posted
Recently I have found myself becoming terribly apathetic about the things that I believe in. Being a high school student, I am faced with many "new" and "better" ideas about everything from Homosexuals, Presidents and Politics, and the art of being unbiased. I no longer perk up when I hear a discussion being started. I don't study up on history when I know a debate is at hand. I just am tired of preaching my beliefs to the same "open" and "accept everyone" people. I know this is a dangerous way to become, for many reasons.
I) When you stop fighting for what you believe in, the other side claims victory. -Now this is a simple statement but I don't think people understand the extreme message it is giving. When there is no opposing opinion, the other guy always wins. You no longer have a say because you don't take advantage of the power you had. Very dangerous.
II) The battles are no longer battles but one sided debates. -A lot like elections in pre-America kicking Saddam out of country" Iraq
III) What is right and wrong is decided not by you but by who didn't stop presenting their point. -This can be very important as well. When you don't stand up for what you believe in, someone else will do it for you. By this I mean, they will tell you what you believe and if you don't, well then "say hello to his little friend"
IV) You start to doubt your beliefs -When you no longer talk and discuss what you believe, then you begin to think less and less about it. This leads to confusion on what you DID believe was right or not. That leads to doubt which opens you up to someone who can take advantage of an "easily moldable" piece of clay.
V) Evil Prospers -What has always happened when the good men are too quiet? Bad men get even louder. Who is to blame? Those weak men who stopped spouting their thoughts.
So should I chastise myself and start to preaching the good word? I believe so. I believe this is how alot of adults become as they grow older. At least this is what the percentage of voters actually voting shows. Why let others decide for you? Down with apathy, for it is the true evil.
[ November 19, 2003, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Dag ]
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The opinions I hold most strongly are the ones that I have debated with people who are informed as to the opposing arguments. When I have such discussions, sometimes I change my mind. Sometimes I modify what I believe. When I don't, I am always more confirmed in my beliefs because I have had to logically test them.
In this way Hatrack was been great for me, as some people here have different veiws to me. However, almost without exception, they present these views logically and coherently, and in doing so allow me to examine and either modify or re-confirm my own veiws.
Apathy is dreadful - I am so glad that we have compulsory voting over here, otherwise our voter turnout would be more like the US. And when it's for something as important as choosing a national leader, I think mass particpation is vital!
However there is only one thing more irritating than apathy in my view: People who hear an opinion from some-one else (usually, but not always their parents) and repeat that opinion ad nasuem without actually thinking about it for themselves, or looking at opposing points of view.
If you don't know what you're talking about, be quiet! (ok, rant over)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When you know you're truly brilliant is when you stop shutting out other people "preaching the good word" when that "good word" is 180 degrees from what you believe.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usually keep quiet about things I don't know anything about (which is LOTS). Right now I'm taking an apologetics course, something I reccomend for everyone. It's really great. It opens my eyes, helps solidify what I believe, and most importantly gives a way to defend what I believe.
Posts: 4174 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, a guy at my church is teaching it. He's using the "TPM" method (Trancendental Presuppositional Method...forgive the spelling). We just started, so we haven't gotten very far yet.
Posts: 4174 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my opinion, to really study apologetics, you should be reading apologies written by people who DON'T belong to your faith.
Reading apologies written by people who ALREADY believe what you do will help you solidify what you already think, but won't exactly open your mind much.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We haven't been reading much by others yet, but we'll get to it. Both people who believe what we do, and people who don't. I'm really excited about this! I've already learned a lot in just two classes! Posts: 4174 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it's justifications (wrong word - explanations?) for faith - and then I guess when you start looking at different religions, it's more like comparative religion.
Sounds interesting.
Religion is a hard one, because it's so personal. However I am much more tolerant of people who can defend their veiws with some logic/reasoning than I am of those people who state a belief based purely on 'it's true'.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our world has always been the way we make it. It's not what I believe, it is just a thought.
When you stop believing it does not mean you stop thinking, it simply means your mind is more objective, you can not accept as true non founded ideas. You are aware of other plausible notions and consider them.
Maybe you are starting to question want you had taken for granted.
Maybe you are overworked and could not care less about anything but sleep.
Maybe you're depressed.
If you have not stopped thinking, you have not stopped believing.
Posts: 139 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ralphie- So you start to "preach" other peoples word? strange idea. Holding on to what you truely beleive dosn't make you in less "brillant" if you were completely "moldable" and "open" you would not have any ideas of your own. I disagree with all or you statement.
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not arguing your beliefs does not mean you forget them. If I think something is wrong, I'd hope to have a reason good enough for me to remember it the next time the issue was raised, without having to reinforce my belief in the meantime by throwing it at others.
