A quote that applies to all of us here, i hope.......

[I am Yuu-chan]

Calypsophia

on thinking for one's self.... just something that this thread made me think about.....

in 14 countries, 'holocaust denial' is illegal. that means, if you dont believe the holocaust actually happened the way authorities say it happened, and voice your opinions, you're going to jail. now, I happen to believe it happened as it is said to have happened. however, I am against the idea of someone having another opinion about it being punnished. this is a clear cut example of governments not wanting people to think for themselves.

there is a famous quote that goes "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire. this quote, I believe is what inspired our constitutional Freedom of Speech. and I am 100% behind it. this denial is not illegal in the USA, but is generally frowned upon by the majority. and the reason for this is explained in the next quote.

another quote I found by a man named Dr. William Lane Craig : “Tolerance means that I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Unfortunately, in our politically correct age, too many people have the impression that tolerance means, ‘I dare not disagree with what you say, lest I be branded bigoted or dogmatic for having dared to say it.’”

and this, is a perfect example of how people, when grouped together (the masses) suddenly have issues when it comes to independant thought and opinion.

mmmm I would like to know what countries are you talking about... and also remark that the 2nd quote its very good except for the fact that in this very age there is no tolerance, cuz like some spanish dude you dont know said "la tolerancia de esta epoca no es más que indiferencia hacia las demas opiniones", the tolerance of this age is not more than indiference towards the others opinions.  

[Calypsophia]

I am Yuu-chan

Calypsophia

on thinking for one's self.... just something that this thread made me think about.....

in 14 countries, 'holocaust denial' is illegal. that means, if you dont believe the holocaust actually happened the way authorities say it happened, and voice your opinions, you're going to jail. now, I happen to believe it happened as it is said to have happened. however, I am against the idea of someone having another opinion about it being punnished. this is a clear cut example of governments not wanting people to think for themselves.

there is a famous quote that goes "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire. this quote, I believe is what inspired our constitutional Freedom of Speech. and I am 100% behind it. this denial is not illegal in the USA, but is generally frowned upon by the majority. and the reason for this is explained in the next quote.

another quote I found by a man named Dr. William Lane Craig : “Tolerance means that I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Unfortunately, in our politically correct age, too many people have the impression that tolerance means, ‘I dare not disagree with what you say, lest I be branded bigoted or dogmatic for having dared to say it.’”

and this, is a perfect example of how people, when grouped together (the masses) suddenly have issues when it comes to independant thought and opinion.

mmmm I would like to know what countries are you talking about... and also remark that the 2nd quote its very good except for the fact that in this very age there is no tolerance, cuz like some spanish dude you dont know said "la tolerancia de esta epoca no es más que indiferencia hacia las demas opiniones", the tolerance of this age is not more than indiference towards the others opinions.

ok you got it:

Holocaust denial is explicitly illegal in 14 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Switzerland. Italy and the Netherlands have recently considered legislation but rejected such proposals in 2007 and 2006 respectively. Slovakia criminalized Holocaust denial in late 2001 but repealed the legislation in May 2005.

look under 'Laws against Holocaust Denial' from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

and to show indifference is to be tolerant. once can show indifference outwardly meanwhile inwardly they feel differently. I would rather someone be indifferent towards my agnostic pagan beliefs, for they would therefore logically then be tolerant of them. they simply wouldnt care either way. it might not be THEIR beliefs, and they might not think I'm correct, but they're indifferent and therefore can tolerate it.

indifference = # noun: the trait of remaining calm and seeming not to care; a casual lack of concern

tolerance = noun: willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others

if the one exists it tends to be followed by the other.  

[abandon-morality]

Calypsophia

azrael the reaper

lilraine

sometimes I wonder if society itself isnt a threat to the individual.....

"A person is smart. People are dumb, and you know it." - Agent K, Men In Black.

indeed smile perhaps it's because a single average individual alone, will think for his/herself. but put that person in the midst of a large group and he allows himself to be led by the group collectively no longer listening to his own sense of logic. jumping on the band wagon, allowing themselves to be led.

Its an easier life to follow the crowd. (shrug) If you let the crowd lead you then you can do horrible things without caring. After all Isn't it what everyone else is doing?

Alone People CAN be smart but if you put too many people together then you get "KILL! HATE" ect. If you took someone out of a mob and just stood them by themselves then they would stop what they were doing. If EVERY person in that mob would be told all the detail and no one forced there opinions on them then i think they could make an intelligent decision
So many terrible things have happened due to this "group mind" and i just think that if every person thought long and deep before they acted then there would be almost no war. But that goes into the human nature to fight and thats too long of a topic to post here. I'm already far off from what i started on....

