Why do people discrimanate?

[Gia]

Originally posted by MJ5150
BrokenAngel....OK, I am wrong, you are right. It is important for me to understand that what you THINK is right, and my feelings/opinions/thoughts are ignorant. Yes, you are always right, and until people like me understand that and start viewing the world through your eyes, our lives will eternally suck.

oh my god i'm so glad you realised I was worried you were straying from the flock for a minute, but i'm happy to see you have come to your senses. So, i'll meet you at 7.30 on wednesday for our field trip to the gay bar.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour and always the worst way to win an argument, even if you're on the way down.....

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by MJ5150
Wow.....I leave for a few hours to band practice, and this thread goes crazy......

Doesn't look crazy to me

BrokenAngel....OK, I am rong, you are right. It is important for me to understand that what you THINK is right, and my feelings/opinions/thoughts are ignorant. Yes, you are always right, and until people like me understand that and start viewing the world through your eyes, our lives will eternally suck.

The sarcasm is weak... and probably true

"C'mon, is there any evidence that you'd actually accept?"
Yes, there is. If I am wrong, then I want to know. I don't want a mountain of personal stories from gay people who say they were born gay. People can say what they want, doesn't make it true. A gay person may genuinely feel they were born gay. I genuinely feel lot's things. I am not going to pronounce them as fact unless I can prove it.

So we're still hearing what you consider NOT proof, again, what would be proof?

"Hey, I'm calling it like I'm reading it. Is this or is this not a judgement"
OK Brad...I realize that I am making a judgement. It is NOT a judgement of what is right, and wrong. I am not passing judgement on a gay man by choosing to associate with a straight man instead. It is ME judging something for myself. I am allowed to make that choice without having people tell me I am a bigot. I do not look at a gay person and say to myself that they are wrong, and I refuse their friendship. I look at a gay person and think that their lifestyle is one very different from mine. As I have said from the start, there is a better CHANCE that I will have a more successful relationship with a straight person. A CHANCE. I made it clear that I would not rule out friendship with anyone based on social group.

Cool, at least you seem to be past the simple fact that what you're doing is judging. That in and of itself does not have to be a bad thing. Then again this is actually pre-judging.

Here's something else that should be obvious that just seems to elude you. Yes, you are allowed to make your choice... OTOH making it publicly takes the "without having people tell me I am a bigot" out of the equation. That's because if what you say appears that way to them, they have a right to say it in response.

"snap judgements like these IMO keep the world from being a better place."
Be real Brad. You walk into a bar/room/store, and you just do not have the time to befriend EVERY single person to see who would make a good friend. We immediately gravitate to people who we feel are similar to us. Everyone does it....everyone. You are full of crap if you say you don't do it.

I'll stop you right there. If anyone is full of crap it's you. Who but a fool is going to assume what I would do in a bar? That's the whole point of this conversation...

YOU DON'T KNOW ME.

So how the heck can you decide who I'd talk to in a bar? This is obviously hard for you to wrap your mind around but SOME people actually do interact with people from ALL WALKS OF LIFE. We don't work in some imaginary box based on whatever silliness built it.

I now have an idea who you'd talk to when you walk into a room. This bit if genius is based on your assumptions, as if you can look at a person and know their heart. That's a complete crock.

OK Brad...you walk into a crowded bar and see a guy wearing a t-shirt of your favorite band. Are you telling me you would not immediately feel that he would be a good person to possibly hang out with? There is a chance he beats seals, and you would maybe not like him after all.

Do you even think for a nanosecond before you type? Do you at least proofread?

If you walked into a bar and saw the same guy, wearing your favorite band's t-shirt, you seem to be making the point that it's completely normal to gravitate towards them.

So tell me, at what point would you work in the question of which gender they like to have sex with?

Duh!!

Do you only go to bars where people wear visual clues to their proclivities?

I suppose we can sit here and nitpick each other all day, take my illustration of parents with, or without kids, and throw in all kinds of variables to make me appear to be a complete jacka$$. But that is not the point here Brad. You have now resorted to nitpicking every word of my sentences to make me look foolish. I was hoping you would understand what I was getting at in the big picture, I guess not. If I saw you on the street holding a bass just like mine, my ignorant, close minded self would foolishly assume you and I would have more in common than the guy standing next to you holding a trombone.

