Provocation

I have 2 younger sisters. When we would go on long car trips the older one would secretly poke the younger. Incessantly. This would understandably provoke an outburst, causing my parents to yell at the younger one, telling her not to freak out. All would be quiet. Then the poking would start again and the whole cycle would repeat.

I see this same kind of situation unfolding on the news and at work: Protestors just sit somewhere they aren't supposed to, such as a busy street, chanting, doing what protestors do. But then they have to keep pushing, sometimes literally, at the police or authority figure standing guard. At some point you have to stand your ground. As soon as you do, the protestors in the back start calling out about police brutality and the media enjoys a couple of days talking about how poor innocent protestors were beat by police.
In this situation there are three wrongs committed and I will list them in order of magnitude: The Pokers provocation; the Callers, both those present and those reporting for skewing things against the Provoked; and the harsh reaction to provocation.
Now I have three pieces of advice. To the Provoked: I know it can be hard, and awfully annoying to deal with whiny protestors, but do we need to beat them with clubs? That's what they want you to do so they can get sympathy for their cause. Why play into their hands? Now I know there may be times when force is necessary, but please use discretion and keep your head. Don't get angry and sink to the level of the protestor.
To the Pokers: Get over yourselves and grow up! Stop using childish tactics for your concerns and try to convince people with real arguments, not immature whining. No one owes you a living. It's up to you to make of your life what you can, not the job of other, stronger people to hand you a silver platter. Life may be hard, but don't forget it is also incredibly rewarding and kind, especially here in the USA.
Finally to the Callers: Quit kidding yourselves. If you had an ounce of integrity you would see both sides of the argument, but every video I've seen in the news starts not at the beginning during the provocation phase, but at the lash out phase. You may believe they have a quicker breaking point than they should, but everyone has one, including you. Even you would break under the stress of being outnumbered and surrounded on every side with people that have been chanting for your death slowly closing in on you and everything you've sworn to protect.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Discrimination

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not discrimination. When the law is applied the same to each person, it is not discrimination, just as laws prohibiting drugs are not discriminatory against drug dealers or users of drugs. Now, there are many other arguments for or against both sides, but the law itself is not discriminatory. The law itself is blind. You could argue that the people who framed it are discriminating by trying to marginalize people in society, but the law itself is not discrimination, anymore than laws prohibiting marriage to the young or to your cousin. You must argue for or against the purpose of the law. So please, stop calling these marriage laws discriminatory. They are not.

P.S. This post is neither condemning these laws, nor confirming them, so if you are going to start a debate as to the whether those with homosexual tendencies should be allowed to marry, this is not the place. This is a statement of whether the laws themselves are discriminatory. If you have a comment about that, then by all means comment below.

Personhood

Personhood is at the center of much of the sociopolitical debate today. This includes who is a person and what rights does a person have.

On the who is a person front, we have pro-choicers saying a fetus is not a person, extremists painting different races, religions, sexual orientations etc. As not being a person, PETA and many vegans saying animals are people, Australian bioethicists claiming infants are not people, Mothers claiming their mentally handicapped children are not people, and the list goes on.

On the rights side, many modern ideologies are based on what is a person's right and what is not: communists, socialists and others believe a person has a right to everything needed for them to live a comfortable life regardless of whether they have worked for them or not; Tea Partiers and libertarians believe they only have a right to pursue such things; Islamists and other extremist groups (e.g. neonazis) believe they have a right to live only amongst those who share all their beliefs and/or physical features.

When you get into a debate or discussion, please remember that if you do not agree on these basic tenets of societal life, none of the rest of what you discuss will be compatible, so please take a look at this issue and decide where you stand.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4