Search Results

I hear what you are saying... but again, if something is compromising the way of life of a country by morals etc.. it does become questionable that it should be entertained. In this circumstance, people aren't so much complaining about jobs being lost etc. It's about a value of rights of citizens of the country, whether they are immigrating or have had blood lines in the country for years. Islamic people that try to force their way of treatment of women on our women is a problem and we don't really have to force our countries to step back to how they are. Most European countries and the U.S. and Canada have been fighting for equality for some time. Why should we be forced to change backwards just because of 'respect for religion'? We get on Christians who have this stupid view that women should dress a certain way etc. I don't think we should ignore mistreatment of anyone and religion is -not an excuse- for abuse; especially to the citizens of a country, if some immigrants are just going to continue to allow it themselves.

I really have never minded immigrants coming to this country, so long as they are actually legal. The only time I get annoyed is if they are illegal but it's not just because they shouldn't be here... it's also because corporations are making easy money and if these people get hurt, it's tax payer money that takes care of them etc... not the people that let them come in and work for half wages. In other words, we all get screwed, including the illegal immigrant, because things weren't done right.

I have nothing against Muslims as a people, or anyone really, and can even respect how some are great contributors to society etc. I do have something against however, forcing cultural ideals on others just because you want to move to their neck of the woods. There is nothing wrong with bringing the positive things, as it can enlighten and broaden a culture and system.. I'm just not seeing why the more -serious- zealot sorts of Islamic followers are moving to countries that are not Islam, and doing some of the heinous things they are. Some say some reasons and they are actually not very pleasant to hear.

I think it's not needed and since staff cannot always go through every social group to monitor material, which some people have posted inappropriate pics and stuff in them now and then, normal members may catch at times what we miss. I am not sure I am for this because as has been suggested, technically if something is not meant for anyone's eyes but a select few, the option to multiple pm a group of members is the other option. Some social groups are also public so they want people to join and want them to see things, so this would possibly get in the way of that as well. Also, some groups are not that active, which members might want to see too and this would block them from that.

So, I guess I lean more to saying no as it's not really needed and impedes things for both members and staff in a way. If others want it though, I'm not -that- against it, however.

If I have to choose between the two I would say I would choose to be totally truthful over being a total liar.

Both can bring pain. I, a majority of the time, believe truth is dodged so much by people that feel they need to hear what is a lie to comfort them. I don't think people deserve that treatment and it babies them. I may now and then sugarcoat things, but most of the time I do not bother. I'd rather people hear the truth from me and even if sometimes they don't like it, most people appreciate it or they wouldn't hang out with me at all. I have people bugging me constantly so I guess it is a thing so people do actually do.

I cannot however say I do not now and then lie. Why? Because there are times when basically I feel that a situation can be dealt with and get someone to move without some traumatic experience if I do. I.e. if someone is in a building on fire and panics easy, I may tell the person the boss said he/she could have an early lunch so the person evacuates the building with little trouble. Yes, when the person gets outside and sees the other side of the building with smoke coming out, he/she is going to know it was a lie. Ah, well. I can live with the repercussions. The person is safe and sound.

Another lie.. Santa Claus. I find it fun to let kids believe in it until they are old enough where it's silly to. I do not feel it scarred me in any way and it felt like a right of passage in a way to learn that Santa was not real, but real in another way that adults were giving and gave me some imagination. I don't see it as particularly harmful in any way.

As I was growing up, sometimes to avoid talking about my family situation that sucked, I would make up things I did that were like other kids around so I was not so out of place. Nowadays, I really could care less what other people think of me so I grew out of that habit, but back then it gave me access to being more sociable and 'one of the crowd' because being in school meant that you had to be 'cool' or you were a loser, so I felt. My last couple years of school, I basically canned the idea as not being worth compromising myself because I didn't feel I should be so ashamed as to lie. Also, I started to break free of my mother's grip over me so I could actually make truths instead.

In the end, we all lie and some people do it a heck of a lot more than others. I can generally tell when someone is lying to me and can say often I overlook it unless they are being ridiculous and I'm just fed up with it and challenge them to answer why they are lying and do they think I'm that stupid. White lies don't bug me really, but when someone is dodging issues and it is actually harming them to do so, I feel I should say something so I can maybe help them out. Seeing as how I know for a while lying helped me cope with my reality at school, even if now and then the lies caught up with me, I do get why some people do it. I just can't really make myself bother with lies though unless it is to protect someone that I know is too fragile for the truth at a moment in time. I am just not wired that way I guess.