To the contrary, I'm not trying to make you look foolish, I'm asking you about the foolish scenarios you keep posing.

It's obvious that you don't like details. This isn't nitpicking, it's trying to point out that in each one of you scenarios there is far more that you don't know than you do... yet you don't even see that as even a small problem.

"See, I just learned something. I had no idea that only straight people go to bars to find dates."
Did you really miss the point of my idea there, or are you just being confrontational? Let me explain t-h-o-r-o-u-g-h-l-y. I, a straight man, walk into a bar to find a date with a straight woman. A gay man is NOT in a bar to find a date with a straight woman. If that is my sole purpose for being in the bar, I am not going to have much in common with that gay man on this particular evening. Maybe I come back the next day to watch a football game, and the same gay guy is there watching the game too. In this particualr instance we will have plenty in common and most likely have a good time watching the game. Provided we both like the same team.

IS everything someone else's fault, Mike?

I didn't miss the point...YOU DIDN'T MAKE IT. Read what you wrote for cripe's sake. Don't blame me for your inabilty to say what you think you're saying.

You said the straight person was there looking for a date and the gay person wasn't there for the same purpose.

"I guess we're just more outgoing and interested in diversity."
Yeah, I guess that is it. My family is just some close minded bigots. Shame on us for assuming other married couples with children would make good people to recreate with. My local YMCA schedules times for families to gather and play. I foolishly assumed this would be a good idea. Much more outgoing of me to just be open minded and ask everyone I see instead. BTW, I never said we only associate with people with kids. I was trying to make a simple point.

Hey, jump to any conclusions you feel warranted. That seems to be your forte.

Since I said nothing of your family, weak. Since the YMCA never entered this conversation until now, even weaker. And with this lame twist in hand, why would the family without children be at this new twist in your scenario?

Just go back, read it OBJECTIVELY and I have no doubt it'll make as little sense on the second pass to you as it did to me.

Remember, you're saying this stuff, not me.

"Why on Earth would you automatically think you'd have more in common with either man?"
Yeah, as a bass player I foolishly assumed I would have more in common with the people at TalkBass than I would with the people at TalkDrums. All of us here are narrow minded bigots.


-Mike

You seem bent on making assumptions and then sweeping exaggerations afterwards. Save the drama.

Oh well.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Skorzen
You see as someone posted earlier in this thread, you can't tolerate intolerence. Would someone care to define tolerence? that statement seems rather hypicritical. here in lies the lie of tolerence. Tolerence really means agree with us, or you are going to be persecuted as intolerent because we can not tolerate any free thinking people.



Sorry, but I am not really seeing much open mindedness here. I see people expressing their views, and either being affirmed or torn down(or both) by others with their preconcieved opinions. How many of you who are railling about the discrimination have actually given serious thought to the opinions expressed by those who have expressed that they dissagree with the homosexual lifestyle. And the same for those who dissagree with the lifestyle, Have you actually listened to the arguments made by the other view? I see open mindedness as being willing to LISTEN to other people's views, and then make a judgement on whether you agree with them.

not all views are right, or even right for that person as we are being told constantly. it was right for Osama Bin Ladin(his personal belief) to attack the united states and kill thousands of people? Or is holding to the moral idea that there is value to human life too confining? Congress saw it was right for the united states to go into a conflict with Iraq, does that mean it was right?

This whole thread seems very robotic on both sides. We get a few dissenting opinions, and then the vast army of the PC enlightened elite, who must share this enlightenment with others. With no tolerence to peoples culture history or customs. The enlightenment must continue not matter what the cost.

You apparently see what you want to see.

I think it's funny that people who refuse to automatically label others via stereotypes are considered PC elite. As if that shouldn't be anything but a normal adult way to treat others.

Does "elite" mean "thinking"?

 

[DeepDeath]

If I was going to a bar to meet a straight member of the opposite sex, I wouldn't be hanging with neither homosexual or heterosexual males. I'd be completing my objective and hanging with heterosexual woman. Buncha losers in here.

 

[Skorzen]

You apparently see what you want to see.

