Agree or disagree. Do we live in a "just" society?
Society isn't fair, but this is only to a certain extent. Sure there exists racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, and yes people are treated differently according to their wealth, but on the whole there are a great majority of people who are kind and have decent morales. This is best witnessed from the UK elections of 2010. The BNP (a far right party that wants to kick out all ethnic minorities if you didn't know) had more chance of gaining a seat in parliament than any other due to the hostilities we're seeing in the world today i.e. the Iraq war, post 9/11, the general rise of Islamophobia for example- all of which is intensely magnified by the media. Also add to that rising rates of Eastern Europeans consuming both jobs and benefits in the UK. And yet the BNP won absolutely nothing. There was a decisive vote for democracy and fairness. I think this shows that society on the whole wants equality overall regardless of race, religion or anything else. Also realise that there are ever-increasing systems placed in the working world to eliminate discrimination. I am an Asian Muslim living in Britain and I grew up in a largely working class and white part of England, but suffice to say I have encountered minimal racism. I go to university now and I've met all kinds of people and have met so few 'nasty' people that I can barely count them on one hand. I don't believe society will ever be perfect and 'just' for the fundamental reason that us humans are imperfect ourselves! All we can do is improve through learning and unity. Human civilisation should be an endless pursuit of perfection and luckily that is exactly what is happening. Compared to a thousand years ago we have as a species come so far towards bettering ourselves. So don't despair, we're moving forward. Sadly the media only shows the negatives of the world, always complaining about what we don't have or what should have been. Never do we hear on the news the overwhelming number of people who lead civil and 'good' lives.
ABORTION- AGREE OR DISAGREE?
CONTROVERSAL- but i won't report. Disagree 4 me, wouldn't judge another. I feel that tha embryo Zygote, fetus, child, whatever u consider it, has a chance at life. If u've been violated, or violently raped, and became pregnant, understandable, in ur situation (though i, personally still wouldn't- and i have been raped b4, just didn't get pregnant thank goodness). But if it's because u thought u wouldn't or want 2 hurt tha dad, or grandparent(s), or just don't want it, but love how sex feels without a condom, and just don't like any of tha other forms of birth control, or someone TOLD u 2, i am absolutely against any ridiculous reason of tha sort, and i know girls who make a practice out of abortions because it's not tha guy that they want 2 have kids with! These are ppl that i keep at arms length, because i don't agree with their way of thinking.
It is the only way to resolve the disagreement. Acceptance of the truth!People spend too much time discussing based on false fundamental assumptions. Let’s not get our pants mixed up. Let’s make something clear: I am not you. I have a different opinion. Therefore, we disagree, always and by default. I disagree, even if you don’t.And let me make it clear so that you don’t wonder: I will also disagree for the next 10 things you will think of! And that’s a good thing. Every person should aim to be an individual. If everyone realised that we don’t agree, the world would be going forward faster.Wrong!No!Boo!False!But…. No!In short…The only reason why a person has the same opinion is either because:They haven’t thought about that concept enough!They are passive! -> These people disagree to disagree. That is passiveness.They are immature! -> They haven’t explored themselves well enough, and consequently they don’t put their personal mark in everything they do. It is also possible that they are not as smart!They are a**-lickers! -> They think that by being agreeable they will manipulate me. That doesn’t last for long.When I think of something, I make my own mind up about it. And as I am different, my view is different. And it turned out well sofar: I disagree with pretty much everyone and everything.You can only trust a disagreeing man to be disagreeing. It is the agreeing man you should not trust, for you never know when he would disagree!There is only one way to go about this. Agree to that.Also read:What is your personality?What is one lesson you've learned that completely changed your life?
Agree or disagree: abortion?
Hello King, Abortion: Points of View It is nearly impossible anymore to find someone who doesn't have an opinion about abortion, and probably a strong opinion at that. Yet the endless debates on the topic usually go nowhere, leaving the opponents even more committed to their positions and the open-minded observers confused. Both sides make a good case. An unwanted child is a pitiful thing, and the attendant social problems (single motherhood, financial destitution, child neglect, and urban overcrowding, to name just a few) do not have easy solutions. On the other hand, the thought of terminating something that, if left to run its natural course, would ultimately result in the birth of a human being gives all but the most hard-hearted among us cause for serious introspection. One reason the debate goes nowhere is that each side focuses on a different topic. We make no progress because we are not talking about the same thing. The pro-abortionist prefers to discuss choice, and to dwell on all of the social problems inherent in an unwanted child. The anti-abortionist is interested primarily in protecting the life of the fetus. In simple terms, the pro-abortionist focuses on a woman's rights and the anti-abortionist focuses on a fetus' rights. Though interrelated, these are basically different topics. Though neither side realizes it, there is actually much more agreement than disagreement between the opposing views. The majority on both sides would agree that social problems like child neglect and urban overcrowding are serious issues. Most would also agree that the life of a child is a precious thing that deserves the full protection of the law. There would even be nearly universal agreement that it is a woman's exclusive right to make decisions concerning her body. Read more info here: http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Abortion-Points-View/2113
Do you agree or disagree with dress codes for girls?
