#238230 - 21/10/2004 16:29
Re: Across the pond
[Re: cushman]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
I say rarely would you have a fistfight or loud argument. This is the type of "respect my opinion" that I am talking about.
Ahhh...now I understand.
If your idea of respect is the lack of physical violence or loud arguing, then I concede. Many Americans are capable of not beating people up or screaming at them while disagreeing.
We have soldiers for that part. Oh, and politicians.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238231 - 21/10/2004 16:48
Re: Across the pond
[Re: webroach]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Quote:
If your idea of respect is the lack of physical violence or loud arguing, then I concede. Many Americans are capable of not beating people up or screaming at them while disagreeing.
Not just beating them up or screaming at them, but politely disagreeing while still recognizing their value as a person/citizen. It is about having the freedom to be in the minority of people who believe what you do without fear of reprisal. Also, not acting like this:
"A waiter,'' she wrote, "looked as if he was going to spit in my pizza. A man in the dining hall asked me what the pin said, twice, and then walked away. I felt like dirt. I felt worse than dirt.''
Quote from this article which I referenced in my original statement.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238232 - 21/10/2004 16:54
Re: Across the pond
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't see people respecting the opinion of gay couples who want to marry, do you? Sure, there are some, and in a large country like the US, "some" adds up to quite a few people. But still, are we respecting that opinion?
Gay marriage is a far murkier subject than simply respecting opinions. You can't make a legal statement one way or the other without stepping on someone's opinion. But the important thing is that respecting another's option doesn't mean agreeing with it, it means seperating people from their views and recognizing that however much you might dissagree with somone else, you never have a right to be abusive or denegrade them. Saying "I don't think gays should marry" is not intolerant or disrespectful. You can disagree with the statement, challenge it's validity, or even believe it to be backward and of 0 value, but in the end it's a point of view and the person stating it has every right to do so, despite it's validity. Or put another way, if everyone agreed on the issue of gay marriage, what difference would anyone be tolerating or respecting?
I agree with you when you say everyone has a right to disagree with opinions and views. But what you a conveniently ignoring here is that people are not saying "gays should not marry". People are saying "gays will NOT marry. And if they do, we'll nullify it. Oh, and we want to make a law saying they can't be married in the future." And that is the sort of respect (or lack thereof) that I'm talking about. You may think it's a show of respect to say "I respect the fact that gays want to get married" as you cast your vote to ban them from doing so. I think it is, at best, lip service and at worst hipocrisy. Of course, I say that as a hypothetical; I have no idea how you personally would vote on such a measure, nor whether you would say that while doing so.
I didn't intend to make this a gay marriage thread, but it happens to be a very good example in current events of what I'm talking about.
Quote:
The fact is that gay people get married every day and their right to do so is respected. Pastors stand up in church every week (somewhere I'm sure) and say that it's wrong, and their right to do so is respected.
So exactly where is the US are gay couples getting married every day? And where is their right to do so respected?
Quote:
Whether the law should recognize the former officially is about determining what marriage is in the legal sense and why it's important to the government. I repeat: this is far more complicated than simply respecting opinions.
As much as I'm sure many Christians think they invented marriage, thay did not. So they need to back off and realize that marriage is between the individuals involved, not the individuals involved and the government. Maybe the church could go spend a few dollars on an anthropology book and "get their learn on"?
Quote:
I'm not arguing for or against whether Americans respect others in general, but I do think your examples fall short of proving your point. Respect is not about agreeing with or even believing that another's viewpoint has merit, it is about the way you treat others when you disagree.
When did I ever say respect meant "agreeing with or even believing that another's viewpoint has merit"? You'll have trouble finding it, because I never said that. I think, in fact, that I made the point that what bothered me was the rude nature of the comments made.
Maybe you and Mark should grab a cup of coffee, put on some nice music and take a few minutes to actually read the posts you're commenting on. Then, before replying, take another few minutes to digest what is being said. I have never argued, or even implied, that I believe people should not have written to the Guardian saying they disagreed with what the Guardian was doing. What I disagree with, and the sort of behavior that makes me feel ashamed, is that people seem to be unable (for the most part) to do so without ending with a comment like "And by the way, brush your fscking teeth you limey bastards".