If by this you mean think for myself then yes.

I think it's funny that people who refuse to automatically label others via stereotypes are considered PC elite.

I don't think you really read the post I never said anything about stereotyping anyone. In fact I said people here should listen to other people's views before plassing judgement. oops sorry I said the j word.

As if that shouldn't be anything but a normal adult way to treat others.

According to some. But you see you can't please everyone, and there in lies the problem. if your standard attacks a group than how will it work?

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Skorzen
If by this you mean think for myself then yes.

No, that's far from what I meant

I don't think you really read the post I never said anything about stereotyping anyone. In fact I said people here should listen to other people's views before plassing judgement. oops sorry I said the j word.

You seriously want to make that observation?

I didn't say you said anything about stereotyping anyone. What are you reading? What I referred to was the labels you decided to toss about, like this: "This whole thread seems very robotic on both sides. We get a few dissenting opinions, and then the vast army of the PC enlightened elite, who must share this enlightenment with others".

As I said, the so called PC elite are the ones in this thread not wallowing in stereotypes. And "judgement" is just a word, if you think I have a problem with it chalk it up to your comprehension, not my words

According to some. But you see you can't please everyone, and there in lies the problem. if your standard attacks a group than how will it work?


What standard of mine is attacking a group?

 

[john turner]

Originally posted by clef360
could you be a little bit more clear about this point? I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

well, back to the cop example, if the cop is saying that i am wrong to be going over the posted speed limit, that's his moral/ethical paradigm coming into play. i may not agree that the speed limit is a moral issue period.

to put it in terms of this thread, some folks will say that it is a moral issue as to what two cognizant and mentally capable adults do consensually with each other, and others don't even consider it an issue of morality at all.

beyond good and evil, right and wrong, some issues are not even ones of morality.

ok, so no one can say that anything anyone does is wrong by any set of standards?

EDIT: let me rephrase that. so we're saying that any kind of judging is wrong? or is it just moral judgements that are wrong? and why?

not by _any_ set of standards, but rather it is intellectually dishonest to think that one's own moral guidelines are absolute. taking this fact into consideration makes "judging" an intellectually dishonest, or at best dicey, pursuit to engage in except for the impact of another's actions on one's own person or environment.

 

[clef360]

not by _any_ set of standards, but rather it is intellectually dishonest to think that one's own moral guidelines are absolute. taking this fact into consideration makes "judging" an intellectually dishonest, or at best dicey, pursuit to engage in except for the impact of another's actions on one's own person or environment.

What's wrong with thinking that one's own moral guidelines are absolute? Why would anyone believe in any moral values unless they believed that they were right? Why not advocate one's own moral values if you believe others to be wrong? (remember that I wrote "advocate" and not "force upon others") Sure I accept that people will believe whatever they want, but if I'm in a discussion with someone, I don't believe there's anything wrong with telling him or her what I believe.

Also, I'm wondering why some people (no one in particular) get defensive when other people voice their views. Some people will automatically say things like "you have no right to force your views on me" or "you're judging me!" if anyone voices and opinion they don't agree with. Anyways, keep it coming people, this is fun

P.S. that's a nice avatar, foo

 

[john turner]

Originally posted by clef360
What's wrong with thinking that one's own moral guidelines are absolute?

lol, that's the root of discrimination. if one feels that one's own moral codes are above reproach, then one feels by default that all other moral codes are wrong, and therfore reprehensible.

remember, having moral codes which one believes in and feeling that those moral codes are "absolute" are completely different things.

 

[clef360]

Originally posted by john turner
lol, that's the root of discrimination. if one feels that one's own moral codes are above reproach, then one feels by default that all other moral codes are wrong, and therfore reprehensible.

remember, having moral codes which one believes in and feeling that those moral codes are "absolute" are completely different things.

But what about my question "why would you believe in it if you didn't think it was true?" It's a logical fact that if you believe that some things are "right," then by default some things have to be "wrong." Also, if I believe that someone is doing something that is wrong, yet i still associate myself with him and don't categorize him or treat him differently, is that discrimination? I think that discrimination doesn't come from thinking other people are doing wrong, but from thinking that you're better than that person because of it.

