If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Theres no such thing as human nature, we are so varied.
Some people do the things you say, but a lot of people dont, therefore you cant say one is human nature and the other isnt.
It is a generalisation, I assumed you would presume so.
Think about why you would do "good deeds". Why would you be considerate, why would you help someone out...perhaps because it makes you feel better
I will concede human nature is varied and the human pysche complicated, but most of the people I know and have met are selfish by nature...as far as i'm concerned, it's instrinsic nature for all organisms...you do what you have to do survive and achieve status.
It was an inaccurate generalisation.
If it's an inaccurate generalisation, why are going on about the need for compassionate, selfless rolemodels?
You half-agreed with me earlier. Talk about arguing for arguing's sake lol.
Half-agreement is not agreement.
It being an inaccurate generalisation doesn't negate the need for a role model, such as the one previously described.
Half agreement is still some kind of agreement.
But the whole point of such a role model would surely be to counter greed etc? If greed, selfishness and manipulation isn't endemic in our society, then there isn't a great need for such a role model. Straight forward logic.
I didn't say there was no example of greed or selfishness in society I just don't agree they are as rife as you suggest.
There will always been the need for a role model, otherwise how are standards maintained?
Forest Gump standards have never in place for them to be maintained :rolleyes:
No, which would suggest we'd need a role model to reach them. Wouldn't it?
You're beyond belief. As I've said fuck knows how many times before, Forest Gump is a far-fetched, completely fictional story about a man with learning difficulties. As likeable as he is, you're not going to get society to try and emulate him.
People don't follow fictional characters, not outside of a mental instituation anyway.
Anyway, only the weak need role-models.
Why do only weak people need role-models? You suggest that anyone who has a role-model is instantly weak. If I wanted to follow the example of Mahatma Ghandi I'd been weak. It's a ridiculous statement to make.
Having a role model doesn't mean you copy everything about that person. I for one have more than just one role model.
In terms of sport I have Paula Radcliffe on the basis she's a long distance runner with asthma
I respect Mahatma Ghandi for his approach to war and the way he protests about it (adopted by Martin Luther King as well)
I respect my best friend because of how hard she works, and if I worked half as hard I'd get a 2:1.
etc etc
lol, sweet.
Martin Luther King was an intellectual thief, and engaged in a few activities i'm sure you wouldn't be so approving of...but that's a different matter.
If having role-models makes you happy, then that's good for you, ranting about other people needing them is pure tosh.
I know what Martin Luther got up to, and I am perfectly aware that everyone else is the same, everyone makes mistakes.
Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, doesn't mean he can't be respected for his stance on black rights, and current opinion on the AIDs crisis.
Other people have them, I think you are rare in your abject denial of your personal need for a role model.
Not really, none of my pals have role-models, i tend to find the ones who have role-models are either holier-than-thou types obsessed with leading a virtuous life of abstience or people very insecure about themselves.
I think we're very different people
indeed
Nowadays villages have become dormitory settlements. People barely know or talk to their neighbours. How many of you know all the people in your street?
Yes, working patterns have changed, so people living in a village mostly commute to work elsewhere instead of working in the same area, no longer seeing their neighbours at work. However if we all went to church together it would help us to get to know each other.
In the older close-knit communities everyone would have looked out for everyone else. If a kid stole from a shop, the shopkeeper could simply tell the parents. Now, he wouldn't know where to look.
The church, or whatever depending upon the religion, can provide a necessary centre for community. Whether having faith itself is necessary is a different argument, but certainly if most members of a set neighbourhood got together once a week, would there be better community spirit in general?
Obviously, man-hating lesbian dungarees wearers refusing to shave their pits! They are the cause of all our troubles.
Then why do people become nurses, firemen or police officers?
I'm not in the police for the money, and people will tell you I'm not in it for a power trip (I'm a CSO, I have hardly any power).
I do it because I like helping people out with stuff and I can hopefully be relied on in an emergency.
That is, as i understand it, the christian view, and could probably be applied to other faiths.
In christianity redemption is not earned through good works but through faith, therefore you must believe in and follow christ.
For Judaism you have to have been kosher, Islam probably has similar pre-requistits.