If each and every person thought for themselves then this world would more than likely be destroyed due to the fact that NO one who thinks for themselves will every truly agree with anyone else. If everyone THOUGHT then where would the workers go? Or the people who make our food, Run our country, what about the people who teach our children?
Its impossible for everyone to think there own thoughts. Because that would cause too many fight to brake put and inevitability tear this world apart. If everyone thought for themselves it is true that MOST would see the error of there ways and quit what they were doing but what of the others? I can just see half the world going to one side over this "thought" The fact is is that people are biased and flawed.  

[Calypsophia]

abandon-morality

Calypsophia

azrael the reaper

lilraine

sometimes I wonder if society itself isnt a threat to the individual.....

"A person is smart. People are dumb, and you know it." - Agent K, Men In Black.

indeed smile perhaps it's because a single average individual alone, will think for his/herself. but put that person in the midst of a large group and he allows himself to be led by the group collectively no longer listening to his own sense of logic. jumping on the band wagon, allowing themselves to be led.

Its an easier life to follow the crowd. (shrug) If you let the crowd lead you then you can do horrible things without caring. After all Isn't it what everyone else is doing?

Alone People CAN be smart but if you put too many people together then you get "KILL! HATE" ect. If you took someone out of a mob and just stood them by themselves then they would stop what they were doing. If EVERY person in that mob would be told all the detail and no one forced there opinions on them then i think they could make an intelligent decision
So many terrible things have happened due to this "group mind" and i just think that if every person thought long and deep before they acted then there would be almost no war. But that goes into the human nature to fight and thats too long of a topic to post here. I'm already far off from what i started on....

If each and every person thought for themselves then this world would more than likely be destroyed due to the fact that NO one who thinks for themselves will every truly agree with anyone else. If everyone THOUGHT then where would the workers go? Or the people who make our food, Run our country, what about the people who teach our children?
Its impossible for everyone to think there own thoughts. Because that would cause too many fight to brake put and inevitability tear this world apart. If everyone thought for themselves it is true that MOST would see the error of there ways and quit what they were doing but what of the others? I can just see half the world going to one side over this "thought" The fact is is that people are biased and flawed.

I think you're confusing things just slightly. if everyone thought for themselves then they would still work, for they'd still need money. whether they be cooks, teachers, construction workers, etc. teachers become teachers because they like children. they themselves would CHOSE that profession. it's not like communism where your profession is chosen FOR you. people ARE biased and flawed whether individually or in a group. there's nothing for that. but I would much rather deal with a biased or bigoted individual than a whole mob of them. mobs are dangerous. individuals are easier to reason with.

but if everyone had the GUTS to think for themselves ('cause that's what it takes.. GUTS), there would never have been the witch trials, lynch mobs, or people joining church's to get 'saved' out of fear of hell. if everyone had the guts to think for themselves, this country would be a democracy in TRUTH and not name only.  

[Khalida Nyoka]

Advanced warning: I don't see a conclusion coming soon, and I am having trouble expressing my own opinions, so instead I will be going for a negation of what others have said. Please do not be offended, or feel singled out... I'm not trying to be an a**... just coming at this from a different perspective.

That said... back to where I first chimed in.

Azrael:
When you have a society built around the idea of people thinking for themselves, not doing so is the threat and so harms the ideals. Not the other way around. We are to get "educated" so we can do our "job" as citizens successfully. When one is uneducated they are more likely to fall for things like propaganda... but the educated mind sees it and knows what it really means.

Azrael (again):
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
When we think and challenge the acts of a leader, corrupt or not, we are saving ourselves from tyranny, not thrusting ourselves into anarchy. One is never foolish for disagreeing with their leaders, only foolish for not voicing it publicly.

Calypsophia:
Yes, schooling is designed to be a minimum that a person can get by with, and it is meant to bring people towards the 9-to-5 workday. However, just because you are used to the schedule does not mean you will become some automaton. You take courses in government, economics, and how the world works. Generally called "Social Studies" in the present terminology. Just learning about something does not mean acceptance. People can leave highschool with socialist tendencies, and that is not something wanted by capitalist societies. Likewise in, say, communist China it is possible to leave school believing in a God and wanting to actually make money (maybe even own something).

The system can only be corrupt to a student who will accept everything they are told, not a student who can (and will) think.