 

[Gia]

Originally posted by Brad Johnson


The sarcasm is weak... and probably true

of course it's true !

Brad you pwn so much

You say everything i would say if i wasn't illiterate and so prone to just telling people how much they suck.

 

[john turner]

Originally posted by clef360
But what about my question "why would you believe in it if you didn't think it was true?"

well, you can believe in something and think it is true for _you_, but to think that one's beliefs are true for everyone is where folks get on shaky ground.

It's a logical fact that if you believe that some things are "right," then by default some things have to be "wrong."

again, for one's self. the issue here is not the existance of right and wrong, but the application of those standards - who is entitled to apply those standards to their neighbors?

Also, if I believe that someone is doing something that is wrong, yet i still associate myself with him and don't categorize him or treat him differently, is that discrimination? I think that discrimination doesn't come from thinking other people are doing wrong, but from thinking that you're better than that person because of it.

ultimately you have to decide whether you think what that person is doing is _wrong for them_ or _wrong for you_.

case in point. i have a few homosexual friends from way back, since i was in college. i think that homosexuality is _wrong for me_ and so i don't engage in that behaviour, but i don't feel like i have the moral ability to make such a moral decision that applies to someone else, so i honestly have no opinion about those friends of mine who engage in that activity/lifestyle.

however, i have an acquaintance who used to be a friend who engages in behaviour that i think is morally wrong _for them_ -violating a oath they willingly took, and hurting someone emotionally and financially in the process- and so i do make a moral judgement on that person, since not only do i think that their behaviour is wrong _for me_ to engage in, but also _wrong for them_. because of that i do not interact with them anymore, and will not willingly do so, which is a form of discrimination.

 

[DeepDeath]

jt is an example of a college education well learned.

 

[clef360]

Originally posted by john turner
well, you can believe in something and think it is true for _you_, but to think that one's beliefs are true for everyone is where folks get on shaky ground.

wow, now we're getting into moral relativism and all that fun stuff, but that would take forever so I'm not even going to address that here (pm or email me for more debating fun)



again, for one's self. the issue here is not the existance of right and wrong, but the application of those standards - who is entitled to apply those standards to their neighbors?


by "apply those standards" do you mean like killing say a murderer because killing is agaisnt your beliefs, or just observing to yourself that what that person did was wrong according to your own beliefs?



ultimately you have to decide whether you think what that person is doing is _wrong for them_ or _wrong for you_.

case in point. i have a few homosexual friends from way back, since i was in college. i think that homosexuality is _wrong for me_ and so i don't engage in that behaviour, but i don't feel like i have the moral ability to make such a moral decision that applies to someone else, so i honestly have no opinion about those friends of mine who engage in that activity/lifestyle.

however, i have an acquaintance who used to be a friend who engages in behaviour that i think is morally wrong _for them_ -violating a oath they willingly took, and hurting someone emotionally and financially in the process- and so i do make a moral judgement on that person, since not only do i think that their behaviour is wrong _for me_ to engage in, but also _wrong for them_. because of that i do not interact with them anymore, and will not willingly do so, which is a form of discrimination.

again getting into moral relativism/absolutism which again, i'd be glad to share views with you over pm, email or even another thread, since this is getting a bit too far from the original thread.

Originally posted by DeepDeath
jt is an example of a college education well learned.

you must be very smart to have completed a college education at the age of 17

P.S. I think one problem with colleges these days is that they don't encourage individual thought as much as they should. For example, I have a roommate that would just soak up everything that the professor said, forming few opinions of his own, and therefore he was unable to rationalize the points that he was making. I think you'll have no problem finding people with strong opinions, but finding people that are actually informed about those opinions is much harder. Sorry bout the rant; not referring to anyone here. It's just a pet peeve

 

[Melf]

I'm just going to jump in for a minute and make a quick point: if homosexuality was a choice, as some people here maintain, then why would there be repeated observations of cases of homosexual animals?

Yahoo Search Result

 

[clef360]

i'd just like to point out that the first result from that link argues against the case that homosexual animal behavior means homosexuality is normal in humans. Not that it means anything, just funny.

 

[MJ5150]

Hey Brad.....first of all, I appreciate your patience.

