Get Over It, Already!

The NAACP (National Association of Always Complaining People) has done it again. 

http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=9655036&nav=menu33_2 

Does anyone besides me think this is positively ridiculous? 

I don’t like to see suits of armor, because it reminds me of feudal serfdom, where the peasants were oppressed… 
I don’t like people to wear military uniforms because it makes me think of the Nazis, who killed Jews and Gypsies…

Give me a break!

I guess focusing on the past is one way to avoid taking responsibility for your present and future…

Advertisements

About dayuntoday

I'm a wonderer. I spend a lot of time mulling, pondering, and cogitating. This is just a place to park some of those thoughts.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Get Over It, Already!

  1. BooksForMe says:

    Unbelievable.  Get over it, indeed!  What an idiot.  (Your post is hilarious, though. )@viewinghuijia – re: the link you shared: This is horrible in so many ways…

  2. BooksForMe says:

    @viewinghuijia – OK…I hadn’t read the whole article when I commented.  Now that I have, now that I see that Dad is an AG pastor, now I am just plain angry.  I originally assumed these were just ignorant parents, clueless to the dangers and deceived by the culture.  Now, it’s quite a different situation.  This man should be accountable for his wife’s murder.  He knew better.

  3. P_Obrien says:

    You have got to be kidding me! Do people even think before they speak these days?

  4. homefire says:

    @viewinghuijia – That is the most horrific thing I’ve read in a long time.  I just told my kids about it to explain why I don’t like them to play shoot-em-up games!  It’s totally bizarre that anyone could get so worked up over a stupid bunch of pixels on a screen.  How can anyone believe there’s nothing satanic about a game that a kid will kill for?  @BooksForMe – At least they DID take the game away. though obviously too late.  I think they were probably lazy and uninvolved more than clueless, and it makes me realize how many times I let things slide that I know aren’t good for my kids–hoping it will go away on its own, trying avoid conflict.  Surely that man feels the guilt, and now he has lost his family.  The whole thing is just incredibly sad.  Praying that they can turn their lives around.

  5. gsmith03 says:

    @homefire – Seriously, taking away video games from a child/teen because they might get “confused” and kill somebody?  The Bible is one of the most violent books ever written.  How many people have killed in the name of it?  Yes, it was a mistake, but it is from “confusion” after reading certain passages of the Bible and taking them too seriously.  By raising your kids on reading the Bible, you might be raising the next Eric Rudolph.  Yet Christians don’t have a problem with that, of course.  It just seems like quite the double-standard to me.Yeah, and I do have a problem with people focusing on the past as well.  I do get a little tired of these “reparations” movements that keep circulating.  Racism is not gone, by any means, but we have been getting better.  It is becoming VERY socially unacceptable to be racist, which I think is a good thing.  Most importantly, I don’t see how receiving money is going to correct ANY wrong done to you.  Now if someone has had to completely alter their way of life (as in a malpractice lawsuit) as a direct result of the mistake, then I can understand giving them a bit of money to supplement a change that was forced upon them.  However, slavery was abolished in 1863 and I am pretty sure there are no direct victims of it still alive.  There are also MANY frivolous lawsuits out there that are all about getting money, and I see this reparations movement as just another one of those.  Now I think there are people who truly believe in the cause and aren’t just out for money, and I definitely don’t want to start making generalizations about a community that has already had many generalizations and stereotypes made about them, but I think the motivation of many (if not most) of the movement’s followers is simple greed.  Plus, it also seems to be a form of bribe on behalf of the government to get them to shut up, which I don’t like on EITHER end.However, “returning to past values” is basically a catch phrase for conservatism.  Like I said, I do have a problem with people focusing on the past, which is why I have become pretty liberal in most areas, adopting a present and future way of life that corrects the mistakes of past generations.  In my opinion, to stop living in the past requires a certain degree of liberalism.  Ending slavery required a degree of liberalism on Lincoln’s part, expanding the right to vote for women and Blacks required a degree of liberalism, and the Civil Rights Movement most assuredly did.

  6. homefire says:

    @gsmith03 – Amen to paragraph 2.  It’s so nice when we agree!  As for the first, well, you’re kind of a broken record.    You’ll compare pretty much anything bad to the Bible, won’t you?  (gotta keep convincing yourself!  )  Sure, the Bible has a lot of violence in it, and sure, lots of people have used it to justify horrible things.  But read in its entirety, it’s all about love, so I’m not too concerned that the overall theme will confuse my kids at all.  The overall theme of Halo 3, I think I can be fairly certain, is not love.  It’s not a double standard at all–it’s apples vs. oranges.  And I don’t think conservatism has anything to do with the past, either.  (In this case, if you’ll notice, it was a “liberal” who is wallowing in the past.)  Conservatism generally means sticking with values that have worked in the past, yes, but there is no way of “returning to the past” or living in the past–we always have to move forward!  Change is not synonymous with liberalism–change is inevitable for everyone!  Every day is a new day, and there is always change.  Conservatism simply means to be cautious and fully examine a thing before jumping in, IMO.  Ending slavery was very conservative–it went back to the basic principle of the value of human life, whoever that life may be.  It wasn’t the easy choice, but it was the right one.And I struggle a little with the label “Liberal,” actually.  Liberal is something that I hope I can always be–openhanded and generous.  I hate the connotation that it now has in connection with government, because it has begun to mean “open to receive” rather than giving.  Unfortunately, it seems to me that “Liberals” have become those who accept any new idea and run with it, without first looking where they’re going or counting the cost.