I'll be done for now... give people a chance to see what I've said, and me a chance to read over everything else a bit closer.



As a side note: the witch-hunts of North America (pre-USA) were not a matter of group dementia. They are, however, the perfect example of people thinking being a threat to society. The "witches" were accused by people who were either upset with the "witch," or would benefit from them being dead. Examples being to gain land, or to remove a rival from the market.

In this case, when the individuals thought for themselves (of murder, no less), they found a way to play on the, then valid, superstitions to get what they wanted the only way they could get it.  

[Calypsophia]

Khalida Nyoka

Advanced warning: I don't see a conclusion coming soon, and I am having trouble expressing my own opinions, so instead I will be going for a negation of what others have said. Please do not be offended, or feel singled out... I'm not trying to be an a**... just coming at this from a different perspective.

That said... back to where I first chimed in.

Azrael:
When you have a society built around the idea of people thinking for themselves, not doing so is the threat and so harms the ideals. Not the ther way around. We are to get "educated" so we can do our "job" as citizens successfully. When one is uneducated they are more likely to fall for things like propaganda... but the educated mind sees it and knows what it really means.

Azrael (again):
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson
When we think and challenge the acts of a leader, corrupt or not, we are saving ourselves from tyranny, not thrusting ourselves into anarchy. One is never foolish for disagreeing with their leaders, only foolish for not voicing it publicly.

Calypsophia:
Yes, schooling is designed to be a minimum that a person can get by with, and it is meant to bring people towards the 9-to-5 workday. However, just because you are used to the schedule does not mean you will become some automaton. You take courses in government, economics, and how the world works. Generally called "Social Studies" in the present terminology. Just learning about something does not mean acceptance. People can leave highschool with socialist tendencies, and that is not something wanted by capitalist societies. Likewise in, say, communist China it is possible to leave school believing in a God and wanting to actually make money (maybe even own something).

The system can only be corrupt to a student who will accept everything they are told, not a student who can (and will) think.


I'll be done for now... give people a chance to see what I've said, and me a chance to read over everything else a bit closer.



As a side note: the witch-hunts of North America (pre-USA) were not a matter of group dementia. They are, however, the perfect example of people thinking being a threat to society. The "witches" were accused by people who were either upset with the "witch," or would benefit from them being dead. Examples being to gain land, or to remove a rival from the market.

In this case, when the individuals thought for themselves (of murder, no less), they found a way to play on the, then valid, superstitions to get what they wanted the only way they could get it.

yes, there are the few that come out of the school system with their own ideas. those are the ones who think for themselves. but the vast majority do not. I'm not saying the school system necessarily 'brainwashing' our youth, but 'conditioning' them. molding them to societies ethics, morals, and values. it tells you the better you do in school the more money you'll make, and the more money you'll make the happier you will be, which the wise know is nonsense.. money cant buy happiness.. but it's what everyone strives for isnt it? to be rich? most do, anyway because they truly do THINK money and possessions will make them happy and that is what society (the group mind) teaches and it starts in school. it teaches you how to function as a productive member of the machine. I'm NOT saying the school system is corrupt. I'm saying it's got an agenda. an underlying ulterior motive and it has to do with governing the way the masses that make up this society think. of course, it doesnt work on everyone, because some actually DO think for themselves for better or for worse, no one is perfect after all.

and yes, the witch hunts certainly were a matter of group dementia (all it takes is one person to be convincing enough to get a whole group going), but I'm not specifically talking about what happened in Salem. there'd been witch paranoia stemming from the old world as well. if the church said so, the masses blindly believed, and the church used fear and later torture to control the minds of the masses. and some people used this fear as a tool to get back at neighbors whom they felt done them wrong. and those individuals that did NOT believe such nonsense were branded witches and heretics themselves because they thought differently (for themselves) and thus were a danger to the church (the true power in control) and had to be done away with. and going even further back, look what happened to Socrates (murdered because of his philosophies by being forced to drink hemlock) and Galileo (imprisoned for his ideas that the earth was NOT the center of the universe which totally contradicts the bible, and later removed to his villa under house arrest where he eventually died.. of natural causes, but not as a free man).  

[I am Yuu-chan]

I know this sounds like I am a huge jerk but, I just was indiferent at your opinion, I cant say I disagree neither i can say I agree cuz I just didnt give a rat a** about it and didnt read... I think that kind of "tolerance" doesnt work as how it should...  

