It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by darkelf
That’s not a very good analogy. If I ignore the dirt, it just builds up. If I sweep it under the rug, it’s still my problem.
Originally posted by darkelf
If I put it out for the trash pick-up, it becomes someone else’s problem.
Originally posted by darkelf
The only way to resolve the dilemma would the complete abolition of dirt. I don’t see that happening.
Originally posted by darkelf
I was responding more in the spiritual than in the physical. Ephesians 6: 12 comes to mind. But since you answered in the physical, what would you suggest we do to “take action?”
Originally posted by darkelf
Maranatha
Originally posted by saint4God
If someone flashed a nude picture in front of you and go "why did you look at that?" What's your answer?
Crutching off of the government to decide what's right and wrong?
I'm still curious to see if your courteousness extends beyond the bounds of allowing the unacceptable to happen.
At what point does it require action?
But still the reliance is upon the government to decide, not civility.
But I do think that we have an additional responsibility to be the guiding force for the government...not the other way around.
Originally posted by saint4God
Even though there's enforcement and consequence it's possible for someone to feel unaccountable. Am I close?
Ah. I'd care and want to go further to help both parties involved.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Like I said before, most political cartoons take some amount of study (5 seconds at least) and even reading to get the point across. Reading a few lines of text is a very conscious activity. A nude picture is registered instantly.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But then again, I don't feel in any way assaulted by the cartoons or nudity, so these wouldn't bother me. If it were bloody gruesome pictures, something I find unpleasant, I wouldn't go back to the source, plain and simple.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not at all. I said I don't support murder. It also happens to be illegal in our current society, but that's not why I think it's wrong. The death penalty is legal and I think that's wrong, too.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
To clarify, I don't impose my beliefs on others, not out of courtesy to them, but because I don't like it when others impose their beliefs on me and I would be acting out of integrity if I imposed mine on them. So my motivation isn't courtesy, it's my own integrity.
I answered that. If it's simply offensive, it requires no response (or action). So if it's a picture or words that simply offends a person, no action is ever required. Sticks and stones...
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
As I said, in my opinion, the point at which it requires action is here:
If it breaks a law (disturbing the peace, public nudity, child abuse) or is a case of libel or slander, then I think it should be analyzed and resolved (acted upon).
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's because civility is a subjective thing. Like morals, every person has their own perception of what's right and wrong. Whose concept of 'civility' would we use to determine what should and shouldn't be allowed? In our society, we must rely on one central body (the government) to set certain standards within which we all must operate. That's one of the government's purposes.
I'm not saying I rely on the government to set my morals, I'm saying the government sets the outer or upper (or lower) boundaries and we each choose how to operate within those boundaries. I believe my morals are much stricter than the government's.
Originally posted by saint4God
How long did this take?
Okay, we can use gore as an example instead of pornography. Effects are similar.
Has anyone ever said anything that has hurt you?
I disagree that civility is relative, because that would mean none of us have the capability to feel the difference between right and wrong through consciousness or heart.
Originally posted by saint4God
Even though there's enforcement and consequence it's possible for someone to feel unaccountable. Am I close?
Ah. I'd care and want to go further to help both parties involved.
Originally posted by saint4God
The "house" is the world. You and I are temporary residents of the house. SOMEBODY is gonna have to clean up when things become a mess. Yes, it's a chore, one we don't like, but how much must build up before someone decides to start cleaning.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's because civility is a subjective thing. Like morals, every person has their own perception of what's right and wrong. Whose concept of 'civility' would we use to determine what should and shouldn't be allowed? In our society, we must rely on one central body (the government) to set certain standards within which we all must operate. That's one of the government's purposes.
Originally posted by darkelf
If I put it out for the trash pick-up, it becomes someone else’s problem.
We should be smart consumers and consider what happens to the trash when it's taken out. Is it made of plastics and toxic materials to the environment?
Originally posted by darkelf
The only way to resolve the dilemma would the complete abolition of dirt. I don’t see that happening.
*picks up a vacuum cleaner* I don't go out like dat.
Taking action, as originally stated is to not apply economic authority to support this activity. In addition, educating others to this paradigm is a great way to help deny ignorance.
