I don't see how could it be overrated. It's important and enjoyable, I'd actually say it's underrated by the "rules" people make up of how it should be to be good and enjoyable when it's good enough without making it so complex and complicated.
Values can only change, not disintegrate because values disintegrating would imply that there is only one set of values, and no other. If they lose value, nothing gets it, and that's wrong. Other things are more valued now than others, it's just a change, not a disintegration.
There's always a difference between rich and poor children.
The rich children may not be able to wear better clothes, but they will have better jewelry, better phones, more money in their pocket, better shoes, and after all, they can simply discuss the matter.
Though, why do people try so hard to erase the differences?
Our society is divided by classes, and no matter what we do, we can never ever change the fact that as long as there are classes and differences between them, those differences WILL affect our children and children are members of social classes just as older people are.
Maybe it is not ''fair'' to the poor children, but life isn't fair and they will learn that, you can't shelter anyone from reality so why bother.
No.
I believe that if there is an actual threat the school can call the police and let them handle it.
But the school itself, as an institution, should not have the right to search a student's backpack. For no reason should the school have the right to search anyone - it would be the same as you going into someone's house and them searching your bag. Would that be ok? No, well this isn't ok either.
That's like saying people who believe they have a cookie, really have a cookie. People who don't, you can't really change their perspective unless they want it to change.
Implying that they'd have a cookie once they believed they do, just because they believe.
But of course, believing you have a cookie won't make the cookie real and existent, just like believing you don't have a cookie won't make it go away.
Being skeptical does mean you won't trust many people - but it doesn't mean you won't trust anyone. Skeptical people still have a small circle of people they trust, and that is the best really, certainly better than just trusting anyone and everyone.
There are people who don't respect religions in general, and so what? Most people don't respect things they find ridiculous.
Plus, in order to respect something, it needs to be worthy of respect, and many people would say that religions, in general, are not.
Parents work to earn money. If they want to use that money to provide better education for their children, why not? I'm not communist. I believe everyone should get what they earn, and be able to spend it as they wish. If a person earns money, and then has a kid - they're going to be able to give that child much more than the people who don't earn as much money. Maybe it's not "fair", but such is life. My child is going to live in a big house with plumbing, yet some children in Africa live in huts with no clean water. Is it fair? Absolutely not. Am I going to send off my child to a hut with no clean water? Absolutely not. So, private schools are just fine. Not everyone is born in the same conditions. And even if it's not really "fair" to them... It's a part of life - some kids are born in rich families, some in poor. Everoyne uses the opportunities they have, and equal opportunities aren't really fair, anyway. So, I'm for private schools. It wouldn't be fair to the parents who worked to not be able to give their children what they want to give them just because someone else can't.
Why should they? Children can choose what will they eat. If they decide to eat junk food, they'll eat it outside school if it's banned in it. You can't stop them from eating it, you can only teach them why shouldn't they. Maybe they won't want it then. But if they do, nothing can be done about it.
I gave you the reason.
It doesn't show them in a good light, not at all. They're glorifying even the bad side, presenting it as something good, something acceptable. I'm sure they show the good side too.. But the parades, for example. Google "gay parade" and you'll see the first results. That's the bad light they show, that's what pisses people off. If the good side, normal people, were shown, there would be less hate because people would be able to realize that the homosexuals can be normal people just like everyone else, unrelated to their sexual orientation. However, when the things shown in media are like the gay parades, it DOES spark more hate because it shows people a very bad side of the community.
Like I said - they are hated MORE. I didn't say the hate is a new thing, I said it's increased. And it's simple, really. The glorifying shoves homosexuality down people's throats, plus it shows the gay communities in a very bad light, so the ones who hated them hate them more, and the ones who didn't may start to. It's simple when you think about it.
Show something excessively +in a bad light = make it more hated than it was before.
They actually didn't know what happened in the camps, they hid them from the assumed " hard work ". Of course, some of them figured it out, but no, it wasn't a public thing.
As for killing in the streets - no one openly said that they're killing them because they're Jews. They gave other, more convincing reasons to win the people to their side.
They were misinformed, and it can be said that they did not know what was going on.
The circles they spent time in - nazi officers, soldiers, etc. approved of those actions and encouraged them. They believed it was the right thing to do. Those who did it also believed that it was the right thing to do. They didn't have much contact with the rest of their society nor did they take their input into consideration. "Society" for them was the authority that gave them orders they had, or chose to follow.
