Law restricting unpopular or bad opinions are a terrible idea. Fortunately, in the U.S. the 1st Amendment keeps us from having too many of those laws. There is no way that simply stating your opinion, even vigorously, is "forcing" it on anyone. If you use violence or even the threat of violence, then you may be forcing it on someone, but merely stating it, no matter how strongly, is not force.
Wikileaks was an "action" not an opinion. As long as it is a thought in the mind -(unexpressed)-it is perfectly legal and an opinion. Once expressed, or written, and it is directly attributable to loss or danger to others it becomes an "illegal" action. Of course the , burden of proof, still rests with the prosecution, or aggrieved party in a civil case. Must prove loss as a direct result of the action. There IS a line, careful not to cross!.
Unless you are particularly close to a person, or they are really seeking your opinion, I personally think it's better not to put your own version of 'the right way to think' across. No one ought to impose their thoughts on the rights and wrongs of e.g. having/not having an abortion, wanting to embrace Islam, or accepting/rejecting the idea that they are gay. If that person has come to terms with a dilemma and found some personal peace or guidence according to e.g. the helpful (for them) dogma of a religion, it is unkind to upset them. I'm not talking here about standing back and not guiding children under the age of 18, or ignoring matters that will put that person or others at risk of mental or physical harm, in the future of course. All right, you may think, e.g. abortion is murder--but if you know the abortion has already taken place, it can't be changed anyway, so there is no point in expressing your view, is there? And if you don't know the woman well and are unaware that she has had one, it just causes distress. Plus, you do not know the circumstances. Same goes for many other issues. As I said, these topics should mostly be left alone.
I couldn't disagree more. This kind of apathy is insidious and entirely destructive. Should we just accept that some people find homosexuality to be immoral when lives are at stake? Should we let otherwise reasonable Islamic people commit murder over cartoons? Should we be expected to stand idly by while bigots and fanatics both religious and secular take advantage of our well-intentioned but misguided tolerance simply because the problem seems insurmountable? Of course changing people's minds is difficult, and of course some people will never admit defeat. But to give up the fight because it is hard seems unforgivable.
I was answering the OPs comments concerning relationships between individuals we meet every day, see above, not about formulating policies for governing a country. Although I think we should keep our opinions mostlyto ourselves, as I said, "I'm not talking here about standing back and not guiding children under the age of 18, or ignoring matters that will put that person or others at risk of mental or physical harm..." Which would include preventing the murder of moronic cartoonists by extremists who act violently outside the law--whatever the provokation was that caused it. So I think you'll find that we do not disagree so much, arron!
I'm glad we agree on the large-scale issues, but I would argue that in order to effect any change, one needs to apply the same principles in both a macro and micro sense. Legislation is a only a response to social behaviours and attitudes, so in order to have the government mandate ideal moral positions on issues like abortion and freedom of expression, there needs to be open and honest discussion about it on a person-to-person level. The moral position of quiet tolerance is entirely effaced by radicalism for the sole reason that the radicals are the only ones voicing any opinion at all. I think both religious and secular moderates, regardless of social or political or spiritual alliances, need to reclaim the dialogue that has been hijacked by extremism. And that begins at an inter-personal level.
If you take this into larger areas, it's often difficult to draw a line between interfering with free thought and protecting people. Because of the idea that everything starts on the small, personal level, with the people we come into contact with every day, some countries actually do make legislation. It could be argued that in the UK there should be more legislation to prevent immigrant minorities from taking advantage of the traditional tolerant attitude. Sometimes I suppose it just isn't possible to leave people be. To give an example: in France and Turkey, the headscarf and veil is banned in institutions of education, medicine, law and government in order to safeguard secular thinking and avoid extremism or cultural/religious brainwashing. In Turkey, women are free to wear the veil in other places, if they should so wish (they usually don't unless they are out to make a political point). In France, they are now going on to ban the veil everywhere in public. An attack on human rights, or a sensible way to protect French culture and prevent impressionable young girls being pressurised or unable to leave behind a culture that they do not feel relates to their modern life? Another example--some people feel that normalising homosexuality to the degree that it is possible for gay couples to marry and adopt undermines family life. I am not saying this is my viewpoint, but aren't they entitled to express and explain their fears? I do think that there is a difference between legislation to prevent discrimination or violence against gays--obviously a terrible injustice--and some kind of 'education' about homosexuality to young children at school, which I personally think is quite inappropriate--although what's to do when kids of seven and eight are already the product of a bigoted upbringing. I don't want to be provokative, so please delete this post if you feel I'm going off topic. However, it seems relevant if we think of broader ethical issues of free speaking and 'trying to change people's minds'.
Don't really have anything to add, but I really enjoyed this comment. I wish more people I've personally been around could understand this very thing.
I think you should just leave it the way it is. It is their personal and, in some cases, 0-brain-power-used choice.