I don't really see a problem with cross-dressing. Women seem to cross-dress more often than men, but that's because if a man cross-dresses, it's seen as degrading for some reason or some men feel 'duped' which I find hilarious when it happens because maybe it would teach some men to stop hitting on anything with a skirt. I really could care less what someone wears as long as well, it's not streaking since that's sadly illegal.

Can't say I have really cross-dressed much because I find my guy clothes more comfy and cool to me, except one year I dressed as Carmen Sandiego for Halloween to crack up some friends, or sometimes I just do weird things to make friends laugh. Some people are too serious about these sorts of things and try to class everything. In the end, whatever someone feels comfortable in is what that person should wear. The people with problems over it usually seem to be rather petty to me, getting annoyed because they -need- a division of gender. To me it's the same as having to be forced to make a baby wear pink or blue based on gender. It's just not important.

There are 4 minarets and the Swiss are not removing them. As wrong as some of the campaigning may have been, I am not so sure I feel that I have a right to judge the Swiss on this decision.

The biggest reason is because whether people like it or not, in Europe especially, the Muslim spread has caused a lot of strife. Europeans have been catering laws to accept things of Muslim culture instead of Muslims trying to fit in with the democratic societies that they move to. They constantly rally to get things changed to raise up Islam and this hurts other people's freedoms and compromises other people's values. If you move to a country, shouldn't you try to -fit in to it- rather than mold it to fit your desires at the cost of other people's freedoms?

Crimes against women have been on the rise ever since Muslim people have been migrating like crazy to Europe and the U.S. etc in recent years. Not just the Muslim women in their own countries who go through genital mutilation, subordinate issues etc. I am talking about European women mainly who have been suckered into things by some Muslim men because they feel that any woman who is not a Muslim woman is automatically loose and promiscuous and not worth a thing. There has been a steady increase in violence to women since the migrations have taken place and there are several news articles, especially in Switzerland but also several other European countries where the assailants declared outright that the women were filth so they did nothing wrong.

I am not saying ALL Muslim men are like this, because they certainly are not. I am not saying ALL Muslims want to move to Europe and America and pervert the countries to become Islamic, because some ideally find it refreshing to have a plethora of different ideals floating around. However, there are some that do these things and it is weighing heavy on especially European countries right now. They feel pressured as these activists lobby, harm women, force people to make laws based on basic desires to have a freedom of religion, or lack of religion country. Freedom of religion is being -abused- by some people. It does not mean -freedom of religion at other people's expenses-.

So, in the end, because I have read a lot on this topic of how bad actually integration is going, and that I feel countries that stand for democracy and equality should not be compromised in such a fashion, nor should the protection and rights of women be challenged... I would say I think the Swiss have a right to vote as they will, though I am not sure I would have voted that way. If I had to choose between the rights of women and just treatment versus the rights of some religion, women are -people-. Religion is a belief some people have. A person to me will always win. Where a religion wins is when people are not being hurt by it, and then no one has a reason to say 'no minarets'.

Doing alright. Glad to hear things are going well for you. Miss ya.

Hey there stranger. xD How's it going?

Well, my parents never seem to approve of anyone I have brought home so in the end, I don't really tend to listen to them and just do my thing. My tastes are also different than theirs so I don't expect us to see eye to eye on it.

However, my close friends are a bit different as we are all in the same age group roughly. The gf I would date would be also around my friends and such and if they don't get along with her due to certain reasons, I would probably take that as a hint that we have little future together because I don't really believe that having a gf means tossing your friends out on their ears. I certainly don't expect a gf to do that for me. I think the ideal scenario lets you have your friends and your significant other and if they can't get along, I've had my friends for a longer period of time.. some since 8th grade. I will probably choose them over some girl I have known for less than a year, as the close friends I do have are not the type to get jealous and any time my friends have had an issue with a gf of mine, it's because she -is- the jealous sort that tries to push them out of my life, whether they are male or female.

My family is also racist.. despite the fact that I am half Native American and white. Go figure. However, they don't say much as one sister of mine married a Japanese man and the other sister had two kids from a black father and though they cannot stand him (because he really is an asshat), the kids are freaking adorable. They've become a lot more tolerant since that, though some things linger. In the end, unless the gf does something to affront my parents, I will probably not put too much stock into what they say about her as I know how demanding they can be on me, let alone anyone else I'd hang around.

