General attitudes

[Bob S.]

Ren asked in another topic:

"We're in a less kind world, where everything is contentious. So, what happened?"

Ren, I can only speak for the US, but we have found ourselves in a victim society. Dan Quayle was right when he said that there were too many lawyers in this country. It seems that we want to complain too much right now and try to go to the government to sterilize our society so we don't have to deal with anything bad.

And actually, taking a look at the whole of society, we have become a more kind society in how we treat others. But now, the media focuses on the bad much more prominently than the good. Bad news makes for better ratings. And because of that, a kind of paranoia has slithered into our society. Males are sex-fiends who rape women and children, nurisng homes are terrible places for your parents, etc. I myself, have had to put up with such prejudiceness in my work as I am a preschool teacher. In fact, when I was in college student teaching in a kindergarten class, I was told that I had to do my student teaching somewhere else as one of the parents (in a class of about 25) had a problem with her daughter being in the same class with me.

What needs to happen is those who want to find trouble in the smallest things need to just learn to get over it. Political Correctness needs to go away. We need to realize that going to the government to solve all of our minor squabbles only makes things worse.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

Ren asked in another topic:

"We're in a less kind world, where everything is contentious. So, what happened?"

Ren, I can only speak for the US, but we have found ourselves in a victim society. Dan Quayle was right when he said that there were too many lawyers in this country. It seems that we want to complain too much right now and try to go to the government to sterilize our society so we don't have to deal with anything bad.

And actually, taking a look at the whole of society, we have become a more kind society in how we treat others. But now, the media focuses on the bad much more prominently than the good. Bad news makes for better ratings. And because of that, a kind of paranoia has slithered into our society. Males are sex-fiends who rape women and children, nurisng homes are terrible places for your parents, etc. I myself, have had to put up with such prejudiceness in my work as I am a preschool teacher. In fact, when I was in college student teaching in a kindergarten class, I was told that I had to do my student teaching somewhere else as one of the parents (in a class of about 25) had a problem with her daughter being in the same class with me.

What needs to happen is those who want to find trouble in the smallest things need to just learn to get over it. Political Correctness needs to go away. We need to realize that going to the government to solve all of our minor squabbles only makes things worse.

Bob S.

[Doug H]

I'm with you, but as long as it generates headlines and some sort of strong public response (positive or negative, doesn't matter). There are reasons that those who find themselves in positions of dealing with the media are taught how to "play the game." It's to avoid have the media "play the game" on you! I don't like it, but as long as the strong public response leads to ratings to income equation remains intact, we're stuck with it. Why? It's economically self-sustaining. Until the public collectively realizes that they're being "played", and starts refusing to respond, this'll keep happening.

Doug H.

[aunaturelone]

It isn't Big Brother tha will do us in. It is Big Care Provider. We are in the clutches of the Nanny State.

[namedun]

Daniel Quinn called it "mother culture" in his social philosophy book Ishmael. I highly reccomend this book. In fact, a great deal of change might occur if it could be put into the curriculum of some highschools.

Namedun [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

Bob,

"Dan Quayle was right when he said that there were too many lawyers in this country."

Steady, now.

"It seems that we want to complain too much right now and try to go to the government to sterilize our society so we don't have to deal with anything bad."

One of the chief purposes of government is to protect people from everything from unscrupulous traders to vandals, and from bank robbers and murderers to drunken drivers and public nuisances.

I do actually agree with you that, in certain respects, the government's intervention has become intrusive. An example from my country are the laws on discrimination. If I own a business and choose to employ only a male, or only a white person, or only an able bodied person, or only a heterosexual, then, in my opinion, that's nobody's business but mine - my business is run on my own private premises. No government should interfere with the way I choose to recruit my employees.

"What needs to happen is those who want to find trouble in the smallest things need to just learn to get over it."

OK, but remember that what is small to you may be a massive problem to someone else.

"Political Correctness needs to go away."

I agree.

"We need to realize that going to the government to solve all of our minor squabbles only makes things worse."

I agree with the general tenor of what you are saying - I think government agencies are too keen to involve themselves in, for instance, domestic disputes and issues relating to the upbringing of children. It does, however, depend upon the nature of the squabble. If I buy some meat from the supermarket and find that it's bad then I expect my money back. If the supermarket refuse to refund me and continue to sell bad meat then I would expect some government agency to act. If we just give up on the small things, like selling bad meat, then we are effectively conceding ground to charlatans, crooks and petty fraudsters and failing in our duty to protect the ordinary and decent citizen.

Stu

[Bob S.]

stu, this was really a rant and had to do with the general condition of society as a whole, not mentioning anything relating to nudity. And I agreed that there were too many lawyers in this country, the USA, not any other country. Also, keep in mind that Dan Quayle and his wife are both lawyers.

"One of the chief purposes of government is to protect people from everything from unscrupulous traders to vandals, and from bank robbers and murderers to drunken drivers and public nuisances."

Its chief purpose is to assure the safety and health of its citizens. As I have writen in, I think the "Young Naturists" forum under the "Exposing the Children" thread, parents have taken to the politicians to solve problems that they do not want to deal with regarding the upbringing of their children. They have allowed the schools to teach sex-education, something which they themselves should teach their children, and then complain when the schools do it wrong.

This is mainly a rant about citizens, not the government who is trying to appease everyone at the same time. The problem is that everyone demands to be appeased at this instant. They can't let the problem go for even a day or so. It's impatience.

"OK, but remember that what is small to you may be a massive problem to someone else."

I am describing small things. I am not describing massive problems. I am talking about people whose feelings got "hurt". Or people who did not understand something and find that their confusion should be appeased by the company.