[Calypsophia]

I am Yuu-chan

I know this sounds like I am a huge jerk but, I just was indiferent at your opinion, I cant say I disagree neither i can say I agree cuz I just didnt give a rat a** about it and didnt read... I think that kind of "tolerance" doesnt work as how it should...

heh, if you didnt read it, you have no basis in commenting on it. how can you be indifferent to an opinion you admit to have not read? that's just stupid. I see the point you're trying to make, but your example of 'tolerance' is a very feeble one. try again. this time, perhaps without sounding like a huge jerk. rolleyes  

[azrael the reaper_95210]

okay first of all............

Khalida Nyoka

When we think and challenge the acts of a leader, corrupt or not, we are saving ourselves from tyranny, not thrusting ourselves into anarchy. One is never foolish for disagreeing with their leaders, only foolish for not voicing it publicly.

i totally agree......

Calypsophia

I would much rather deal with a biased or bigoted individual than a whole mob of them. mobs are dangerous. individuals are easier to reason with.

but if everyone had the GUTS to think for themselves ('cause that's what it takes.. GUTS), there would never have been the witch trials, lynch mobs, or people joining church's to get 'saved' out of fear of hell. if everyone had the guts to think for themselves, this country would be a democracy in TRUTH and not name only.

Amen to that.......



secondly.........

I must say that in many ways I agree with many points brought up by many of you here. so I think perhaps I should clarify my opinion on a few topics:

free thought: look at our recent news stories. They keep going on about this news article bashing this general. They make it out like it is so bad. So tell me, why is it bad to express an opinion by contradicting someone? Just remember, there were those of us who were against the war from the start. (some put Afganistan war and Iraq war togeather, some seperate them.) I was okay with going to Afganistan to get Osama, who initiated an attack on America on 9/11. I was however against going to Iraq, who was not involved with 9/11, despite what many try to convince us of indirectly. When Bush's support for the Afgan war began to die down, he initiated a "war on terrorism" be going after Iraq. now we have dominated Iraq, killed their leader, rarely speak of our current efforts with Afganistan, and still have not gotten the guy who actually had the towers attacked, Osama Bin Laden.

Anarchy: I am not promoting anarchy, I am promoting freedom of individuality, and our bill of rights. They are not the same. People can think alike, but should not be scrutinized if they think different.

My 1/2/3/4 list was just showing how, one statement against the ruling powers and suddenly you are a friggin anarchist. But you are NOT an anrchist, you are a free thinker who disagrees with their actions and would like them to do things differently. it is not the same at all.

witch hunts: One girl cried witch and everyone went crazy. If you did not hunt witches, knowing how crazy the hunt was, you were likely going to be considered a witch yourself, or at least guilty od siding with the witches. eather way, you were gonna die, so everyone participated, and to really cover up for themselves, "pointed out" witches to others.

This is similar to the early days of the war, or the "Put a boot in your a**" days as I like to call them. Everyone needed to support the war, or else you were unamerican. With this idea instilled in the public's minds, I being against it once said "okay then I guess I am, but then again, I was born here, I never asked to be an American anyway."
Of course I no longer feel this way, and am happy to be American, I am just not happy with the war.

teachers: It was said earlier that "a teacher may imorally push their ideas off on students". Well the truth is that the schoolsystem, again part of the government, has a standard of what a teacher is allowed to teach. Those who agree with the things they are allowed to teach are fine, but those who believe differently than the things they are told to teach are not allowed to speak differently.
Years from now, the schools history books are going to praise Bush's actions when teaching about 9/11 and about the war on terrorism, while many teachers, who like me have actually lived through it, many not praise him, but must still teach under the school system's standards.

anyway....... I do have to say that this is certainly getting to be a very good discussion, which I like. We are all thinkers, it would seem, and thus I am pleased.

I find that online debate is a great thing, because we can all speak freely, without fear of the others taking to violence.  