Originally posted by darkelf
Maranatha
Thank you for this. Learn something new everyday . I should've taken the initiative to look it up, but thought it was a name in reference to something I missed.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It took me about 10 seconds, because I wondered what the hell Bush was doing on a rocket.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I searched the picture to see what I was missing. It finally registered that it's probably meant to be a missile or nuke, I don't know. I'm not good at these things. But one example doesn't make the rule. I said MOST (not all) cartoons require some study.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And, by the way, if I'm interpreting the cartoon correctly (and there's no guarantee) in my opinion it's fairly accurate. It's no secret that Bush is a war president
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
and that he was over eager to invade Iraq and now he's chomping at the bit to invade Iran.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Perhaps to some. Not to me. Just clarifying.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Absolutely! I'm a human being. A woman who has lived nearly half a century on this Earth. I'm a compassionate, caring, sensitive person. Of course I sometimes feel pain when somebody says something cruel or hurtful to me!
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I just don't think I have some kind of right to be comfortable all the time. I don't think I have the right NOT to be hurt or offended. It's part of life.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I don't have the right to control what other people do or say. That's their job. And it's not for me to say how they do it.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
My responsibility is in my ability to respond... What I can control is my reaction and response to them. My thoughts, my feelings about what they said. I ask myself, "What is it about me that I feel so hurt because of the words spoken by that person? Is what they said true? Do I hurt because I recognize some truth in their words? Or can I reject what they said because it really isn't true at all"?
Now we're getting into my definition of 'accountabiltiy'.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We do disagree, then. Every person draws their line of civility (and morality) at a different place. A very frank, outspoken young American person would have a different idea of what's civil than, say, the Queen of England.
Crapping in the street is something we can probably all agree is not civil. Telling someone you appreciate their point of view is something we can probably all agree is civil. But there's a world in between and each person draws their line of civility at a different place. To me, civility is not a black and white issue, There's a world of gray.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Close to what? I don't understand your question. I believe what you have said is certainly true. True accountability is rare. Even if someone knows they've done something wrong, they still may not feel accountable and may even blame their wrong-doing on someone or something else.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think that might be one way we differ... kind of related to the "mind our own business" thing I mentioned earlier.
Originally posted by darkelf
As a mom and grandma, I get tired of picking up after everyone else, but if I don’t do it, it won’t get done. Hence, the problem, most people don’t mind the dirt piling up as long as it doesn’t affect them. Some people will even tolerate the dirt as art. Others will defend the dirt claiming that by cleaning it, you are violating their right to view the dirt. Nevertheless, if we sweep and mop the floor and put down a new rug, someone will claim that the rug offends them. Can you see where I’m going with this?
Originally posted by darkelf
The government has to find a happy medium to satisfy the majority. Some people will be happy with their decisions, while others will complain. Fact is that most people will rise or fall to the extent of expectations.
Originally posted by darkelf
Which is easier, to make a point with a mean spirited jab or write something profound that causes a person to think? By lowering our standards, we have not allowed the cream to rise to the top. We now have to sift through many curds to get to the cream. However, you will know which is which by the taste it leaves with you. Keep in mind that many people enjoy curds.
Originally posted by darkelf
I agree, but then again whose standards do we use? I see many things that I consider toxic embraced by others.
Originally posted by darkelf
Good luck with that. I hope you have a long extension cord!
Originally posted by darkelf
This is a greeting used by the early church.
Originally posted by saint4God
If political/personal cartoons are dirt, we all have to do our part to keep the house clean. All I have to do is show why it is dirt if it is not seen as such.
I'm not concerned with what government nor the majority thinks is right, though am grateful for the freedoms they'd given me.
Just become someone has fortitude does not mean they're the best fit for politics. In fact, the result can lead to only those with super-egos to make it through. Is that who we want running our country? Personally I prefer someone with heart who's sensitive to the needs of the country and have the compassion necessary to reach out to those who require assistance.
If it kills you, is harmful, or makes you ill, it's toxic. Toxic is not a relative term, it's a scientific one.
Originally posted by saint4God
How do you know he was over eager? And, chomping at the bit to invade? Where did this opinion come from?
Have you ever felt worse mental/emotional pain than being punched or a broken bone?
What hurts me more is to see others who are unnecessarily or unjustly harmed.
Until they infringe upon the rights of other's "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness". I'm not making this stuff up here.
Originally posted by saint4God
If it kills you, is harmful, or makes you ill, it's toxic. Toxic is not a relative term, it's a scientific one.