But in general - there were people who believed it was all right.
So that just proves my point - there is such a thing as right and wrong, but it depends on the point of view.
I'm not sure how exactly are you disputing my argument, since your argument just proves mine right.
I don't want anyone to be me. And I didn't say ''exactly the same''. I said "alike". Similar, not the same.
I don't even understand why are you talking about same genes or experiences - that's definitely not what I said. There's a difference between exactly the same and similar, alike, so you should pay attention to the argument you're trying to dispute.
And again - the quote has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Why should I give you a reason for that? I wouldn't beat up MY dog, nor would I beat up YOUR dog. Why shouldn't you? The fu*k do I know. I don't know reasons for your actions or lack of them.
You can take your animal to get an abortion.
You can't KILL a fetus. You can abort it. Which is different from killing.
Even if no one cares - a person has a right to live.
However a fetus is not a person, it's a blob of cells, so it doesn't have a right to live. It can only stay in the womb if the woman wants it, and if she doesn't, she has a right to take it out of herself.
Like I said before - Your value does not decide your right to live.
I'm not contradicting myself, you just can't grasp basic concepts. You should give it up because you don't seem to be able to understand some very simple theories.
No. That is no reason to admire someone. Everyone goes through things in their lives that are hard, no one applauds them for that. And they shouldn't.
It's not an achievement. It's a normal part of life.
Just some people's rough patch is objectively harder than someone else's doesn't mean it was truly harder for them. No reason to admire them, they're not any more special than people who survive other kind of problems.
No, that's what YOU'RE saying.
Nope, not funny. Humans arent an endangered species.
Nope, again I already covered the "right to live" part.
Again, the last quoted part is contradictory to your conclusion. Nowhere to draw that conclusion from.
Nope. Just because the owners or parents don't want them doesn't mean NO ONE does. Obviously social services care.
I didn't contradict myself. Having less value than others doesn't mean that someone deserves to die.
I was a fetus, and as a fetus I only had value to my family. No one else.
Nope, abortion is not wrong. Often only the parents know about the fetus, and they don't want it. Others don't know it exists, therefore can't even want it.
A blob of tissue in the first three months.
I never said that someone's right to live is defined by their value to a community. I said their general value is defined by their value to the community. But even the less valuable have a right to live.
Not contradictory, at all.
If the fetus is unwanted by EVERYONE its related to, it absolutely holds no importance. And since the only ones who are in its life while it's a fetus are the parents, it has no value if they don't want it.
The judgement of the society gives VALUE to the society. That's what you judge someone's value on.
I'm not saying that a human does not deserve to live if its unwanted to everyone. I'm saying people have different values and they get treated according to their values to the society.
However, even if not valuable to society in general, some people are valuable to CERTAIN people.
So if a mother is choosing will she kill a fetus or an ant - she will choose fetus if she wants it, because it has significance to HER. If she doesn't want to, she will choose ant because the fetus has no value to her. However, in both cases, the fetus has no value to the society or even me as individual, so I'd choose the ant unless I choose to respect the mother's wishes.
Jesus had family/friends.
Ancient Christians did too.
Accused women did as well.
Protestants also.
Supporters of Confucios alike.
Black people the same.
They had value to someone, they were significant to someone. Their lives did mean something, the mistreatment of them did affect them AND others.
However they had no value to the society that rejected them. Still, they were HUMAN and there is no justifiable reason to kill a human unless they pose true danger to others.
But, if something is NOT human and it's completely unwanted, it's fine to eliminate it because there's no reason to keep it, and usually not a way except for affecting someone else's life, in this case the woman's.
So basically - a human has the right to live regardless of their value. However, not everyone has equal value. The treatmant of an individual depends on their value. Still, it doesn't take away their right to live.
Yet a fetus is not a human, it's not living, so it can't be killed, nor can its life be taken away, nor does it have a right to "live" because it can't actually live.
However an ant is already living, therefore killing it is taking away its right to. Plus it contributes to the colony, which gives it value,and puts it ahead of something with no value to anyone/anything.
If the fetus is unwanted by EVERYONE in its life, it absolutely holds no importance. And since the only ones who are in its life while it's a fetus are the parents, it has no value if they don't want it.
The judgement of the society gives VALUE to the society. That's what you judge someone's value on.
I'm not saying that a human does not deserve to live if its unwanted to everyone. I'm saying people have different values and they get treated according to their values to the society.