[I am Yuu-chan]

Calypsophia

I am Yuu-chan

I know this sounds like I am a huge jerk but, I just was indiferent at your opinion, I cant say I disagree neither i can say I agree cuz I just didnt give a rat a** about it and didnt read... I think that kind of "tolerance" doesnt work as how it should...

heh, if you didnt read it, you have no basis in commenting on it. how can you be indifferent to an opinion you admit to have not read? that's just stupid. I see the point you're trying to make, but your example of 'tolerance' is a very feeble one. try again. this time, perhaps without sounding like a huge jerk. rolleyes

told you i would look like one -points above-

but like i said, i was completely indifferent about your opinion at the point that i didnt even read it, and like i said earlier, there is no way that indifference can help to tolerate someone, i cant tolerate you if i dont know or dont care about your opinion, and to care or know your opinion i cant be indifferent about it smile  

[Calypsophia]

I am Yuu-chan

Calypsophia

I am Yuu-chan

I know this sounds like I am a huge jerk but, I just was indiferent at your opinion, I cant say I disagree neither i can say I agree cuz I just didnt give a rat a** about it and didnt read... I think that kind of "tolerance" doesnt work as how it should...

heh, if you didnt read it, you have no basis in commenting on it. how can you be indifferent to an opinion you admit to have not read? that's just stupid. I see the point you're trying to make, but your example of 'tolerance' is a very feeble one. try again. this time, perhaps without sounding like a huge jerk. rolleyes

told you i would look like one -points above-

but like i said, i was completely indifferent about your opinion at the point that i didnt even read it, and like i said earlier, there is no way that indifference can help to tolerate someone, i cant tolerate you if i dont know or dont care about your opinion, and to care or know your opinion i cant be indifferent about it smile

you need to know about something to know whether you're indifferent to it or not. once you've heard of the issue, then you can decide to whether you care enough to have an opinion or not, and if you dont, then you can say you're indifferent. (yeah, I'm just being argumentative at this point) cool  

[I am Yuu-chan]

Calypsophia

I am Yuu-chan

Calypsophia

I am Yuu-chan

I know this sounds like I am a huge jerk but, I just was indiferent at your opinion, I cant say I disagree neither i can say I agree cuz I just didnt give a rat a** about it and didnt read... I think that kind of "tolerance" doesnt work as how it should...

heh, if you didnt read it, you have no basis in commenting on it. how can you be indifferent to an opinion you admit to have not read? that's just stupid. I see the point you're trying to make, but your example of 'tolerance' is a very feeble one. try again. this time, perhaps without sounding like a huge jerk. rolleyes

told you i would look like one -points above-

but like i said, i was completely indifferent about your opinion at the point that i didnt even read it, and like i said earlier, there is no way that indifference can help to tolerate someone, i cant tolerate you if i dont know or dont care about your opinion, and to care or know your opinion i cant be indifferent about it smile

you need to know about something to know whether you're indifferent to it or not. once you've heard of the issue, then you can decide to whether you care enough to have an opinion or not, and if you dont, then you can say you're indifferent. (yeah, I'm just being argumentative at this point) cool

you know that from this point on we could be saying the same thing over and over again with different words rite?

ok then lets make it definitive, can you be indifferent about something with out know about it? and, can you tolerate something with out knowing about it?  

[Calypsophia]

I am Yuu-chan

Calypsophia

I am Yuu-chan

Calypsophia

I am Yuu-chan

I know this sounds like I am a huge jerk but, I just was indiferent at your opinion, I cant say I disagree neither i can say I agree cuz I just didnt give a rat a** about it and didnt read... I think that kind of "tolerance" doesnt work as how it should...

heh, if you didnt read it, you have no basis in commenting on it. how can you be indifferent to an opinion you admit to have not read? that's just stupid. I see the point you're trying to make, but your example of 'tolerance' is a very feeble one. try again. this time, perhaps without sounding like a huge jerk. rolleyes

told you i would look like one -points above-

but like i said, i was completely indifferent about your opinion at the point that i didnt even read it, and like i said earlier, there is no way that indifference can help to tolerate someone, i cant tolerate you if i dont know or dont care about your opinion, and to care or know your opinion i cant be indifferent about it smile

you need to know about something to know whether you're indifferent to it or not. once you've heard of the issue, then you can decide to whether you care enough to have an opinion or not, and if you dont, then you can say you're indifferent. (yeah, I'm just being argumentative at this point) cool

you know that from this point on we could be saying the same thing over and over again with different words rite?

ok then lets make it definitive, can you be indifferent about something with out know about it? and, can you tolerate something with out knowing about it?

I say, no on both counts.  