Originally posted by darkelf
You do understand that many people will still disagree with you.
Originally posted by darkelf
Of those who agree, some will still ignore it in the hope that they won’t have to be responsible for cleaning it up.
Originally posted by darkelf
Those of us who answer to a higher authority often don’t care what the majority thinks. However, their beliefs still affect us.
Originally posted by darkelf
I’m not sure who this originated from, but I once heard that the best people for government office are usually those who would never consider serving. Those who aspire to politics are probably the worst for the job. Have you read my signature?
Originally posted by darkelf
And sometimes it is a spiritual one.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Remember a few pages ago, I mentioned that I had done research and read documents? To name just a couple:
Pnac Primer
Downing Street Memos
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I was repeatedly sexually abused as a child by 2 family members and I was raped at 17 by a trusted friend. From the time I was 14 to about 19, I had 20 seizures a day and could not function in society. I stood by my mother's bed as she died of bone marrow cancer. I lost the only baby I would ever have the opportunity to bear, I had my breasts removed to prevent the spread of breast cancer, my best girlfriend of 25 years died last year of cancer, and for the past 1 1/2 years, my husband has been living in another state where his job is... So I would say probably, yes.
Why?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It happens to the best of us. I guess I give people credit to come through it. Like I have. I don't like to see people be hurt, but it's true what they say, it makes people stronger.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No. Even if someone infringes on the rights of others, I don't have the right to control what they do or say. That's law enforcement's job. And it's not for me to do something about it. That's what the law, the government, the Constitution are for. I'm not a vigilante.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's not to say I won't help if someone needs it, but unless there's the threat of immediate danger, I'm likely to call the police or whoever to alert them to it.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Too much water can kill you. Is water toxic?
Ice cream can make one ill. Is it toxic?
Avacados give me a migraine headache. Are avacados toxic?
Old age kills people. Is age toxic?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What is 'harmful'? How do you measure that?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
A broken heart hurts, love can harm... Is love toxic?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm highly uncomfortable and disagree strongly with these black and white assertions that 'toxic' and 'civility' are not relative. How can you possible say that?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is it civil to kiss your boyfriend in public? How about your wife?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Where is the line between civil and uncivil as regards public displays of affection?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
How about burping or blowing your nose at the dinner table?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Isn't it uncivilized to have a picture of Jesus in a restaurant?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is it civil for a service person to call a female customer "Ma'am"? How about "Miss"? How about "Madam"? Which is polite and which is offensive?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Is it civil for a black person to use the N word?
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Pnac Primer
Downing Street Memos
If you agree with these I can see how the opinion would be formed.
I don't want to pull out any specific and personal example just to illustrate a point.
I hear what you're saying, but don't advocate unnecessary harm when it can be avoided.
Nor am I, but will do my civic responsibility
Originally posted by saint4God
Main Entry: tox·in
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
: a poisonous substance that is a specific product of the metabolic activities of a living organism and is usually very unstable, notably toxic when introduced into the tissues, and typically capable of inducing antibody formation
www.m-w.com...
Originally posted by saint4God
If it kills you, is harmful, or makes you ill, it's toxic.
Originally posted by saint4God
I don't know why people have issue with asserting and agreeing upon definition.
I don't see how either infringe upon the Constitutional rights of others.
I'm concerned about rights, not etiquette.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
'Agree' with them? What's to agree or disagree with? These are official documents. I don't 'agree' with them, I believe them. Do you not? If not, why? They're much more damaging to the character of this administration than a cartoon.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, if you had a point to make, I kinda wish you would. You asked about my pain for a reason. I spilled my guts and then you say basically never mind? Blessings on me... I'm curious why you asked about my pain. What point did you wish to make?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, neither do I, of course.
Well, so will I, of course.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I get the feeling that you're trying to illustrate that because I'm not all up in everyone's business, trying to protect them from seeing 'offensive' materials, that I'm some sort of uncaring, aloof person.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That I 'advocate unnecessary harm' or won't do my 'civic duty' simply because I believe in free expression, even when people find it offensive.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
All I'm saying is there's a big difference between a woman seeing an 'offensive' political cartoon in a newspaper and that same woman being attacked in the street. One situation requires my intervention, one does not.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And I'm not 'ignoring my civic duty' nor 'advocating unnecessary harm' by supporting the freedom of expression of the political cartoons.