I don't mean to come off all snotty, but it's getting pretty old having to re-explain what I've already said in fairly plain language.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238233 - 21/10/2004 17:24
Re: Across the pond
[Re: webroach]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Quote:
Maybe you and Mark should grab a cup of coffee, put on some nice music and take a few minutes to actually read the posts you're commenting on. Then, before replying, take another few minutes to digest what is being said.
I both read the posts I am replying to, and try to reply with the original post in mind.
Quote:
I have never argued, or even implied, that I believe people should not have written to the Guardian saying they disagreed with what the Guardian was doing. What I disagree with, and the sort of behavior that makes me feel ashamed, is that people seem to be unable (for the most part) to do so without ending with a comment like "And by the way, brush your fscking teeth you limey bastards".
Here is your original quote (2nd post in this thread):
Quote:
Once again, the comments made by my countrymen make me ashamed to be American.
This is why I responded with this comment (directly below your post):
Quote:
I think the vast majority of people who recieved e-mails from across the pond either a) ignored them, b) politely declined the advice given (this is what I would do), or c) the e-mail was caught in their spam filter and deleted. The people who responded with offensive comments are going to be the loudmouth redneck types who are not representative of Americans as a whole.
My point: Being ashamed to be an American because of those comments published insults the majority of Americans (like myself) who would not make such comments (and indeed, look down on those who do). I may be embarassed that someone from the same country as myself could say such things, but I am never ashamed to be an American.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#238234 - 22/10/2004 00:20
Re: Across the pond
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Maybe you and Mark should grab a cup of coffee, put on some nice music and take a few minutes to actually read the posts you're commenting on. Then, before replying, take another few minutes to digest what is being said.
Honestly, this was a very frustrating remark for me, and initially I was going to stop this conversation altogether. Maybe I should. However, due to my stubborn nature, I at least want to clarify the points I was trying to make. I did a poor job, perhaps, but I definitely have read your post and put a great deal of thought into my response. I am disappointed you could not tell that.Quote:
. I have never argued, or even implied, that I believe people should not have written to the Guardian saying they disagreed with what the Guardian was doing.
Ok, I didn’t argue or mean to imply that you did. What I did mean to say is that the statements you made Quote:
I just don't share most American's taste for childish attacks towards people that don't fit nicely into their ethnocentric worldview.
and Quote:
But how can you say Americans respect opinions that are different from their own?
are not supported by the statement Quote:
I sure didn't see anyone respecting the opinions of the Guardian readers or staff, either.
Because the responses in the Guardian are the “squeaky wheels”, you cannot say that that is evidence that “most” Americans don’t respect others. That is analogous to saying that most people in the US hate black people because we have some still active in the KKK. Clearly the KKK does not represent the typical mindset of most Americans. Regarding the statement Quote:
I don't see people respecting the opinion of gay couples who want to marry, do you?
I was trying to make the point that gay people do get married. Perhaps there aren’t any churches in your area that perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples, but I certainly know of some. I also know people who are very clear in their opinions on both sides of this. But I assume you’re not talking about opinion as much as your are the state recognition of these marriages and granting certain rights based on them. As I said, this is a far more complicated issue and to say that the state should not grant this status to gay couples is not the same as saying that their opinions are not being respected. As I’ve stated before, I’d be in favor of the Government getting out of the marriage business altogether and not granting legal status to anyone on the basis of marriage. I am not for “Gay Marriage” in the legal sense, nor am I for “Heterosexual Marriage” in the legal sense. Since this is an unrealistic solution, however, I’m willing to concede to Civil Unions as an imperfect solution to an impossible solution. I know you don’t agree with me, but I’m not trying to justify my position; I’m trying to show this is a complicated matter far beyond simply respecting someone else’s opinion. Truth be told, I DO think marriage is meant to be between one woman and one man for one lifetime, but I’m not going to treat a fellow human like dirt because he/she is involved in a gay marriage. I’m going to respect their decisions which I don’t agree with.
Quote:
When did I ever say respect meant "agreeing with or even believing that another's viewpoint has merit"? You'll have trouble finding it, because I never said that.
No, you didn’t. I sort of got off on a tangent trying to make my point. It happens to the best of us.
Edited by JeffS (22/10/2004 00:24)
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index