I can say that I do not really like what I call 'twig girls'. I can't find a girl attractive that looks sickly thin to me and gaunt. It can be expected that some girls as teenagers are going to be pretty toothpick thin. However, women shouldn't be and it just looks like she's not eating healthy etc if she doesn't have some muscle tone and meat on her bones. Can't say I really care for a 'chubby' girl necessarily, but I do like a girl to look healthy and fit and if I had to choose between a chubby girl or a twig girl, I'd go with the chubby one. Twig girls just seem too weak to do much of anything.

It's rather pathetic that these pastors are doing such things but it is no surprise. Religious figures have prayed for people's demises and mocked burials of gays, soldiers, and leader figures from around the globe. Somehow they have figured out that it's just a fine innocent thing to make God do their dirty work and encourage happenings of great negativity. There's nothing in the end to do but roll your eyes and say it's another whack religious job. It once again reminds me why I am not religious and feel some sympathy for those who are that have to deal with the facts that some people out there abuse and would waste time praying on such nonsense instead of more positive things. Not that I believe prayer does an ounce of good, but these kinds of behaviors make nutsos that are zealots who will go rise to the occasion to attempt something stupid in the name of God. I do not wish these guys would just 'die' as they wish on another human being, but I do wish they could find something better to do like helping other people instead of harming.

I'm not sure why you feel 'guilty' instead of upset that you two are not working out because of a difference in religious viewpoint. Neither of you is doing anything 'wrong' in one sense. Sometimes we just find that someone we go out with is in the end, not the right person.

If you two do want to go out with one another, you have to both tolerate each other's religious viewpoints and look past them to see the other fine qualities you both have that brought you together. If you cannot do this, then perhaps it is time to say 'let's just be friends'. Neither of you can really expect the other person to change that much if your religion is very important to you and to him, religion means nothing. You are both going to feel forced and constrained to things unless you care about each other otherwise to deal with it.

In other words, he needs to accept you are going to now and then talk about Jesus and God, much to his dismay. You would have to accept that he's not going to go with you to church or want to hang around a group of people that want to worship God and Jesus when they are all talking about it and trying to convert him.

If this cannot be done, it means nothing against either of you. It just means that both of you have a strong sense in your beliefs and in this case, it inhibits you from being able to get closer than a friendship. There's nothing wrong with either of you. Just sometimes things don't work out according to plan. I would not feel guilty over it. Neither of you is doing something wrong or rotten to the other as in cheating or lying etc. You're both decent people. It sucks, but sometimes facing the fact early that you may not be suitable together in a relationship is better than dragging it on. I'd suggest that you both talk things out to tolerate each other's viewpoints more and if it cannot be done to either of your satisfactions, it's time to let each other go back to how you were before; being friends. I hope you feel better about things and good luck to you.

I'm pretty sure a woman going topless is frowned upon -not- because they are delicate and 'need protection'. Women probably don't always want to go topless because it can be uncomfortable etc, and if that was the main reason, there would be no law forbidding it. It would be up to the woman herself to decide that it's not what she wants to do. In the end, it stems back to a thing called 'people think men have no control', and some boys are raised under that concept which needs to die. As men in some countries do get raised to accept it publicly rather than staring like idiot buffoons, it can be legal in those places.

I had a serious debate publicly at my university with a zealot Christian guy who was speaking publicly to us in the hall about how women need to dress more appropriately so that men do not get ideas and that men who have problems with women in 'seductive' attire, if they need help coping, should turn to God to help them work it through. I told him that this mentality is basically trying in some way to say we men are stupid and have no control so it's an attempt at condoning rape. There are seriously men out there who believe women showing too much, even with breasts covered, makes them '****ty' and provocative. Women -commonly- do not 'rape' men, and a male having his shirt off in the 'right place' is not frowned upon because men have always been allowed to do so, and it's not seen as sexual.

The initial post does come out and say here that women do look at topless men who have well defined muscles etc and can be attracted to that. So, what is the problem with a topless woman? There are countries that have nude beaches where men and women roam around fine, not feeling threatened at all. There are people of countries where it is illegal to have nude beaches, that go to a nude beach and find their first exposure to it as awkward. I've gone to one and found the experience at first also to be awkward, but in the end, I came to find the experience liberating and I have no weird feelings about it anymore. The men and women that go to them frequently do have control and talk and interact the same as people who go to regular beaches where we're near to wearing nothing anyway. I can say that I recommend it as a way of getting over shyness and feelings of inadequacy xD.

