Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

Valid or Not: The Real Political Opinion

I could definitely be wrong...

In the end, I figured that people take a number of stances on a number of things and a variety of factors can lead to them sticking with them or changing up, but underneath I think the real political point everyone really endorses is survival.

Different people have different methods of survival. Some hoard against loss. Some want to defend what they have. Some people want to band up while others prefer to be loners. Some trust too little and some trust too much. There is a variety of ways this can manifest, but I think it is the survival of not only the individual, but of things like groups, organizations, cultures, legacies, ideals, and the like that form this great tangle of interests that underlie all political struggles.

It's a simple argument. Some people say things that are too simple are bound to be false while others say things that are too complex should be much more simple. I don't know. I get the feeling this great cacophony, at it's roots, has simple origins.

Comments

The real political opinion always changes that is why I sense philosophers and others have tried in a way to think how the world reasons on the level of the government but failed on the fundamental level of the images of people. I get that, for example, they can't predict history but they try to in a way and have always been connected to the government since Aristotle. It makes little sense, to hire politicians though. I think while Aristotle was ahead of his time. The constitution of any country has made it difficult to adapt like a human or animal to life circumstances. Such as global warming. A future where people who specialize in academic careers should be the norm and people who make policies and law and have power (education a tenet or belief of aristotle's contributions I believe). It is a terrible thought to think that being put in hands of people who know little and have to consult others is counterproductive. I wish people would seperate images from people, such as race, ethnic, and other things. Images have caused trouble in this world since communication is visual. It should be more participatory. That is everyone gets a chance to say something on what happens and not what they saw. It has evolved into a dangerous animal that sees but does not hear. One that should not be let loose. Have people phoning in on tv stations and parts of government is how the world was supposed to be before (public forums before newspapers). And there were more values too. Since the Victorian ages, values have plummeted, that is society is on its next great disaster like the great depression was in time. And the world wars. And the united nations don't pay importance to it enough. It's these loop holes in policies they should fix. Cognitive dissonance does a great harm. In effect, the image of race affects voters and gender. They should be inventive. Why not create safer policies to help people understand the world's problems and change opinions which haven't changed much on prejudice? Where I come from the media brainwashes the voting population. They out to involve people so they do not project false images of themselves of them and others. It's a psychology concept that you copy bad examples without knowing. Freedom of speech is something valuable, but not when there's not the positive sort of freedom of speech that encourages the lack of the real world. That is all. I hope countries with a good leadership position could encourage that sort of feeling. Instead of a group of lazy thinking people. I wish for example my opinions were heard by my own government. It's like different degrees of numbness and it never leads anywhere. Dividing political parties is a mathematical thing for voting, but if you don't directly address and so partisan on all issues you create a great divide between majority and minority. Which is sadly the case here. I think this overrides the argument of manifest destiny or one ruling power because of reasons of being supposedly being a superior person. Government involves teamwork. Voters who vote for the right reasons and not loyalty. Not division and maybe the failing of capitlism is in its voting system. Not its economic policies, which I understand has its virtues.
 
Moronic jackholes (yes, on BOTH SIDES) keep stoking the fires. Which fires? Those imaginary fires that the other side wants to destroy them.
A TINY group of idiots want to cause harm and chaos. Everyone else just wants to live, and be left alone. They want to get by, and survive.

The average person today is in no real danger. There is no global Zionist banker conspiracy. And a bunch of uneducated hicks with torches are only a danger to themselves.
Yet, you'd think we were on the verge of another civil war. There's a few folks that make a nice living perpetrating those lies.

So yeah, it is survival. We're all just trying to pay bills and raise our families. Just remember, when you hit a snag, it's not the fault of some boogeyman. Stuff happens. Grow up, suck it up, and move on. THAT's survival.
 
Winston;bt10384 said:
Moronic jackholes (yes, on BOTH SIDES) keep stoking the fires. Which fires? Those imaginary fires that the other side wants to destroy them.
A TINY group of idiots want to cause harm and chaos. Everyone else just wants to live, and be left alone. They want to get by, and survive.

The average person today is in no real danger. There is no global Zionist banker conspiracy. And a bunch of uneducated hicks with torches are only a danger to themselves.
Yet, you'd think we were on the verge of another civil war. There's a few folks that make a nice living perpetrating those lies.

So yeah, it is survival. We're all just trying to pay bills and raise our families. Just remember, when you hit a snag, it's not the fault of some boogeyman. Stuff happens. Grow up, suck it up, and move on. THAT's survival.

I know what you mean here, I think, but I wouldn't agree totally. Some things people have no control over. A city doesn't take adquate measures to assure protection against storm surges and many people can suffer for it. A company or food industry decides to pass off funny meat as good to cut costs and many people can suffer for it. In those cases it is the fault of someone else.
 
kaminoshiyo;bt10387 said:
I know what you mean here, I think, but I wouldn't agree totally. Some things people have no control over. A city doesn't take adquate measures to assure protection against storm surges and many people can suffer for it. A company or food industry decides to pass off funny meat as good to cut costs and many people can suffer for it. In those cases it is the fault of someone else.

Those are negligent acts and crimes.

What isn't a crime is believing something different. Unpopular. Or even espousing evil.
We punish actions, not beliefs. What someone thinks does not affect you, nor anyone. And criminalizing folks for what they think is true fascism.
Blaming others for your misfortunes is a slippery slope to torches and pitchforks.
 
Winston;bt10390 said:
Those are negligent acts and crimes.

What isn't a crime is believing something different. Unpopular. Or even espousing evil.
We punish actions, not beliefs. What someone thinks does not affect you, nor anyone. And criminalizing folks for what they think is true fascism.
Blaming others for your misfortunes is a slippery slope to torches and pitchforks.

Well...that's where I disagree. I get that we believe it's wrong to punish people for their thoughts, but name one crime that didn't begin with a thought? There may be some incidences, but not many, right. Now name the biggest crimes in history. The biggest human violations. These things are ofteen egregious and aggressively unlawful, and that's the problem. These things began with bad ideas. At first people will say their just ideas and people have a right to believe in what they want to believe in, but when too many people start to believe in them and they start getting more and more aggressive about it, what then? You try to rationalize, but they don't hear. You try to educate, but they start killing teachers and such. Maybe the police will help, but most of the police are in on it by now and those who aren't are too afraid to act against their own. Soon your notion of what you can and can't do gets changed by people who don't care what you think.

To say that ideas don't hurt people is kinda like broken logic. It sounds logical on paper, but in practicality it is very foolish to believe. It probably comes from the notion that your definition of "crime", or "right" will remain in practice no matter how empassioned people become with an idea. Naive. You raise your kids well on good ideas, because bad ones can lead to alot of problems.

I understand your argument though, but that's just one more hole in the logic that runs the land.
 

Blog entry information

Author
kaminoshiyo
Views
60
Comments
5
Last update

More entries in Creative Writing 101

Top