When I used the word "crazy", it was in reference to the amount of posts. I am pleasantly surprised that this thread has gone this long without people insulting each other and using derogatory words to describe others. You and I obviously see the issue from far different viewpoints. It would have been easy for either one of us to resort to name calling, and insults by now. I suppose the fact that neither of us have is a reflection of our maturity, and passion to be understood.

My sarcasm is weak, yes. It was meant to be that way. Is it true? Well, from your viewpoints it is for sure.

"what would be proof?"
Scientific evidence. Since we are possibly talking about genetics, then something from someone in that field would be proof. Strong personal conviction does not translate into fact, regardless of how many people support it.

You are 100% correct that people have the right to consider others a bigot if they do not agree with them. Is it necessary to label someone a bigot since they disagree with you? Nope. You made mention of me being dramatic. Labeling someone a bigot for believing something different than you is very dramatic. When I use the word YOU in the previous sentence, I am NOT referring to you Brad Johnson. I am referring to people in general, even to myself.

"Who but a fool is going to assume what I would do in a bar?"
Brad.....I am not assuming anything about what you would do in a bar, or if you even go in one. I put a hypothetical situation in front of you, and I was curious as to your response. So as not to offend you any further, when I make references like that, imagine you are looking in on the situation, and think how you would respond IF you were there.

"YOU DON'T KNOW ME"
Yeah, I do a little bit. The problem seems to be that you think you know me. You think you have me figured out. You have decided that I make snap judgements of who my friends are. You seem to think I only choose my associates based on what I see in them from a distance. That I judge people based on the shirt they are wearing, what is in their hand, or how many kids they have. I never once stated that, not once. I was merely trying to establish some common ground of how humans interact with others initially. I felt your example of the straight cokehead accountant was excellent, and I agree with it. Assumptions can be wrong. But we all have to start somewhere when we walk into a room for the first time not knowing anyone.

"So tell me, at what point would you work in the question of which gender they like to have sex with?"
Would I ask a man point blank if he were gay, or straight? No. I would imagine that a gay man may ask another man he feels attracted to that question. IF I were single, looking for a date, I could see myself asking a woman I was attracted to that question. But, I would most likely not have the chance to ask. Most people who are gay are upfront about it when someone from the opposite sex is obviously sexually interested in them. Which, BTW, is pretty cool for them to do. Heck, if a gay guy was acting sexually interested in me, I would tell them right away that I am straight.

"Do you only go to bars where people wear visual clues to their proclivities?"
No Brad, I do not. I am really sorry about not being clear with you, serisouly I am. I was just presenting a hypothetical situation to see how you would respond. If I walked into a room and everyone was wearing black, and gave no indication of their sexuality, hobbies, or interests, I would prolly choose someone who appeared close to my age to talk to first. As I mingled around the room to visit with many people, I am sure I would eventually come in contact with someone who I had alot in common with.

"It's obvious that you don't like details. This isn't nitpicking, it's trying to point out that in each one of you scenarios there is far more that you don't know than you do... yet you don't even see that as even a small problem."
I tried to streamline the scenarios to save on typing. I was hoping you would understand the point I was trying to make overall. You are obviously an intelligent person, so I didn't feel it necessary to explain thoroughly every little facet in the hypothetical situation I presented. I suppose I should have done this from the start, and I will in the future. One of my friends is just like you. He demands that every single detail be thoroughly explained when I present him with something like this. I can see him asking me the same questions you have. OTOH, I can present a scenario like one of these to my wife, and she understands what I am getting at and we can have a nice discussion. Neither person is better/smarter than the other, just two different people that compute information in different ways. It's all good from here.

"I didn't miss the point...YOU DIDN'T MAKE IT."
See above.

"Since I said nothing of your family, weak. Since the YMCA never entered this conversation until now, even weaker."
OK, this is funny. I was referring to families with kids earlier, and I have stated that I have a wife and kids. You were obviously trying to make the point that you, and your wife are outgoing, and diverse and we must not be since we think couples with kids would make better people to associate with than couples with no kids.