Obviously you think morality is subjective, as you say that not preaching leaves one open to the possibility of forgetting what you previously thought was good or evil.
Sometimes we should let people learn right from wrong by themselves, without people competing for the right to shove their thoughts down others' throats.
Since there are many issues on which there is no clear-cut case of right or wrong, you're just as likely to be promoting right by shutting up as you are by preaching.
Preaching is the pinnacle of arrogance (and I don't claim to be 100% free of either), and it only converts the weak-minded. I much prefer people who lead by setting a good example.
Being apathetic leaves you, and others, open to judge a situation on its individual merits, rather than having a preconceived notion of good and evil that must be maintained by regular debating.
So, yeah. An apathetic guy preaching about not preaching. That's me in a nutshell.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Naked Empire by Terry Brooks hasa good take on this subject. It is a fiction book, part 8 of the Sword of Truth series, and he uses this idea as the basis of this book.
Faith of the fallen, book 6 of the series, has a good take on socialism.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
An apathetic guy preaching about not preaching...thats kind of like a charatable jew? Or maybe a french war hero? *haha excuse the political incorrectness* Im not sure you even understand what you arn't preaching my freind. Apathy giving a way to judge things without bias? Is that what you are saying? Hmm. If you have apathy however, you don't care about the thing you must consider so you don't consider it at all! So what is the point? There is isn't one. I would reword your statement if I was you.
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Not a fair trade. I'd have to learn English all over again.
Anyway, I think you're giving too much weight to the word "apathy". It doesn't mean "oblivious". I maintain that it's possible to give an opinion without being emotionally invested in a topic. It's not only possible, but easier to be objective.
There are a number of issues I couldn't care less about, but if someone were to ask me my opinion on one, I could quickly assess the situation and give an opinion. True, it wouldn't be as informed as it would if I spent my waking hours arguing about it, but neither would it be biased.
Naked Empire is by Terry Goodkind, not Brooks. And if you haven't yet read it, you are to congratulate. And if you ever feel the urge to do so, you might consider sticking a fork into your eyes as a less painful alternative.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what Frisco is aiming at is closer to "emotional detachment" than "apathy". (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Don't let the connotations of the word throw you off.
That said, I think some issues are rather difficult to understand from a point of view of emotional detachment. Like it or not, emotion plays a major role in most tough decisions (if not the only role in some cases), so understanding the problem without empathy is practically impossible.
Dag- I'd stay away from swipes at groups of people if I were you (unless those groups happen to be murderers or bad spellers). You may enjoy putting forward the image of a rebel or bad-a$$ by flaunting the (often draconian) conventions of political correctness, but don't expect it to get you very far on this board.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"An apathetic guy preaching about not preaching...thats kind of like a charatable jew? Or maybe a french war hero? *haha excuse the political incorrectness*"
Oh, great. Earlier, I just figured you were one of those ignorant, arrogant jerks who couldn't figure out he wasn't all that funny. Now you're a bigot, too.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think what Frisco is aiming at is closer to "emotional detachment" than "apathy". (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Don't let the connotations of the word throw you off.
quote:ap·a·thy n. 1. Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference. 2. Lack of emotion or feeling; impassiveness.
Yes, unbiased opinions are also easy if you're merely emotionally unattached...the fact that I'm also indifferent and unconcerned made me use the term "apathetic".
quote:That said, I think some issues are rather difficult to understand from a point of view of emotional detachment. Like it or not, emotion plays a major role in most tough decisions (if not the only role in some cases), so understanding the problem without empathy is practically impossible.
Being emotionally detached doesn't necessarily mean you have no emotion whatsoever. Being emotionally detached from a case, I think, means that you can look at it from a clean slate.
And if you're emotionally detached, I think it's easier to put yourself in the shoes of both parties on either side of any given issue.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I was numbed by the comments you highlighted, especially the first one.
I always hold my breath when someone waves the "PC" flag. In my experience, the term is often used to express a legitimate irritation with nitpicky language. It also gets used in a way that says "please don't criticize my bigotry."
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Sometimes when people first enter this bulletin board, they assume that being deliberately insulting, provocative, or inflammatory is a good way to get positive attention. It isn't.
OSC's watchphrase for this Bulletin Board is "We argue with passion, and we listen with respect."
You are welcome to hold unpopular views, and you are encouraged to defend such views thoughtfully, carefully, and with passion. You are not welcome to be deliberately inflammatory. This does not mean you must conform to some "PC standard;" however, you must be polite and courteous.