  7. gsmith03 says:

    @homefire – Yeah, that first paragraph probably did sound like a broken record, but it is something I believe so strongly.  There are definitely evils in our society, but I think religion is one of the main ones and is the root of many of the others.  But sometimes I think you sound like a broken record too, because I know that pretty much whatever the issue I know you will take the conservative stance.  So in a way, we are both broken records, because you keep making a conservative post about something and I keep making a reply giving a more liberal perspective.  You make pro-Christianity posts and I make anti-Christianity comments.  I sometimes wonder if you are trying to convince yourself of the validity of conservatism and Christianity because of all the posts you make.  When I was still a conservative Christian, I found that the times when I was going around making all these arguments in favor of Christianity and debating with people about it were the times that I was having the greatest amount of doubt and trying to convince myself.  I may be doing the same thing here, but please stop calling me black, Pot.Even when I was still a Christian, there were times when I heard people complaining about violent video games and I thought the exact same thing as I mentioned above.  There were parents trying to get the Bible taken out of school libraries because it was so violent, and there were times I thought they had a good point.  Of course, I ultimately settled on your side of the fence back then, but I am not naive enough to do so anymore.  However, even though the Bible is violent, the reason I think it should be taken out of public, state-funded places is separation of church and state, not violence.  People have killed after misinterpreting or overexaggerating certain portions of the Bible, or thinking certain things mentioned in the Bible should be taken too literally, which is quite similar to killing someone because you have taken a video game too literally.  In reality, the percentage of kids who have become violent as a result of playing a video game or watching a movie is quite low.  Violence is just something that is a part of human nature, and rears its ugly head on occasion.  If a teenager really is unable to distinguish fiction from reality (especially if it is a VIDEO GAME), then they are going to have other problems anyway.  I think to a great extent, playing violent video games actually gives people who might otherwise be violent an outlet for their anger.  Rather than ACTUALLY killing someone, they can just do it on the game.  You have a rough day at work, and it does help to relieve tension.  I don’t play first-person shooter games (I am horrible at them), but I know many people who do and I have seen firsthand how much it can help relieve stress.  IMO, a lot of children use violent video games as an excuse for violence just because they are smart enough to think of it, just like Ted Bundy blamed pornography for causing him to rape women.  Instead of taking responsibility for their own actions, they say something else caused them to do it and they didn’t know any better.  Instead of the parent coming down on the child for what they have done, they blame video games because “…my little Johnny would never do that on his own.”And conservatism is all about returning to values that have been used in the past.  Conservatives think that the only ideas that work are ideas that have been thought up before.  They think we need to stick to tradition, when tradition is built on flaws that were made a long time ago.  Just because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that is the way it should be done.  It is often quite the opposite, in fact.  Things change with time, and as they do, so should our traditions.  Only liberalism is going to challenge the traditions, challenge the status quo, and change things.  Slavery was very much a traditional outlook on people as property.  Lincoln himself even said that if he could have ended the Civil War without freeing the slaves, he would have done so.  His back was against the wall, and he felt it was what he had to do.  Ending slavery was a very humanistic thing to do, and I highly doubt you would define humanism as conservative.  The “basic principle of the value of human life” viewed perceived lesser people as property, and when Lincoln released the slaves he was being very progressive, very liberal.You talk about conservatives being cautious, but it is very possible to be too cautious.  I think conservatives have their place because they might keep things from changing too fast, but ultimately (to be frank) throughout history they have just gotten in the way of progress.  Please don’t get me wrong; I am not saying you should be silenced or anything.  I am just giving the reason for why I am a liberal.

  8. homefire says:

    @gsmith03 – Nope, not doubting right now, though I have been through that in the past.  But thanks for asking.  And I’m conservative not only because I’m a Christian, but also because it just makes more sense to me.  Looking at history, I can see why you say that conservatism impedes progress, because ignorance was often classified as conservatism.  I like to think that I’m not ignorant, that my caution is not born of that, but maybe you disagree with that–I don’t know.About the video games–surely you’ve heard how effective they are at desensitization?  Stuff like that has been used by terroroists for a long time.  That surely can’t be denied, so how can you say it wouldn’t make a person more apt to kill?  It’s only logical, I think.  Though I agree that it is also used for an excuse sometimes–our society is big on excuses!Separation of church and state?  don’t get me started!  That is one place that history has been SO re-written.  Surely you know that originally meant that people would be free to practice their own religion without persecuation?  It has been so radically reinterpreted by our corrupt court system that it’s become a way to persecute people for practicing their religion!  Reminds me of Animal Farm!As to your comment about releasing slaves being humanistic, my first reaction is that is really out to lunch, but I’m going to have to think about it a bit to even have a sensible response. 