Some men and women in America have issues even with a woman breast feeding in public as it is 'breast exposure'. When people worry about female babies under 2 running around topless, I think it's time to realize that we are instituting a wave of fear that is really ridiculous. We really do need to grow up some and catch up with European countries that are more free with nudity. Being nude does not have to equate with 'men have to hump it'. Seeing a topless woman, sure, males can be attracted (or lesbians can), but we also can have as much control as a woman that sees a hot guy's chest and admire and move on.

The problem though is as long as some boys are raised that it is inappropriate and that they -should- react to a topless woman as something to ogle and be 'amazed' at or worse, because we are supposed to be weak in the regards to the female body, we get nowhere. Things have been changing, albeit at times rather pathetically. Most court judges aren't going to listen to some defense lawyer saying 'the woman was wearing a super short skirt and a tube top and thus she gained the attention of my client and so he had a right to rape her'. I wish I could say we always would not listen to such a reason, but occasionally there are some idiot hicks who do. We have learned more about why people rape and have been studying the actual reasons and mentality behind it. We also have been shown that rapists go after women wearing -whatever- and so this theory that women's clothing matters is pretty foolish. Unfortunately, there are still men and women that solidly believe that rape happens for -purely- a lack of sexual control in men and that they need help and a preventive method is for a woman to be clothed in non-sexual attire. If I think a woman is hot, I have to say straight that she can be wearing nearly whatever and it's not just the clothes that make her attractive to me. Also, rape is more complex than just some man wants to get with some girl. It's not a crime of passion under most circumstances. It's also not a crime that just happens out of the blue. Some guy who has 'rape' on the brain is not just going to think it at some opportune time.

In the end, rape is an awful thing, and those who do so are just not fit to be in society. Rape can happen within families too, which why someone would want to do that is beyond me and it has nothing to do with what the woman or -kid- wears. I bring in 'kid' because there are enough rapists that have gone after minors that are not even close to being of age for sex. What's the excuse for that? We have to stop giving them excuses, which some even try to use for sympathy though it's untrue, and instead try to work on finding the actual reason why it happens so we can recognize that these people need some help prior to committing the act if possible. Most men, I believe, can deal with a woman being topless if we are raised to accept it early on and are not taught that women should not expose themselves in such a manner or we are expected to act like morons and be weak. Rape and molestation are done for more complex reasons than merely what some small minded people believe. I feel that if a woman wants to be topless in the similar scenes in which it is appropriate for a male to be topless, it should be up to her and not the law to decide. We aren't protecting women's interests or well being with the law. We're just continuing to allow old outdated thoughts to govern us.

Take care, Cody. Be well and good luck with things out there away from KHV.

If someone is totally drunk off their arse, yeah, it's rape. The person is not going to be in the right mind to make decisions and probably is going to naturally be sleepy and not so coherent. If the person is kinda tipsy and agrees to sex, well, people do that all the time.

Everyone should know by now that for men and women, drinking promotes a person to drop inhibitions they normally have up that would prevent them from doing some things. It has been used to relax people who are shy to converse with others, etc. It can be a good thing then to just sit around and have a couple drinks and chill. When people drink to access, usually they just are not in their right mind at all. They're slurring their speech, can't walk straight, seeing dizzy, etc. Why someone who is sober or relatively sober would want to have sex with either a guy or girl who is super inebriated is beyond me.

Men and women who have had drunken sex will not even be 'good' at it. They can't perform worth a thing. If both people are drunk however and decide to do it, I don't think you can really blame the man for it anymore than the woman. Both people will have a lack of control and judgment.

If one is sober, be it the male or female, I do think it's taking advantage of the other person; especially if the partners are not regular sex partners in the first place. The sober person knows that the other person is not going to be all there for -anything-, let alone sex. I can therefore consider in many circumstances that rape is the case. Especially, if under normal circumstances, the man or woman would not agree to the advances otherwise. I think it's also kind of important to mention, as a couple others said, that men can be taken advantage of too, if drunk out of their minds.

Yes, some people also mention that there's a responsibility we all should have when drinking, to know ourselves and how we will be. However, people do get motivated by others to drink more sometimes and as the drinks keep pouring in, it gets easier for some to forget control. People who seduce a person who is drunk when they aren't are simply most often trash. Yes, the person who is drunk should not have gotten in that state in an area where possible seduction versus their better judgment can happen, but a shark is a shark. When women have gotten super drunk at bars, I usually just try to get them home or make sure they can get home somehow. I've gotten drunk off my ass and know how stupid it pretty much was, in a public place to do.