This is not your house. It is, in effect, OSC's living room, and he expects you to behave with common courtesy. That means: no flaming, no sneering, no inflammatory insults, etc. Behave like a grownup.
This also makes sense in advocating your cause, as if you are a jerk, people will assume your cause is the sort of thing a jerk would support. That does not do your cause any good.
Note also that when you signed the registration agreement, you agreed to the following:
quote:Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.
We try to police ourselves, but we have an obligation to report inappropriate behavior to the moderator of the board if we cannot deal with it ourselves.
quote:"When you know you're truly brilliant is when you stop shutting out other people "preaching the good word" when that "good word" is 180 degrees from what you believe."
It's because she says things likes this that, despite her many, many, many dalliances with other men, I'm still willing to run away to Mexico with Ralphie at a moments notice.
posted
I think I should make a list of what I should be Sorry for: 1) Im sorry for making a childish joke about the jewish race. 2) Im sorry for saying France dosn't have any war heros.(well still not really sorry for this, simple fact and I will stand by that) 3) Im sorry for my lack of grammer and spelling correctness. I don't see it as important as getting what you want to say across to the person. I will work on this. 4) Forgive me for making you all beleive that I am: a bigot, a racist, arrogant, ignorant, and a troll (another thread). 5) Forgive me for wasting your time with my unorganized replies.
I think thats it. If there is any others just let me know and Ill edit.
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Methinks someone's forgetting a Frenchman who nearly took over the world. Well, some would call him a bit of an anti-hero, but I think he certainly qualifies as a militarily exceptional Frenchman.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here. Try this. And you know, as much as I love to make fun of France, it's foolish to say that they don't have any war heroes just because they got trounced in World War II.
Oh my gosh. Did I just defend France?
[ November 20, 2003, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
true ol Nap. was good but he was too greedy, should have left Mother Russia alone. But your right, I should edit my second remark about the french war heros, because they do have some, just not many.
Members here are rather quick at reponding. Thanks for the link to that dictionary thing. Remarkable, I sure hate I missed it up untill now.
Lost in every war since The ol' Hundred Years one (you know with them fighting the Brits?) my freind Jon.
[ November 20, 2003, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Dag ]
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't forget the guy who put a stop to Islamic conquest of Europe, or his grandson, who founded the Holy Roman Empire.
William the Conqueror is kind of a stretch, but LaFayette, who was a bit of help during our revolution fits the bill nicely.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jews are an ethinicty (no time to use the dictionary) and a religous group. I know that for a fact. Don't be too quick to find me wrong please. Not every religous jew is jewish in orgin.
William you could easily argue was not a Frenchman. Norman of corse yet are they considered french? I don't know.
[ November 20, 2003, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Dag ]
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, Despite what you know as a fact, Jews do not constitute a valid ethnicity. From Gordon Allport's The Nature of Prejudice, under the section "Who are the Jews?":
quote:It is certainly wrong to think of the Jews as a "race". They do not even constitute a "type" within the Caucasoid stock. Such physical identifiablity as they have is due to the fact that in the region of the world where Judaism begain an Armenoid type was common. But this type included many peoples who were not Jews. The early Christians (converts from Judaism) were of course fully as Armenoid in appearance as the Jews themselves. And even today (if manners and customs of dress are disregarded), it would not be possible to distinguish Armenians and other Armenoids from Jews on the basis of physique alone.
posted
I now this thread took a huge turn and all, but I just have to comment.
Gottmorder, I just wanted you to know that while Lord Nasher there may have said that, the actual quote is from Edmund Burke. "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Since he lived from 1729-1797, I'd have to say that he probably said it before Lord Kagan. Though, it is a pretty obvious statement and I'm sure someone said something similar, somewhere in time, before that. But that is usually who is credited with the quote.
I like the way all y'all are showing how not to let evil succeed, by doing something though. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ralphie- So you start to "preach" other peoples word? strange idea. Holding on to what you truely beleive dosn't make you in less "brillant" if you were completely "moldable" and "open" you would not have any ideas of your own. I disagree with all or you statement.
Wow.
On the plus side, Squicky got it and continues being my hizzo.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's also not forget that France didn't lose The Great War either...
France has many more war heros than the USA, by virtue of its considerable history. Also, just because you lose a war does not mean there were no heros for the other side. Or is Robert E. Lee not a hero? How about the Pole Thaddeus Kosciuszko?
So really, you'd be better off not defending much of what you have said in this thread (except the thread starter, which was thought provoking). You know as well as I do that those later comments were powder kegs (you realized they were slagging whole classes of people), and it's a dangerous thing to stand by such devices for long.
posted
(pooka in exile) I hate to admit it, but I also initially interpreted Ralphie's post as turning 180 degrees and not tolerating 180 degress from my own beliefs. When I read the later quote of it, I "got" it.
