come from a sense of inferiority in yourself. Since the topic is racism and you are resistant to this as a problem, therefore I deduce that you are covering for your own problems with this.

No... you misunderstand what it means to be racist. A racist comment would mention a race (kinda straightforward). You think I have an inferiority complex. They are two different things. There is no hidden message. Its... straightforward.

The point of the message was that racism wasn't any less noble then other prejudices like sexism. I could quote what was written but I get the feeling that I'd have to do that a lot and its tedious, y'know?

Racism=bad. I think that people who expect to be praised by constantly repeating phrases like that are obnoxious because well.... its pretty well known that racism=bad. It feels like you want to be praised for knowing something that is well,... well known! Whats there to discuss? Whats worse? The world isn't black and white, you can't really measure if racism is worse then homophobia, especially since there are different degrees of it. I could quote what I already stated but... I should't have to be more straight forward,

It also feels like you want me to be racist... so you have a reason to dismiss everything stated. How's this?

People plead for praise and need the world to be black and white=low.

Just to be clear, I am not talking about faux racism which is basically, "if you disagree with me then, you sir, are a racist!" As we see all to often in political wars lately.

I chose those four and did not included sexism or homophobia because on GAIA we are pretty homogenous on those two fronts. Trolling racism is still far too common.

[Unit002]

HelloNoora

Unit002

Creationists. They are the biggest threat to our public school system, intentionally attempting to undermine a century and a half of scientific research in order to brainwash the minds of impressionable children who will believe just about anything because they realize they have no leg to stand on when it comes to sensible adults.

I cannot find them dangerous. My reply to your post: So what?

So....brainwashing children so that they believe fabrications are the absolute truth is okay? I think it's pretty dangerous to build "Armies of God" in preparation for a "spiritual war" with non-believers and evil doers, etc. I'm just waiting for the second (or is it third?) Crusade to roll around, long before the fabled Race War.

[-PluR-Zen]

HelloNoora

Bottle Shock

What about politicians? Huge corporation and bank CEOs? Technically you can get away with a LOT of bad and not be a criminal.

Personally, I look down most upon the individuals involved in Walmart's outsourcing policy. Deceptive, racist, greedy, ethnocentric, manipulative and shameless is what they are.

Getting away with it does not mean they are any less criminal.

I'm pretty sure Bottle Shock means criminal in the legal sense. If you're not convicted of a crime, you're not a criminal by def.

[N.b. go read the edit on my last post if you haven't already; double posting is bad :S]

[HelloNoora]

Unit002

HelloNoora

Unit002

Creationists. They are the biggest threat to our public school system, intentionally attempting to undermine a century and a half of scientific research in order to brainwash the minds of impressionable children who will believe just about anything because they realize they have no leg to stand on when it comes to sensible adults.

I cannot find them dangerous. My reply to your post: So what?

So....brainwashing children so that they believe fabrications are the absolute truth is okay? I think it's pretty dangerous to build "Armies of God" in preparation for a "spiritual war" with non-believers and evil doers, etc. I'm just waiting for the second (or is it third?) Crusade to roll around, long before the fabled Race War.

You've changed the topic from Creationists to fundamentalist terrorists.

[-PluR-Zen]

HelloNoora

Unit002

HelloNoora

Unit002

Creationists. They are the biggest threat to our public school system, intentionally attempting to undermine a century and a half of scientific research in order to brainwash the minds of impressionable children who will believe just about anything because they realize they have no leg to stand on when it comes to sensible adults.

I cannot find them dangerous. My reply to your post: So what?

So....brainwashing children so that they believe fabrications are the absolute truth is okay? I think it's pretty dangerous to build "Armies of God" in preparation for a "spiritual war" with non-believers and evil doers, etc. I'm just waiting for the second (or is it third?) Crusade to roll around, long before the fabled Race War.

You've changed the topic from Creationists to fundamentalist terrorists.

I'm pretty sure he's implying the two are related.