(Untitled)
So, APPPARTENLY, it's illegal to post what you feel in your own LJ. You appartenly need someone's permision to post a post that you feel needs to be said. Wow...That's sad. Last time *I* checked, you didn't need ANYONE'S, not a parent, not a sibling, not even-dare I say it-an Ex. Especially not the ex. If you feel you've been wronged, don't
( Read more... )
You do not have options as to whether or not you want to skip a journal entry. You cannot simply pretend that the journal entry doesn't exist or not see it. If you are a regular readers of a person's LJ, you're going to begin reading a post -- whether you know it's aimed at you or not. There is usually never going to be a title that says "OH MY GOD, THIS IS AIMED AT SO AND SO. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK". Sure, they may have "Read at your own risk", but this only serves to spark our curiousity. By nature, people are 'masochistic' in this way (and I use the term lightly). Our curiousity and need to defend ourselves against attacks (again, by nature) contribute to our reading these posts.
While I do agree that one of the most immature things one can do is bring friends into a personal conflict, sometimes other parties intiate these things. Fighting immaturity with immaturity only yields a third grade playground brawl. Which, by all means, is entertaining, but shouldn't be happening in that manner, or setting.
Ha. XD Nicely said. However, if third-grade antics are both parties' choice... Well, so be it. It is there conflict. One cannot always play teacher to the world.
Actually, world wars get started when countries do things like, assasinate political leaders and occupy smaller, weaker countries with brute force, and other world parties, obviously aware of these conflicts, say things such as "Oh no Belgium didn't!" or "Aw hell naw, Germany! That stuff's gotta go!" Or, even the classic "Damn, Japan, why you gotta kill so many US soldiers and citizens?"
"Oh no Belgium didn't!" XD
I do agree that, yes, these are all factors that contribute to world wars. However, it is only inevitable that the countries within a conflict call on other countries for support, which makes the entire situation much bigger than it really is. My point (though admittedly badly explained -- and I thank you for calling me on it) is that by getting other people in on the situation and having two parties too stubborn to reach a compromise only bad can come of it. However, yes, sometimes another party is needed to solve an argument. But when this party is obviously on one person's side more than the other (as your post seemed), it is impossible to be fair. Therefore, it is better to let the main parties take care of things themselves. If nothing else, eventually they will tire of the conflict and, in their weariness, see that they have wronged each other if they are really friends. If not, the friendship was never worth it to begin with.
Reply
However, I can't speak for you, but I live in a country that is, indeed, free. My evidence in this matter is that so many America-hating liberal pot-smoking flag-burning bastards are free to roam society unchecked. I believe these entities would be dragged into black, dark-tinted vans and taken to very secretive underground locations to be disposed of via power tools and pot-bellied pigs if our Government had any sense of freedom restriction. Which, honestly, I wouldn't mind giving up a few civil rights to watch such things happen.
It is with some pride that I can say I live in America and am, in fact, one of those America-hating (for some part) liberals. I believe that America no longer is trying to follow its initial goal set out in the constitution. Denying gay marriage and planning to deny abortion, I feel, are two inalienable rights. In creating America, Jefferson's goal was freedom for all Americans, regardless of religion, background, or gender. There is a quote, in fact, where he essentually says that he doesn't care where his neighbor has one god, many gods, or no gods at all. Also, he spent his life trying to end end slavery in the United States. None of the previously mentioned facts are directly stated in the constituion. However, they are clearly the first, and strongest, driving forces behind the United States.
I am proud, very proud, of what America stands for. However, standing for something and doing it are two very different things and I feel no obligation to praise a hypocritical country.
In any case, I don't exactly disagree with all of your statements, but I think your perspective on the mater is a wee skewed.
How so? I don't feel that you are exactly specific as to how my perspective is shewed. However, this may be my fault. Apologies, but I've just gotten home and am tired. I don't mean to be insulting.
And the answer to your final question is: No... no we may not just get along. Because as human beings, we strive for conflict... it fuels us, it fills us with the very essence of humanity, it is the foundation of society in its most ancient origins.
As for that line, I simply trying to be humourous, emphasizing how much of a hippie or something I sounded like. Yes, conflict is needed, but I like to think that some of us are above petty attacks on people we call friends -- by both parties if I'm correct. After all, if one cannot trust their friends, who do they have left?
Reply
Leave a comment