Posted on 04/23/2002 8:37:00 AM PDT by ArGee
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:33:16 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
According to the recent study Aggravating Circumstances by Public Agenda Online, 80 percent of Americans consider "lack of respect" to be a serious social problem.
Most surveyed believe the problem is increasing,
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Shalom.
I know if these suggestions were more common behavior I'd be a lot happier here on FR.
Shalom.
1)...Mind your own buisness.
2)... Keep your hands to yourself.
1)...Mind your own buisness.
Well - there goes Free Republic, the ultimate forum for speaking out on other peoples' business (the peoples' business).
2)... Keep your hands to yourself.
Shalom. And there goes my computer. Don't know how I'm supposed to type or mouse if I keep my hands to myself.
If intellectuals were a profession, it would probably be better to call them a code of ethics. Here on FR we could simply demand that people adhere by ignoring those who don't.
I agree with your point that we can trivialize the concept of rights, but there does need to be a context in which to restore the civility to debate. I'm wide open to your suggestions.
Shalom.
OK how about this. I have the right to vote for and elect, if possible, people who would pass laws to punish (including imprisionment or capital punishment) people who I don't like for what ever reason I feel requires that solution. Seems too many folks think I don't have that right and, I say, I do have that right. (I think I'm right about that too). Seems people think I am psychotic and or crazy when I express that I have a right to think this way.
I would also like to confirm that I have a right to dislike or even hate other individules or groups of individules and have the right to work against these individules or groups within the political or private arena. It seems like there are those who would not agree but they are incorrect. It seems that when you disagree then they just call you names and threaten you. I would be happy to give out my address to those who threaten me but, I'm not the only one who lives there.
Amen.
If you can convince people to add this right, using the rules already posted, then you can add it. Knock yourself out! (You have that right too.)
OK how about this. I have the right to vote for and elect, if possible, people who would pass laws to punish (including imprisionment or capital punishment) people who I don't like for what ever reason I feel requires that solution. Seems too many folks think I don't have that right and, I say, I do have that right. (I think I'm right about that too). Seems people think I am psychotic and or crazy when I express that I have a right to think this way.
There are apparently people who don't understand more subtle forms of wit. Some have already posted here. I think you need to be a little more obtuse. Of course you have that right. And you have the right to explain your position in as reasoned and clear a manner as you possibly can. If those who disagree with you can't come up with any other disagreement than to, for a hypothetical example, suggest that you might need professional help then you have de-facto won your argument. If they disagree with you they should be able to provide a coherent argument for why they disagree. Somply tossing out a couple of words that are meant to disparage you as an individual would be in complete violation of what I'm trying to propose.
I would also like to confirm that I have a right to dislike or even hate other individules or groups of individules and have the right to work against these individules or groups within the political or private arena. It seems like there are those who would not agree but they are incorrect. It seems that when you disagree then they just call you names and threaten you. I would be happy to give out my address to those who threaten me but, I'm not the only one who lives there.
As above, white supremicists (or black or yellow or whatever) should be given their place on the stage. We have nothing to fear from someone who proposes an opinion that is odious to us (in an adult forum, of course. We're not talking about speakers at a public school here.) We have more to fear from the censorship of their ideas.
Of course, sometimes people say things that don't have any rational basis against which you can form a coherent argument. In that case, the best argument is silence.
Nice post. Thanks.
Shalom.
Where have I seen that before?
Shalom.
Shalom.
Oh, no. I'm not trying that again. That's all I need, another thing that listens to me when I give it commands then does exactly what it wants to do. I already have three kids. I don't need that in my compuer - thank-you-very-much!
Shalom.
I was, of course, merely voicing a caveat, but I can easily expand on my comment. (If "productive suggestion" means making wish-lists of rights, please count me out.) Let's say this "right to be indifferent" really exists. Simply stating it sure doesn't make it true, but makes it appear merely emotivistic; "I hate having to care about every lousy new crisis. You! Do so as well!" That's not argument.
Perhaps my major difficulty with "bills of rights" like these is that at best they are a finished construction of a long, considered argument. However, like a finished building, all the scaffolding has been torn down and removed from the public eye. Hence it appears ripped from all context, and no better than any odd wish list. This last thought was sparked when I searched for a particular passage from John Henry Newman, and realized that were I to simply post it as a guideline for debates, it would face the same criticism of not going into in-depth proof, despite it being part of a masterful tome. Without context, it would appear as odd and arbitrary as our pieces here. Therefore, I post Newman's reflections on being a gentleman with an exhortation to read the work from which it came:
It is almost a definition of a gentleman to say he is one who never inflicts pain. This description is both refined and, as far as it goes, accurate. He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself. His benefits may be considered as parallel to what are called comforts or conveniences in arrangements of a personal nature: like an easy chair or a good fire, which do their part in dispelling cold and fatigue, though nature provides both means of rest and animal heat without them. The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast; -- all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favours while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring. He never speaks of himself except when compelled, never defends himself by a mere retort, he has no ears for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who interfere with him, and interprets every thing for the best. He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage, never mistakes personalities or sharp sayings for arguments, or insinuates evil which he dare not say out. From a long-sighted prudence, he observes the maxim of the ancient sage, that we should ever conduct ourselves towards our enemy as if he were one day to be our friend. He has too much good sense to be affronted at insults, he is too well employed to remember injuries, and too indolent to bear malice. He is patient, forbearing, and resigned, on philosophical principles; he submits to pain, because it is inevitable, to bereavement, because it is irreparable, and to death, because it is his destiny. If he engages in controversy of any kind, his disciplined intellect preserves him from the blunder. [From The Idea of a University, 1852]Alas, I fear I have mistaken the "sharp sayings" of our title author for arguments.
I was willing to accept your comment at face value. What I was then looking for from you was a different context than a "bill of rights" in which to define some rules for reasonable public discourse. I am not willing to take the approach of the poster who simply stated that there should be no public discourse. Free Republic exists for that purpose. This particular list looked like an exceptional one for use in managing ourselves, and not so much the rights as the responsibilities.
Shalom.
I don't know anyone who lives in North America. I know folks who live in America, Canada, and Mexico, but North America? Nope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.