In the end, yeah, maybe a person shouldn't be getting drunk off her ass, but at the same time, if a guy is sober and would take advantage of her state, he has no excuse, as he's the one that should be thinking clearly. Same goes if the person sober is a woman. If both are drunk, well, oops, hopefully after, both learn a lesson to consume less alcohol at occasions when they are around people they do not know and trust fully.

Because those people who give blood are generally still alive. >.>

The difference would be that organ donation saves lives. Cannibalism does not save lives, but under the most dire of circumstances where no other food can be obtained. xD

There are times when people assume they can get free money by suing which puts a ton of lawsuits out there which are plainly idiotic.

However, in the case with your grandmother, you should not worry about it and she's doing the right thing. There are quite a few places that are not as handicapped accessible as they should be, and there are accidents that happen because of it. These public places know better, to have steps repaired and such, because they can be harmful to -anyone-, not even just someone who is impaired. With someone who is elderly, the impact of falling can be very detrimental to their health, so your grandmother and family have every right to sue the place and expect them to cover medical costs and what that fall may have done to her. Also, to demand that repairs be made immediately.

I hope things work out for your family and have confidence that they are doing the right thing here.

If you do not agree with what the government is doing, by all means you should voice your opinion, write to a congressman, lobby or do something. This is a democracy, which was founded on the principles that 'we the people' have a voice in government and a responsibility to be a part of the government. It's supposed to be -ours-. That's the whole point of a democracy. It isn't perfect, but it's the best thing humans have come up with yet, as Pika said.

If you can question how a government process is going, say you don't like it and are adamantly against something, feel a law should be in place that is not, want a law from the 1800s abolished because it doesn't fit in society today, etc and not be penalized for responsible protests... If you actually live in a society that condones the right to free speech and being able to disapprove of how things go, you DO agree with the society. xD Tell her that one.

I love the wilderness.

Will she kill me or others instead? I would consider a person in a democracy to actually be more patriotic in a sense by questioning, participating and voicing things, than I would the person who is a totalitarian and just is willing to conform to what other people tell you is right. Totalitarians fit best in dictatorships where you can follow the word to the T or you could be threatened with imprisonment, expulsion or death.

By the rights of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, an American is being more of an American by knowing that we do have a responsibility to spot errors and misjudgments and to try to do what we can about it. In the end, she's in the wrong country if she expects that laws will be shaped to become so negative as she feels. However, she too is entitled to her opinions and that is the luxury of living in America, isn't it?

​

Not only in America, but in any location, there are people who make changes and inspire us, even throughout history. To not question your government is to let them run a muck and do as they please. When we allow for such a thing to happen, as a silencing of the masses, we give permission for the government to do as it pleases and there is no checks and balances. The very point of a democracy is the attempt to have a checks and balances system in place to lower corruption and to prevent the creation of a monarchy, a single-minded religious tyranny, a dictatorship, etc, where the -majority- of people have no say in what goes on and are expected to be mere followers for the good of the leadership...which helps keep that leadership in power, regardless of the atrocities it commits.

Yes, some people are hopeless whiners and that's all they do is mill around and spread conspiracy theories and bash the government. However, there are people out there who are movers and bring about great change because they become active over some issue they view as wrong. Some changes will be good, others will be not so good. To me, it is not a 'bashing of the government system' to say I disagree with certain policies and to attempt to do something about it. If anything, by what America is supposed to stand for, or any democracy for that matter, I am actually doing my civic duty as a citizen to do so and I am -supporting- the government system.

Though I disagree heavily with your friend's opinion, those who say you should not talk to her, I think they are being overly harsh. You certainly do not have to agree with this opinion of hers, but if she is a friend, I am sure you find other opinions of hers to be more agreeable with your nature. In time, she may even come to see things differently if she does continue to be your friend, if you did voice your own opinion that you do not follow the same train of thought on this issue. If she accepts your friendship still, it shows that though she's bent a certain way most people in a democracy would shun, she's still in some way accepting you as a friend despite your different viewpoints. That in itself shows perhaps she's not so beyond reach of expanding her horizons someday and seeing the bigger picture. However, if she stopped liking you because of your different views, then you'd know it's probably time to move on. People -can- be friends despite having alternate opinions about what's going on around them. To suddenly just drop a friendship over such a thing basically would say that you yourself would feel something so strongly against another person's thoughts that you no longer respect the person for other thoughts. There's another checks and balances people must do, besides doing so with government...which is checking yourself and ego.

