congenital idiocy

[Trillipse]

i don't believe that congenital fools/rednecks should have been halted before birth. everyone has the right to life. i value all human life and interaction with ANYONE, regardless of how far they stray from my idea of human. but this is not universally the case, and for me an ironic clash occurs when i'm trying to take on board the views of someone who will, by their very nature, refuse to take on board views that differ from their own. what are your thoughts on this...?

[jenstar]

Yes, but it would be foolish to give them the vote.

[jno]

I'd obviously prefer the world if it was made up of more people like me (think Brad Pitt or JLo, only smarter and more humble); but yes, diversity is a great thing, and we all have much to learn from other people - which is why AB exists, for one thing. So we must tolerate even the intolerant.

As for being halted before birth, though... I know what you mean, but I cannot blame those who find (for instance) that the baby they are expecting is physically or mentally defective and decide on an abortion. Raising a genuinely abnormal child is a huge undertaking and I don't feel I have the right to judge those who feel they're not up to it.

[scuzzball]

What are you on about?

[horsestache1]

For once I'm with Scuzzball

What!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[dot.hawkes]

I think you are in an unenvied position if you are prompted to compose such a complex question on a friday when everyone else is just winding down for the weekend.

[Loosehead]

You mean you don't understand why everyone doesn't agree with your views. Obviously they are fools as your view must be correct. I think the your "congenital fools/rednecks" phrase has the ring of the proverbial "hoisted by own petard" about it.

[felinechums]

I would like to know who has the right to decide which fellow human being is a "congenitial fool/redneck". What is the definition of this term? Who composed this definition? And how do we know that the person who composed the definition AND the people who apply the definition (or indeed those who use it in AB postings) are not themselves "congenital fools and rednecks".
My view is, that by referring to ANY fellow human as a congenital fool/redneck, Trillipse is betraying her/his own prejudice and intolerance. The fact that (s)he goes on to protest that congential fools/rednecks should be allowed to live does not (as (s)he seems to wish) portray her/him as a liberal and tolerant philanthropist, but instead betrays a deep-rooted dislike of anyone not like her/himself.

[Trillipse]

it was a REALLY badly phrased question, for which i apologise. i think what i was trying to get at was how difficult it was to be understanding of certain people's point of view, when they show no willingness to take on board ANYONE else's. i can be as knee-jerk reactive as the next person when someone says something i don't like. But. i try to widen my viewpoint, and it becomes increasingly difficult when a minority of others shows no sign of this. it was a philosophical question, and a selfish one. sorry if i came across a bit bolshy... am i forgiven?

[felinechums]

Absolutely forgiven, now that you have explained. And I agree entirely with what you say above - it is difficult to be the kind of person you would like to think you are when others are behaving in a way that you feel is not right. Personally speaking, I often have to stop and check if what I am thinking is what I would want to be thinking (for example in a situation which could involve racist thought). Sometimes I find that I am ashamed of what I am thinking, and I have to make a conscious effort to change my outlook. Does this make sense?