Now I’ve never been on to disagree with the dress codes at school. They make perfect sense and I still believe that. But I think, at least at my school, it’s just too strict. We have a new principal and so far he’s eliminated many of our short options. Now jean shorts are usually too short and I don’t wear them but Nike shorts are now only allowed for some people. Those with short legs and short arms. It’s also inconvenient that the shorts are a little shorter on the sides than they are at the front and back. So even though they are perfectly appropriate on the back and front, they aren’t on the sides. I strongly agree that some girls have shorts and skirts WAY too short. But when I get in trouble for my shorts then see girls with practically booty shorts walking around freely. I mean in all honestly I get a little annoyed. So because my male peers can’t keep their eyes on my face I have to adjust my wardrobe? How is that fair??
Do you mean the mostly polite but ultimately meaningless social gesture? Or the genuine internalized acceptance of the fact that people will always be different from each other (barring some forcefully implemented hive mind technology)?If you mean the first, it’s a matter of social power shifting back towards the middle. Most social “agree to disagree” situations are a result of one party putting forward a relatively unpopular opinion, and then “backing down” from lack of support and / or other threats. In a setting where the dominant ideology is increasingly unclear, there is less pressure to appear to conform, and more incentive to aggressively promote particular viewpoints. This isn’t unique to our time, it has happened repeatedly throughout recorded history.If you mean the second, precious few humans have taken the time to cultivate the introspection necessary for understanding that people really are different, not just in opportunity or knowledge, but fundamentally in how they process the world. It is even rarer to be able to find value in these differences. This scarcity has always been true, although certain historical cultural mores have occasionally caused the introspective to be particularly valued.In short, with fewer obvious “right and wrong” directions, people will push for their own views as “right” rather than “agree to disagree”. People who honestly value “agree to disagree” have always been quite rare.
“Normal” is not how anything in relationships should be judged. There are many, many things that would be considered normal that I would not find acceptable in a companion. It’s “normal” to want to have children. That doesn’t work for me. It’s “normal” to avoid conflict and hide one’s feelings. This also doesn’t work for me. Based on countless questions and answers on Quara, it is “normal” to not trust one’s partner and control their interactions with other people. That’s a hard no from me.My point is that normal is no way to determine if a behavior should be acceptable to you or not. You have to decide if you find it acceptable that your girlfriend reportedly shuts down all discussion when you two disagree. Personally, I would not find this acceptable and would ask what was behind her desire to avoid having a discussion about a topic where we don’t exactly agree. If she’s unwilling or unable to communicate on that more vulnerable level I would seriously consider ending things because I can’t be with someone who isn’t willing to talk and work things out regardless of how difficult or painful that talk may be.When someone tells me they want to “agree to disagree” during a discussion my impression is that they no longer want to discuss what we’ve been talking about. I double check with myself to make sure I wasn’t trying to bully them into agreeing with me or belaboring my point just to be certain it wasn’t because I was being a jerk. Agreeing to disagree is a perfectly acceptable place to land once in awhile. However, if that person turns to this phrase with any sort of frequency, I would begin to feel that they really aren’t interested in speaking with me so much as speaking at me and looking for an echo chamber to validate their already held beliefs.I also hope that your ultimate goal is not to hear her say that you’re right. Being right can be an extremely lonely place. My goal is to connect on as many different emotional levels as possible and strengthen my relationship, not just win an argument.
First Impression is the Last Impression ???.. Agree Or Disagree ?
First impressions have a limited impact. Sometimes they can be quite wildly wrong .. I've had both positive and negative experiences of that. I met a guy once who I thought was sensational, witty, provocatively seductive, intelligent, everything wonderful! ... but once I came to know him better, I realised he was a sleazy jerk masquerading as a nice guy simply because it was an effective lure. The first impression was never completely revised though; sadly I have to acknowledge there's still something alluring about him. I've met other people whose first impression gave no inkling of just how much they would come to mean to me. It was like discovering an unexpected treasure! So my first impression of them has been radically overwritten now because I know just how amazing they are.
Agree or Disagree w/ SOCIAL DARWINISM?
Darwin never had a "theory of survival of the fittest". That phrase came from Spencer, a economic philosopher, which was actually used before Darwin published his Theory of Evolution. Darwin's theory was based on a species finding an ecological niche that would allow them to survive or else perish. Later in the 1950s it was discovered that the code for that information was stored in our DNA in each cell. This put the Theory of Evolution on a firm foundation of biochemistry and beyond the reach of any attempt to refute it. But unfortunately whenever a new idea comes out people try to apply it to inappropriate modes. Social Darwinism is one such fatally flawed concept. There is no DNA basis for society, which there would have to be for it to be Darwinism. Call it what you will, it is not based on the Theory of Evolution. Probably closer to Spencer's cruel ideas of Survival of the Fittest. But even that is misleading. This social philosophy is more likely to be based on Memes and some curious Lamarckian description of how Memes propagate and create and maintain social institutions.