Personally, I could never consider eating another human being unless I was in a situation such as what was listed initially as an example. I also have no reason to buy into the cultures that do cannibalism for religion etc. I find the act to be a thing that I would just not want to carry out but for the most dire circumstances of survival.

Having said that, I cannot truly say that if someone who died gave clearance for an act of cannibalism, that I could tell someone else he/she should not do so. To kill someone for cannibalistic acts to me is very wrong, but if someone is willing to let his or her body be used for it and someone else wants to eat it, as gross as I find the idea, it's what those people want to do. The problem though comes in to play that someone may be convinced to do allow such a thing under pressure and so I can see why laws would be in place to prevent allowing such a thing. However, since I believe that a body that has died is of no real importance but to those who will miss the person, I can't really just outward right say 'oh hell no' to some legitimate, non-pressured agreement.

Opinions are usually formed off something people believe to be a fact. It may be that the opinion simply is formed off other opinions that people try to pass off as facts, old outdated opinions that were once 'facts' because we were unknowing and humans filled in gaps with ideas that became 'facts', or off of half-facts, taking in basically what someone wants to without reading into the whole ideal, and lastly off of observation, such as noting what a select group of people do so all who are associated with that group in some way also must be that way too. Opinions make things subjective and seldom is an opinion going to not be skewed in some manner or another.

People who basically can -change- their opinions due to having open minds and study the world around them earnestly are usually easier for me to understand and converse with. However, even saying that, no one seems to be devoid of unwavering opinions, including myself, and I often try to ensure I have thought of the facts and where my actual source material comes from for such a core belief. It's always good to me to check yourself and that you do not just feel the way you do because of a bias.

i.e. the old example of: The Holocaust never happened.
There are people out there that believe millions of people did not die in pograms, town and city massacres and in concentration camps. The problem was not 'so bad' despite the fact we have pictures galore of burial sites, the actual acts of the Einsatzgruppen SS in locations, doing 'sardine' sorts of packing of bodies, concentration camp photos, records that are very detailed indicating why someone was killed, records of why people were evicted from homes, records of people hiding in terror or others covering and trying to aid people to leave an area. The physical evidence seems rather overwhelming to me and yet I've had this debate with a few people and it has simply astounded me that they, with no real tangible credibility on their side, can say 'it simply didn't transpire no matter what you say'.

Opinions are important in one sense, that they are clues about a person's thought processes occasionally. People are entitled to their opinions, despite how much it may make others frustrated when having to deal with those opinions that are sorely outdated or just outright wrong. Yes, opinions -can- be wrong. An opinion is a thought. I.e. someone can be prejudiced against a race, gender, sexual preference, etc, and say so. What makes the opinion not worthy is when someone chooses to be a ****** and act on it, or they are argumentative with no supporting real proof, to the point of near hostility. This is what separates a fundamentalist, a zealot, an activist, etc from others that just feel a certain way. Do I wish that people would stop having outdated or harmful opinions? Sure. But I'm not the thought police and no one really should be unless you do have to do something like 'denazification' to a mass group because they are harmful to humanity. In the end, to be prejudiced means you are making a full choice opinion based on little if any fact. Everyone in some manner has a prejudice. ..

Which brings me to the conclusion that opinions are also not as important as some people like to think they are. Some people grip onto opinions because they believe these things make a person who he or she is or they would be ostracized from a social group or feel empty without them. They become identifiers to the person in such a way that you can dislike someone for them and lose interest in delving deeper to comprehending what the person truly is like in other facets. I think it is always a good idea to check yourself so you don't become too arrogant and 'opinionated'. Being as open-minded as one can be and learning, continuing to read and write, developing and keeping the mind honed...these are important to me. So is having the grace to admit you are mistaken when confronted with enough evidence. As we are sentient, we do not have a time in our lives when we -need- to stop learning. So opinions aren't bad, but they aren't also the greatest things out there to be considered sacred. I think people should be able to talk and debate over various topics to expand our minds and nothing should be considered too taboo to do so. It is only with testing opinions that a person realizes whether they are good to keep around or not. Some people may take stances on issues I will not like, but in the end, it does not mean that I should not like the person because guaranteed a majority of the time, I will find other issues we do agree on. Lastly, a person does -not- have to respect an opinion in order to respect a person. That's my two cents anyway.