"You seem bent on making assumptions and then sweeping exaggerations afterwards. Save the drama."
Yeah, I can do that. I posed a scenario earlier, but got no response. I am really interested in your logic, so please consider it. You are standing in a room, feeling uncomfortable that you don't know anyone. As you look around you see a person holding a bass guitar exactly like yours. You also see a person holding a (insert object you are not interested in). At the end of the evening, after having spent some time hanging out with both persons, the results may be different, but who would you initially THINK you may have more in common with.

Herein lies our problem, and is both of our faults. I have not explained myself as I ought to have, and you have drawn some conclusions. I have replied how I would initially respond to that situation, nothing further. I have never said I would rule out the other person as a friend. I guess our dialogue has not gotten past the initial impression since we can't get over this whole assumption thing. Because I choose person A over B does not mean I will never speak to person B, it is just that we all have to choose one person to approach first. I have felt criticized for how I would choose who I would talk to initially. Does that make any sense?

-Mike

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by MJ5150
Hey Brad.....first of all, I appreciate your patience.

And I appreciate yours. Seriously, thanks for the responses.

When I used the word "crazy", it was in reference to the amount of posts. I am pleasantly surprised that this thread has gone this long without people insulting each other and using derogatory words to describe others. You and I obviously see the issue from far different viewpoints. It would have been easy for either one of us to resort to name calling, and insults by now. I suppose the fact that neither of us have is a reflection of our maturity, and passion to be understood.

My sarcasm is weak, yes. It was meant to be that way. Is it true? Well, from your viewpoints it is for sure.

"what would be proof?"
Scientific evidence. Since we are possibly talking about genetics, then something from someone in that field would be proof. Strong personal conviction does not translate into fact, regardless of how many people support it.

I'm on the flip side of that coin. I find it very difficult to believe that sexual persuasion is a conscious choice. I certainly made no such choice in my life and know of no one who thinks they did either.

You are 100% correct that people have the right to consider others a bigot if they do not agree with them. Is it necessary to label someone a bigot since they disagree with you? Nope. You made mention of me being dramatic. Labeling someone a bigot for believing something different than you is very dramatic. When I use the word YOU in the previous sentence, I am NOT referring to you Brad Johnson. I am referring to people in general, even to myself.

Thanks, 'cause I didn't call you a bigot.

"Who but a fool is going to assume what I would do in a bar?"
Brad.....I am not assuming anything about what you would do in a bar, or if you even go in one. I put a hypothetical situation in front of you, and I was curious as to your response. So as not to offend you any further, when I make references like that, imagine you are looking in on the situation, and think how you would respond IF you were there.

To the Wayback Machine...

"Be real Brad. You walk into a bar/room/store, and you just do not have the time to befriend EVERY single person to see who would make a good friend. We immediately gravitate to people who we feel are similar to us. Everyone does it....everyone. You are full of crap if you say you don't do it".

You're telling me point blank that I will gravitate to people I feel similar to... and that if I won't admit that I'm full of crap. BTW there's the drama

"YOU DON'T KNOW ME"
Yeah, I do a little bit. The problem seems to be that you think you know me. You think you have me figured out. You have decided that I make snap judgements of who my friends are. You seem to think I only choose my associates based on what I see in them from a distance. That I judge people based on the shirt they are wearing, what is in their hand, or how many kids they have. I never once stated that, not once.

C'mon Mike, you're repeating what you've already said in this thread AND saying you never said it.

That's confusing

I was merely trying to establish some common ground of how humans interact with others initially. I felt your example of the straight cokehead accountant was excellent, and I agree with it. Assumptions can be wrong. But we all have to start somewhere when we walk into a room for the first time not knowing anyone.

Agreed.

"So tell me, at what point would you work in the question of which gender they like to have sex with?"
Would I ask a man point blank if he were gay, or straight? No. I would imagine that a gay man may ask another man he feels attracted to that question. IF I were single, looking for a date, I could see myself asking a woman I was attracted to that question. But, I would most likely not have the chance to ask. Most people who are gay are upfront about it when someone from the opposite sex is obviously sexually interested in them. Which, BTW, is pretty cool for them to do. Heck, if a gay guy was acting sexually interested in me, I would tell them right away that I am straight.