After reading through all the comments I found this to be very reasoned in its simple approach. The OP said nothing about government and broad social implications. He spoke simply of person to person interaction and the appropriateness of attempting to change the beliefs or opinions of another person. I see nothing wrong with having a reasonable discussion surrounding most any topic. If the person isn't interested or disagrees perhaps they'll be honest enough to let you know. However, sometimes a kind word or simple touch is all that's needed to convey your thoughts on a particular subject. These simple actions can have impact far beyond the initial interaction. I don't think sitting apathetically by when you can show your concern or care for another person is the right approach. If the person isn't interested in engaging with you fine but I don't see a problem in trying. Compassionate human to human interaction (without misguided self-serving and self-righteous aggrandizement) can be very good for both parties. Cheers,
There's nothing wrong with expressing an opinion or belief to someone, or indeed in explaining why you think, feel or believe what you do. There's nothing wrong with saying that you think, feel or believe that 'X' is the best way to think, feel or believe. There's everything wrong with trying to force someone to think, feel or believe something. That really is where the line lies.
When I was about 20, this was 1970 or so, I met a woman my age who was very prejudiced toward black folks. She wasn't hateful, she was just woefully misinformed. She literally believed black babies were born with tails that fell off as they grew. (Like some people still believe women have one fewer rib than men.) What I did was give her new information. What she did with that information was going to be up to her, of course. Abused children are in danger of growing up to abuse children. A pedophile can be a person whose normal orientation is toward one gender or another and either. Being gay is an adult orientation not related to child abuse as far as any research has ever revealed. It's my experience and opinion that if we have information we can count on, we can share it. If not, we can just ask questions, that might generate some curiosity like: I wonder why there are so many gay men who weren't abused as children?
the reason for the ribs is because people think that seine god (Christian\jews) took a rib form Adam he would be missing one how ever if i cut off my finger my child would still have ten and their child and their child ect ect so even if he did lose one Cain and able would still have the right amount (numbing 12 baring a rare dises or just brith defect) As for the abused child growing up to abuse theirs kids this is simply not true while it can have an effect the abused did not cause it more of the scene that as a kid the kid learned to act that way (and even then most don't)
Hi, wolfi! I don't care much about spelling in forum posts. I certainly agree that not all abused kids grow up to be abusers. That was why I said they are "in danger" of it. I do believe, though I cannot prove it, that no one who grew up in a positive, nurturing, abuse-free environment, grows up to be an abuser unless we add in extraordinary circumstances like intractable mental illness. But then, I haven't studied every single case so, as always: just my .02.
We learn how to act by the grown ups around us we learn what is right\wrong its why slavery was not a problem how ever every now and then a kid dose come up form a good clean family and is a racist the way i see it that also means a clean cut non abusive family can produce one but we are off topic
Yes Wolfi we have gone off topic. To get back to OP This is an inner problem for the individual concerned. His religion and his sexuality are at odds with each other. Only he can decided what to do about it, either he can turn his back on his religion and follow his heart. or stay within his religion and suppress his feelings and remain celibate to live within his religious teachings. If he does not reject his religion then it is up to him to find someway of coming to terms with his problem. I also do not think that homosexuality is anything to be ashamed of. But that is not the point here - the point is that his sexuality and his religion are in conflict with each other. It is a difficult situation and other than what I have said I can see no way out. And I doubt you would have been able to change his opinion the best you could have done would be to empathize with his problem.
I don't recommend doing it arbitrarily or on a whim. It's very important to know what that other person believes and whether or not it constitutes a "big deal." Is it worth arguing over? Is it worth using harsh words or potentially making an enemy? And most important of all: Are you sure you know better?
Just adding my two cents to the original post. I don't think so; unless in very very extreme circumstances, like the old question of 'What would you do if you went back in time and met a young Hitler'. I like people disagreeing with me, and a lot of my closest friends are people who like a good debate. We often do. But it never damages our friendship. That's why I like them so much. With these sort of things, people hold very strong opinions on either side. And in respect to abortion and politics, both sides can be both right and wrong. And right and left. People are entitled to think how they please, and so long as they can back up their case I don't have a problem. Some people are unaware of certain factors, that they might need to be made aware of. For an example, people who criticise Evolution by asking 'Where are the transitional forms' need to be made aware of the fact that Evolution is not change over few generations but many. If this new information changes their mind on a subject it's their business, not any of mine. But some people do not want to change their minds either, again, this is not any of my business.
Well, every fossil, and everything alive is a transitional form. I was making the point that transitional forms are not how some imagine them to be. For some people this is an issue, their understanding of what a transitional form is. To clarify, some people think a transitional form is a 'Crocoduck'.
I think, Kyle, that as far as personal religious beliefs goes, we shouldnât intrude. I know what I believe and you know what you believe, and whether we debate it or not, we still have our own views in the end. And I can easily respect that. I won't try to impress upon you what I believe. To be honest I think your reaction was ethically correct. The guy was deeply affected by his past so that he felt the need to share it with you. We can't tell someone what they believe is wrong. Mostly as employees we are called to simply listen to customers. That is the accepted standard. However, I can see your idea behind this question. My job deals with customers consistently, and although religion doesn't come up, there's always that slight possibility people will mention it.
I hear you. True, everything is a transitional form. But there are some good extinct transitional forms that can be shown to bridge gaps in the evolutionary record, and I think a lot of people who use the "no transitional form" argument don't know that (or don't care whether it is true or not when they say it).
My favorite thing about evolution is that every one assumes it says there is no God\higher power, how ever thats not the case to be clear when i say god i mean any sort of divine thing
That's true. Most scientists I know working on evolution are Christian. There are even religious scholars and church leaders who subscribe to theistic evolution. The theory of evolution does not preclude a "god" of any kind. It is completely silent on that issue.
