[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

What Indy dealmaker said in another thread, or was it this one?

We aren't going to change anyone's mind.

I am pretty content with my philosophy of life.

I think most of us are doing the right thing by trying to be respectful of others.

I agree and just hope for the respect I give will be returned.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

What Indy dealmaker said in another thread, or was it this one?

We aren't going to change anyone's mind.

I am pretty content with my philosophy of life.

I think most of us are doing the right thing by trying to be respectful of others.

All right on. I am telling you individual people can be hateful, but the vast majority are fair and tolerant.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by Bucco

All right on. I am telling you individual people can be hateful, but the vast majority are fair and tolerant.

Agree, the vast majority are fair and respectfully.

[mgjim]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

mgjm -
you posted, 'So you believe that every point of view is equally valid?'

please define valid. if a point of view is valid to the person who holds it - does someone or many people saying that it is not valid make it invalid or any less real to its owner?

perhaps every point of view is not valid to everyone - but that would not make it invalid - would it?

Got this from the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1: having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2
a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory>
b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3: appropriate to the end in view : EFFECTIVE <every craft has its own valid methods>
4: conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification

I have to acknowledge that whatever you believe is what you believe and there isn't anything I, or anyone else, can do about it.

It's just that I don't personally believe that every thought holds equal weight in the grand scheme of things.

For example, the other day, I thought it might be nice if all there weren't any mosquitos. While that might be a good thing for me, it would be a bad thing for other life forms (bats and birds). I concluded that it was a pretty unrealistic and, therefore, a fairly useless thought.

Likewise, if you really believe that inter-racial marriage is a bad thing, you eventually have to come to the conclusion that it's not going to end no matter what you believe. At some point, you've got to stop being against it unless you are an unthinking individual.

Does that answer your question?

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by mgjim

Got this from the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1: having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2
a : well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory>
b : logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3: appropriate to the end in view : EFFECTIVE <every craft has its own valid methods>
4: conforming to accepted principles of sound biological classification

I have to acknowledge that whatever you believe is what you believe and there isn't anything I, or anyone else, can do about it.

It's just that I don't personally believe that every thought holds equal weight in the grand scheme of things.

For example, the other day, I thought it might be nice if all there weren't any mosquitos. While that might be a good thing for me, it would be a bad thing for other life forms (bats and birds). I concluded that it was a pretty unrealistic and, therefore, a fairly useless thought.

Likewise, if you really believe that inter-racial marriage is a bad thing, you eventually have to come to the conclusion that it's not going to end no matter what you believe. At some point, you've got to stop being against it unless you are an unthinking individual.

Does that answer your question?

mgjim -
i suppose it does...but i still cannot say that i agree with you...most of all re the concept that thoughts have to be assigned a weight - a thought is a thought - it means a lot to some and nothing to another - so what? do you survey people on how much they believe in their thought on a scale of 1 to 10? do you judge people on what you think the weight of their thought is?

i see validity in a more philosophical way rather than a legalese way; and sort of like in debating where something is valid or has more validity if a conclusion cannot be contradicted.

one never has to stop being against something or even in favor of something...they just need to accept the reality that regardless of how they feel about something, others will see it differently.

[gomoho]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

Both Al and Jesse want equality for black Americans so if leaning in the direction of giving them the longer straw is in my opinion, a day late, and a dollar short. For that reason, I feel they deserve a lot of leeway when referring to being racist against whites. We have been evil to them for hundreds of years, so again, they should have a free pass on rasisum.

WOW - I sure hope I am totally misunderstanding this.

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by gomoho

WOW - I sure hope I am totally misunderstanding this.

Probably not. I know my view on this is not embraced by non minorities, but most will admit to the terrible wrong we have done thru the last several hundred years to African Americans. I do not wish to give up anything I have gained, but openly admit the unfair advantage I have had just because I am white and even more so because I am male.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

Probably not. I know my view on this is not embraced by non minorities, but most will admit to the terrible wrong we have done thru the last several hundred years to African Americans. I do not wish to give up anything I have gained, but openly admit the unfair advantage I have had just because I am white and even more so because I am male.

What you consider an "unfair advantage" I would consider "a natural result" of whom my parents and ancestors were, and where they settled and raised their kids.

I don't think I nor anybody else needs to be punished for our nation's slave history, considering our ancestors came here after slavery was abolished and none of us even LIVED NEAR a slave or slave descendant, much less owned and mistreated one.

[mgjim]

Originally Posted by njbchbum

mgjim -
i suppose it does...but i still cannot say that i agree with you...most of all re the concept that thoughts have to be assigned a weight - a thought is a thought - it means a lot to some and nothing to another - so what? do you survey people on how much they believe in their thought on a scale of 1 to 10? do you judge people on what you think the weight of their thought is?

i see validity in a more philosophical way rather than a legalese way; and sort of like in debating where something is valid or has more validity if a conclusion cannot be contradicted.

one never has to stop being against something or even in favor of something...they just need to accept the reality that regardless of how they feel about something, others will see it differently.

njbchbum -
I don't think we're that far apart on this issue except for this - I was in an inter-racial marriage and whenever I believed that we were the victims of racism it held a lot of weight with me and my wife. We experienced this from both races, by the way.

After my wife passed away, I experienced it less but my bi-racial kids still have to deal with racism on a daily basis.

When it becomes a part of your life, it carries more weight. When you don't have to deal with it, it carries less weight.

The problem is that people generally act on their thoughts whether they admit it or not.