  9. gsmith03 says:

    @homefire – Yeah, I didn’t think I was doubting during those times either.  I was just in a big denial phase and didn’t see it until many years later when my eyes were opened.Conservatives see going back to earlier values as progress, because they see the changes proposed by liberals as too radical.  The changes go against a lot of our old traditions and therefore conservatives see them destroying our society and being regressive, to a time before those traditions existed.  But you are right that a lot of it does have to do with ignorance.  A lot of those traditions came into existence because we didn’t have all the information.  We had to deal with certain things based on limited information, so we came up with a system that worked alright based on the information we had, but it was of course imperfect.  There’s nothing wrong with this, just as long as once we have more information we adapt the system.  The problem is that this system became habitual, and it is hard to get people to change from being stuck in their ways.  So more information came along, but people were unwilling to change.  It even got to the point where people were so resistant to change that they said it was morally wrong to change.  And so now we have these old traditions that no longer make any sense in our society, yet they are still in place.  At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think religion falls into this category.You talk about desensitization, but that happens with so many things besides just video games.  For the most part, all desensitization is is seeing so much of something bad that you just grow accustomed to it.  But it can happen with any form of media, including books.  And being used by terrorists?  Please…you really think that terrorists spend all their time designing video games because it might get some children to kill people?  Once again, this can happen with any form of media.  Should we stop watching television and listening to the radio because terrorists might be reprogramming our minds?  Should we stop reading books because some terrorist may have written subliminal messages into the text?  Should we stop talking to any people just because they might be terrorists using the power of suggestion on us?  That is ridiculous.  If we stopped doing things just because terrorists might be influencing them, then we wouldn’t be able to do anything at all.  In fact, the whole point of terrorism is to get people to fear you so much that they alter their lives because of their fear.  So in a way, you thinking that shows the terrorists have been successful at intimidating you.  Plus, just because something can be used for evil doesn’t make it inherently evil.  You as a Christian should know all about that.  Your religion has been used for evil MANY times, but you still practice it so you obviously don’t see it as evil.Perhaps the definition of church and state has been re-written, but I think the new definition is a better one, anyway.  Yes, it means that people should be free to practice their own religion without persecution, but it also means that people should be free to NOT practice religion without persecution.  The government shouldn’t control religion, but religion should also not control the government.  Of course, religious people don’t see the problem with having religious symbols and prayers in public places, but the non-religious have to see it every day.  There is so much more persecution against non-religious than religious, just because the religious are in the majority.  Plus, many of the religious see the non-religious as doomed for Hell, and so they see it as their duty to impose their religion upon those people.Yes, and I figured the humanism comment about releasing the slaves would get a harsh response.  But ending slavery grants freedom to people and stops treating them as property.  The idea is that they should be granted freedom simply because they are human beings and deserve the same rights as every other human.  Ending slavery is all about the inherent value of human life, which is the core belief of humanism.  I will even take it a step further.  I am a humanist, and even though they probably won’t admit it, most other people at least agree with many of the tenets of humanism.  They may not consciously advocate it, but many of the ideas and principles they believe in are very consistent with a humanistic philosophy.Lol…I am even beginning to feel like a broken record right now.  I feel like I am reiterating many of the same points over and over, and from reading your posts it sounds like you are feeling the same.  This argument isn’t getting anywhere, and I didn’t figure it would.  You firmly believe your position and I firmly believe mine.  I say we just agree to disagree, and leave it at that.I will leave you the last word, if you wish to take it. 

  10. homefire says:

    @gsmith03 – Finally getting around to taking it.  Just for the record, does the fact that people can be desensitized “in many ways” make it okay?  I think your argument in para. 3 totally missed the point.  I never said video games were evil–I said that gory ones desensitize the users.  nuff said.  Don’t argue with things I don’t say!  >Of course, religious people don’t see the problem with having religious symbols and prayers in public places, but the non-religious have to see it every day.  Talk about a double standard.  Every day, godly people have to put up with near-pornography in public places, blatant homosexuality, and many other things that I’m pretty sure bother us every bit as much as religious symbols bother atheists.  If we speak out against those things, we are slammed for hate speech or something like that.  It doesn’t seem to happen the other way around–how many atheists have been accused of hate speech for protesting the display of theTen Commandments?About the humanism remark…you thought “out to lunch” was harsh?  Yikes!  (Glad I didn’t say anything worse!)  I had no intention of being harsh–I was just sort of blowing it off.  I’ll explain why.  Yes, in one way, freeing slaves is humanistic, in that it values human life.  In that particular area, Christianity is fully in accord with humanism.  However, the concept of humanism encompasses SO much more than the dignity of human life.  Humanism also says that human life is the most important thing and the way to all truth.  And really, that is what makes humanism what it is.  The dignity and value of human life is something that many belief systems share–it’s certainly not exclusively a tenet of humanism.  That’s why I didn’t see much point in that argument.I do appreciate your comments–it often helps me to organize my thoughts.    God bless~

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s