[azrael the reaper_95210]

Calypsophia

I am Yuu-chan

Calypsophia

I am Yuu-chan

Calypsophia

I am Yuu-chan

I know this sounds like I am a huge jerk but, I just was indiferent at your opinion, I cant say I disagree neither i can say I agree cuz I just didnt give a rat a** about it and didnt read... I think that kind of "tolerance" doesnt work as how it should...

heh, if you didnt read it, you have no basis in commenting on it. how can you be indifferent to an opinion you admit to have not read? that's just stupid. I see the point you're trying to make, but your example of 'tolerance' is a very feeble one. try again. this time, perhaps without sounding like a huge jerk. rolleyes

told you i would look like one -points above-

but like i said, i was completely indifferent about your opinion at the point that i didnt even read it, and like i said earlier, there is no way that indifference can help to tolerate someone, i cant tolerate you if i dont know or dont care about your opinion, and to care or know your opinion i cant be indifferent about it smile

you need to know about something to know whether you're indifferent to it or not. once you've heard of the issue, then you can decide to whether you care enough to have an opinion or not, and if you dont, then you can say you're indifferent. (yeah, I'm just being argumentative at this point) cool

you know that from this point on we could be saying the same thing over and over again with different words rite?

ok then lets make it definitive, can you be indifferent about something with out know about it? and, can you tolerate something with out knowing about it?

I say, no on both counts.

okay, yall just agree to disagree.......... yuu, if you do not have an opinion, then please do not post that you have no opinion. we are here to discuss this among ppl who wish to express their opinion.........and caly, as i said above, just agree to disagree.............  

[azrael the reaper_95210]

azrael the reaper

okay first of all............

Khalida Nyoka

When we think and challenge the acts of a leader, corrupt or not, we are saving ourselves from tyranny, not thrusting ourselves into anarchy. One is never foolish for disagreeing with their leaders, only foolish for not voicing it publicly.

i totally agree......

Calypsophia

I would much rather deal with a biased or bigoted individual than a whole mob of them. mobs are dangerous. individuals are easier to reason with.

but if everyone had the GUTS to think for themselves ('cause that's what it takes.. GUTS), there would never have been the witch trials, lynch mobs, or people joining church's to get 'saved' out of fear of hell. if everyone had the guts to think for themselves, this country would be a democracy in TRUTH and not name only.

Amen to that.......



secondly.........

I must say that in many ways I agree with many points brought up by many of you here. so I think perhaps I should clarify my opinion on a few topics:

free thought: look at our recent news stories. They keep going on about this news article bashing this general. They make it out like it is so bad. So tell me, why is it bad to express an opinion by contradicting someone? Just remember, there were those of us who were against the war from the start. (some put Afganistan war and Iraq war togeather, some seperate them.) I was okay with going to Afganistan to get Osama, who initiated an attack on America on 9/11. I was however against going to Iraq, who was not involved with 9/11, despite what many try to convince us of indirectly. When Bush's support for the Afgan war began to die down, he initiated a "war on terrorism" be going after Iraq. now we have dominated Iraq, killed their leader, rarely speak of our current efforts with Afganistan, and still have not gotten the guy who actually had the towers attacked, Osama Bin Laden.

Anarchy: I am not promoting anarchy, I am promoting freedom of individuality, and our bill of rights. They are not the same. People can think alike, but should not be scrutinized if they think different.

My 1/2/3/4 list was just showing how, one statement against the ruling powers and suddenly you are a friggin anarchist. But you are NOT an anrchist, you are a free thinker who disagrees with their actions and would like them to do things differently. it is not the same at all.

witch hunts: One girl cried witch and everyone went crazy. If you did not hunt witches, knowing how crazy the hunt was, you were likely going to be considered a witch yourself, or at least guilty od siding with the witches. eather way, you were gonna die, so everyone participated, and to really cover up for themselves, "pointed out" witches to others.

This is similar to the early days of the war, or the "Put a boot in your a**" days as I like to call them. Everyone needed to support the war, or else you were unamerican. With this idea instilled in the public's minds, I being against it once said "okay then I guess I am, but then again, I was born here, I never asked to be an American anyway."
Of course I no longer feel this way, and am happy to be American, I am just not happy with the war.

teachers: It was said earlier that "a teacher may imorally push their ideas off on students". Well the truth is that the schoolsystem, again part of the government, has a standard of what a teacher is allowed to teach. Those who agree with the things they are allowed to teach are fine, but those who believe differently than the things they are told to teach are not allowed to speak differently.
Years from now, the schools history books are going to praise Bush's actions when teaching about 9/11 and about the war on terrorism, while many teachers, who like me have actually lived through it, many not praise him, but must still teach under the school system's standards.

anyway....... I do have to say that this is certainly getting to be a very good discussion, which I like. We are all thinkers, it would seem, and thus I am pleased.

I find that online debate is a great thing, because we can all speak freely, without fear of the others taking to violence.