However, even if not valuable to society in general, some people are valuable to CERTAIN people.
So if a mother is choosing will she kill a fetus or an ant - she will choose fetus if she wants it, because it has significance to HER. If she doesn't want to, she will choose ant because the fetus has no value to her. However, in both cases, the fetus has no value to the society or even me as individual, so I'd choose the ant unless I choose to respect the mother's wishes.
Jesus had family/friends.
Ancient Christians did too.
Accused women did as well.
Protestants also.
Supporters of Confucios alike.
Black people the same.
They had value to someone, they were significant to someone. Their lives did mean something, the mistreatment of them did affect them AND others.
However they had no value to the society that rejected them. Still, they were HUMAN and there is no justifiable reason to kill a human unless they pose true danger to others.
But, if something is NOT human and it's completely unwanted, it's fine to eliminate it because there's no reason to keep it, and usually not a way except for affecting someone else's life, in this case the woman's.
So basically - a human has the right to live regardless of their value. However, not everyone has equal value. The treatmant of an individual depends on their value. Still, it doesn't take away their right to live.
Yet a fetus is not a human, it's not living, so it can't be killed, nor can its life be taken away, nor does it have a right to "live" because it can't actually live.
However an ant is already living, therefore killing it is taking away its right to. Plus it contributes to the colony, which gives it value,and puts it ahead of something with no value to anyone/anything.
I can't really say are the wrong or right, because I understand their wish to save their child, however it was terrible for the other one. Not life threatening, but terrible. So I'll just skip that one, because it's really too complicated to be able to draw a clear conclusion.
The mother was wrong with the kidney thing, but the rest is hard to discuss.
However, the girl was completely right to sue her parents. She has a right to her own body, to her kidney, to keep it if she wants to. No one should be able to force her to be an organ donor if she doesn't want that. Demanding that she gives an organ was abuse, it was disgusting that her mother treated her like that. The girl was ABSOLUTELY right to sue them.
I weigh a person's VALUE based on how they are valued in the society. Not their humanity.
I determine is someone human or not by simply wondering do they fit into the definition of a human. If they do, they're human. If they don't, they're not.
However, not all humans have equal value. Nor should they recieve equal treatmant.
I believe that abortion is not murder, it's simply taking the fetus out of the womb. It dies because it can't survive outside the womb.
A person who can't survive without machines can be taken off them. It's legal. It's not murder.
So it's not about are they human or not, it's simply that abortion isn't killing anyone.
Killing an ant, is actually killing.
The fetus didn't really LIVE, it just existed there. The ant contributes to the ant colony, it has some actual value. While the fetus, if unwanted, has no value whatsoever.
I'm talking about value to the society.
Value to an individual is different. If we're talking about killing a fetus and a woman that we don't personally know, obviously we'd be looking at their value to the society, to the greater picture.
With only love, there would be no society.
So maybe we need love for the society to function, but if there was nothing but love, there would be no society either.
I suppose that after a genderswitch surgery and hormonal therapy, you'd belong to the gender you went into treatmant for, so it would be okay to go into that bathroom. Once you're female/male truly, not just in your mind, it's okay to go into the bathroom that gender goes into.
"Isn't that unfair to the not so wealthy students, and on the same time spoiling the wealthy students?"
I don't think I missed your point. I responded to this question.
A person who has wealthy parents does not need to work, and if they don't want to, they shouldn't. If they do, well no one's stopping them.
No, everyone doesn't have equal value.
How could that even be?!
Value is what you contribute to society, be it teaching youth valuable lessons, helping the needy, creating a stable family that will contribute...
The society doesn't function on love - so no, loving someone is not creating actual value. Sure, it may be of some value to you and the person you love, but to the greater picture it's insignificant.
A doctor has value, because they save lives. A teacher has value, because they teach children. A firefighter has value because he saves people's lives and homes. etc.
A person who can't contribute to the society in any other way by loving ( which might as well be unrequited, unappreciated an unwanted, which makes it useless and unnecessary) has less value than someone who actually does things.
So, not everyone has equal value to the society.
Abortion is not murder.
A fetus can not live outside the woman's body, so it dies when it's taken out. If it actually was a formed human being, that can live, killing it, of course, would be murder and no one would have the right to do that. But since the fetus is dependent on the mother and can't survive any other way, she has a right to take it out because it's not a completely separate being, it's connected to her and can't live if it's not.