We have over here a weirdest label contest based on "Darwin nominees" (I'll explain that later) who use a product totally inappropritely or just don't think when using something. Examples:

A fire log sold here that gets fireplace fires started faster has a warning on the box: flammable.

Hair Dryers that have the warning "Do not operate while sleeping"

There's even a bathroom heater I read about with the warning: "Do not use in bathroom"

My favorite is a "Darwin nominee" who bought a recreational vehicle (a motor home) and happily drove it home, imagining all of the adventures he would have in it. He never got it home, however, as he decided to put the vehicle in cruise control and proceeded to go to the back to fix himself some coffee. Well, you know what happened next, the RV swerved off the road, crashed, and flipped over. The man sued the makers of the RV and won. Now, you will find a warning in the manual telling you not to leave the driver's seat when the car is moving.

That's what I mean about to many lawyers, thinking of ourselves as victime, and not taking any responsibility for our own thoughts or actions, even if the actions can be counted amongst the dumbest, most assinine in human history.

As Shakespeare wrote, "First, we kill all the lawyers."

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

I forgot to explain the "Darwin nominees." Let me explain it now. There is a series of books called the "Darwin Awards" (also at the website http://www.darwinawards.com ) that relates stories about people who die or are seriously injured out of their own sheer stupidity. The ones who die are given a Darwin Award. The ones who live are given Honorable Mention. I suggest going to that website for some laughs.

Bob S.

Bob,

I read some of the stories and can't believe how stupid some people can be. There used to be a TV program called "America's Dumbest Criminals". I could see why they were criminals. They were too stupid to do anything for a living--including be a criminal.

[nudeonLI]

I could not agree more with what most of you have said. I see three major porblems with todays society.
First is the inability of people to accept blame for their own mistakes. This refers to the "Darwin nominees". How absurd is it that there has to be a label on vending machines warning people that shaking them could cause them to tip over and hurt them? I believe that is the result of a successful law suit because someone was trying to steal from the machine.
Second is political correctness. Yes it has had some positive features. Making buildings more accessible to the disabled (Is it politically acceptable to use that word?) is one example. But do we really need braille directions on drive up ATM machines?
Third is our courts placing the rights of a few over the wishes of the majority. Yes, the rights of the minorities should be respected. The civil rights movement was a positive thing. But should we have to remove the word "God" from the Pledge of Alligence because a parent did not want his daughter to hear that word in a public school? Why not simply explain to the child that most people believe in something that your family does not and that the child doesn't have to go along with the beliefs of the majority? As a nudist, I do not expect the everyone to conform to my life style and I certainly would not try to impose it on anyone else.

"But should we have to remove the word "God" from the Pledge of Alligence because a parent did not want his daughter to hear that word in a public school? Why not simply explain to the child that most people believe in something that your family does not and that the child doesn't have to go along with the beliefs of the majority?"

I'm no fan of political correctness - in fact I spit in its eye at every opportunity. Nevertheless, it cannot be right to require someone makes a solemn vow and make them use an alien religious concept, i.e. God, in the process. That demeans the whole act - it makes it a lie from the very start.

Just take the 'God' phrase out for those particular people and allow the rest to use it if they wish. If a parent didn't want his daughter to hear that word, then let him or her take the girl out of school that day. But never force people actually to use that word if they're not comfortable with it.

Stu

[Ren]

Actually the word "God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegience, if the government wants to respect the meaning of the Constitution, which at last check was the document of ideals for the United States of America. Saying God tramples on that document. Look, I believe in god, so that isn't the issue.

In the 1950s, God was inserted during McCarthyism to fight against the so-called godless Communists. It was not in the original Pledge. It was wrongly put in there, but at the time, there was a lot of wrong going on politically in this country.

People point to God being mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Remember, though, the Declaration did not create our national law. The Constitution did and does. And the Constitution goes to great lengths to remove religion and mention of god in the process. That is to protect law from religious interests and religion from being established by the law.

It's about freedom, and the moment a sanctified belief system (ie. religions who worship a deity with the name God vs., say, Allah or Budda) enters the public legal sphere, the Constitution is undermined and nothing but a piece of paper. Removing the word God from the Pledge doesn't negate your right to believe in a god or God, it protects our legal and publicly sanctioned systems from ascribing to the philosophy that includes God. To exclude the word God is to include all Americans.

[namedun]

Again, we come to the issue of percieved majority. Yes, the majority of religions in North America is christianity, as it is in the world in general. However, I was under the impression that the practicing of christianity is being ignored by an increasing amount of ppl, to the put where if you added in athiests (or agnostics....whatever) along with all the other religions, christianity would no longer be in the majority. I don't really want to back this up with any statistics cause i'm lazy.

Namedun [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

[Bob S.]

Regarding the US "Pledge of Allegience." Back in the 70s (?) there was a Supreme Court case (maybe someone can remember the name of the woman who brought the case) where an atheist woman sued so that her son wouldn't have to say the Pledge of Allegience. The Supreme Court agreed with her and decided that no one is obligated to say the Pledge.

That decision then made the Pledge of Allegience no longer mandatory. In high school, I was an atheist and just skipped that part of the Pledge. I didn't make a federal case out of it. This case, however, has to do with the legalities of the teacher-led Pledge.

And as a twist in this case, the father who brought this case was divorced and did not have custody of the girl. Her mother, who has custody, does not have a problem with her recitation of the Pledge.

And stu, just so you know, the Pledge is recited at the beginning of every school day so there is no way to make her late for school all the time.

And it just goes to show you that the government cannot make everyone happy.

Bob S.

[Nude\'n\'happy]

When I attended elementry school, the pledge as well as the Lord's Prayer were recited every day. However, anyone who did not want to recite them was not forced to. One of my class mates was from an athiest family and she never recited either. She just remained silent while the other students did their reciting with the teacher.