"Do you only go to bars where people wear visual clues to their proclivities?"
No Brad, I do not. I am really sorry about not being clear with you, serisouly I am. I was just presenting a hypothetical situation to see how you would respond. If I walked into a room and everyone was wearing black, and gave no indication of their sexuality, hobbies, or interests, I would prolly choose someone who appeared close to my age to talk to first. As I mingled around the room to visit with many people, I am sure I would eventually come in contact with someone who I had alot in common with.

I'd probably talk to whomever talked to me. I'm that kind of guy.

"It's obvious that you don't like details. This isn't nitpicking, it's trying to point out that in each one of you scenarios there is far more that you don't know than you do... yet you don't even see that as even a small problem."
I tried to streamline the scenarios to save on typing. I was hoping you would understand the point I was trying to make overall. You are obviously an intelligent person, so I didn't feel it necessary to explain thoroughly every little facet in the hypothetical situation I presented. I suppose I should have done this from the start, and I will in the future. One of my friends is just like you. He demands that every single detail be thoroughly explained when I present him with something like this. I can see him asking me the same questions you have. OTOH, I can present a scenario like one of these to my wife, and she understands what I am getting at and we can have a nice discussion. Neither person is better/smarter than the other, just two different people that compute information in different ways. It's all good from here.

I have more insight into where you were coming from now than earlier, Mike.

I'm just not wired to ignore details. I learned a long time ago that making a decision or drawing a conclusion without details is just not a very good way to do things.

"Will you hold my cute little bunny?"

"Sure"

*hands over the bunny*

"By the way, he has a loose bladder, fleas... and rabies. Thanks"

"I didn't miss the point...YOU DIDN'T MAKE IT."
See above.

"Since I said nothing of your family, weak. Since the YMCA never entered this conversation until now, even weaker."
OK, this is funny. I was referring to families with kids earlier, and I have stated that I have a wife and kids. You were obviously trying to make the point that you, and your wife are outgoing, and diverse and we must not be since we think couples with kids would make better people to associate with than couples with no kids.

IS one position more diverse than the other? My wife and I are a couple with a kid but we associate with couples without kids and even single people, equally. Not one of them has an automatic leg up.

Is it still funny?

"You seem bent on making assumptions and then sweeping exaggerations afterwards. Save the drama."
Yeah, I can do that. I posed a scenario earlier, but got no response. I am really interested in your logic, so please consider it. You are standing in a room, feeling uncomfortable that you don't know anyone. As you look around you see a person holding a bass guitar exactly like yours. You also see a person holding a (insert object you are not interested in). At the end of the evening, after having spent some time hanging out with both persons, the results may be different, but who would you initially THINK you may have more in common with.

First, I'm not uncomfortable in a room because I don't know anyone. But that's a detail so, moving on...

Knowing musicians like I do (and I'm sure you might think this is BS), I don't have a clue who I'd really have more in common with. There's one visual thing (a bass) and that's all. I've had tons of conversations with musicians and some have been the most aggravating people I've ever met. We couldn't have had less in common. They said some of the most idiotic things I've ever heard, all the while thinking they had the inside track. They were snobs or worse. I can't assume this would be one of the good ones or one of the bad ones.

But for the sake of this exercise, let's say the guy holding the bass. Now what?

Herein lies our problem, and is both of our faults. I have not explained myself as I ought to have, and you have drawn some conclusions. I have replied how I would initially respond to that situation, nothing further. I have never said I would rule out the other person as a friend. I guess our dialogue has not gotten past the initial impression since we can't get over this whole assumption thing. Because I choose person A over B does not mean I will never speak to person B, it is just that we all have to choose one person to approach first. I have felt criticized for how I would choose who I would talk to initially. Does that make any sense?

-Mike

Sure.

 

[DigMe]

Originally posted by Melf
I'm just going to jump in for a minute and make a quick point: if homosexuality was a choice, as some people here maintain, then why would there be repeated observations of cases of homosexual animals?

Ok, I'm staying out of this debate but I think here's something we can all agree on...I mean that the above statement is idiotic.

brad cook

 

[lneal]

Originally posted by john turner
remember, having moral codes which one believes in and feeling that those moral codes are "absolute" are completely different things.

BINGO! The piercing edge of truth!