When I was a senior in high school someone said "you become what you resist". This always bugged me, and as a result I go around repeating it as often as I can without getting locked up.
Dag, are you from a country other than America? Just wondering. We do have several members who don't speak English as their first language and if so, welcome. If not, that's okay too. Sometimes I have to type with one arm or something, or I am really tired.
edit: sometime I feel like France has won "operation Iraqi Freedom"
quote: Jews are an ethinicty (no time to use the dictionary) and a religous group. I know that for a fact. Don't be too quick to find me wrong please. Not every religous jew is jewish in orgin.
Well, if you meant that some religious Jews are converts or descendants of converts, you are correct. (Actually, we all are. Avraham was a convert.) But considering that I have mostly Caucasoid features, while a close friend of mine has features that are distinctly Egyptian, I would debate your "ethnicity" claim. (She and I are both religious Jews, BTW, and can trace our lineages back for many generations.)
quote: thats kind of like a charatable jew?
quote: Im sorry for making a childish joke about the jewish race.
This was not a joke. Jokes are funny. What it IS is a malicious stab at others. As was this:
posted
When you get right down to it, apathy really is our biggest enemy. When people care about the truth and working to find it together, wrong ideas tend to get weeded out over time. But when there's apathy, bad ideas arise unchecked, because nobody cares to do or say anything about them, on the assumption that whatever they do or say won't matter anyway.
The apathetic arise because the "weeding out" of bad ideas happens to slowly or too inefficiently or with too much conflict for their taste. But the apathetic don't call it apathy - they call it being practical. They think there is no hope for their opinion to shine through, so they believe apathy is the only practical solution.
This apathy is a huge problem in America, and specifically, on this forum. For all the complaining about Hatrack going down hill that arises from time to time, it's apathy that's most to blame. And it's not the newbies that are apathetic - it's the oldest and brightest Jatraqueros, who have decided their contributions aren't really worth it. It's the ones who claim they've heard the same thing over and over, and that we will never get any closer to solving it, so we might as well stop.
In Hatrack as in America.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the biggest evil is the person who claims to speak for Good, America, and makes blanket statements about a view he or she has seemingly never had.
People since the beginning of time have been searching for The Truth. Unsuccessfully. I prefer to search for My Truth--has very little to do, relatively, with finding The Truth--which may or may not be there, and if it is, it may or may not be reachable by a bunch of people trying to build a metaphorical tower to heaven.
Call it being practical if you like, but I really just don't care. I don't try and talk people into buying into my ideas because I don't believe there's one thing out there with the ability to make everyone happy. I'll support others in their quest to be happy, but I don't think that includes converting them to my way of life and my ideas. More often, it's the opposite. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who was the only man in US history to graduate West Point without a single demerit? Robert E. Lee.
Good point, Bok, that even the side that loses has their heroes. Lee was admired by even his enemies, during and after the war. He had his triumphs (Chancellorsville) and defeats (Gettysburg), but really, graduating West Point with no demerits is freakin' amazing. The whole system is designed to give plebes (freshmen) demerits to humble them.
Hannibal has always been one of my heroes. He had 3 of the most complete victories in 2500 years of recorded conflict at Cannae, Lake Trasimene and Trebia River. He rampaged thoughout Rome for 18 years. The only way the Romans could defeat him was to cause turmoil back home in Carthage, where he lost the final battles of the 2nd Punic War, and salt was sown where Carthage once stood. But he's still a hero.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes I agree completely that you don't have to win the war in order to be great or to be a hero. The person that comes to my mind is Gustavus Adolfus (sp). He led one of the only truely loyal armies into the 30 years war and had great victories, but he died in battle and Sweden never really did much afterwards. Stonewall Jackson is another who fits this situation. Had he not died, who knows how that war would have ended...but thats for another discussion.
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
there may have said that, the actual quote is from Edmund Burke. "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Since he lived from 1729-1797, I'd have to say that he probably said it before Lord Kagan. Though, it is a pretty obvious statement and I'm sure someone said something similar, somewhere in time, before that. But that is usually who is credited with the quote.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Well, if you meant that some religious Jews are converts or descendants of converts, you are correct. (Actually, we all are. Avraham was a convert.) But considering that I have mostly Caucasoid features, while a close friend of mine has features that are distinctly Egyptian, I would debate your "ethnicity" claim. (She and I are both religious Jews, BTW, and can trace our lineages back for many generations.)
