Since my last post I have suspected people in this forum to have been offended by what I wrote.
I dont know if this is true or not, but if it is, it´s clearly disappointing. (Like being at a party expressing unpopular political views, and then finding yourself alone all evening).
I know patriotism is a big thing in your country, and 9/11 made it stronger.
But I think in a free debate on any topic, all views should be respected and considered.
If not, it´s not really a free debate.
Or maybe it´s like when we were kids, and you pick on your sister, and it´s ok, but if someone else does (foreigner), you are gonna kick their edit.
But I think the US promotes itself in the world today in such a way, that it must stand for all criticism, even if they have experienced a 9/11.
A superpower, that preaches freedom and democracy for all, must be free themselves, otherwise it has no meaning, and is hypocritical.



Edited to remove attempt at bypassing profanity filter. - Jaime

Hi Worried Dane. I'm not sure what your specific concern is, but I can assure you that we Americans here at are not all a bunch of clones. Obviously, some of us are going to be more 'open minded' than others. None of us, American or otherwise, will think alike on all issues.

Just because a topic doesn't garner much interest or responses, doesn't mean that members here are personally rejecting you or passing judgment on you. I can't tell you how many topics I've started around here that went completely ignored. Sure it sucks to be ignored, but I wouldn't take offense. A lot of people merely look at the latest posts. If your topic isn't in there, many people will never even see it. There's not much we can do to change people's viewing habits here.

Does that clarify?

Well, I'm Danish also and I don't agree with much of what you've written on AD at all.
Does that mean Denmark is hypocritical?

I'm not sure how to interpret it, but I seem to detect a trend that topics generating emotional hysteria get more response than more intellectually oriented topics. Included in this "batch" would be anything involving homosexuality -marriage or in the military, child molestation or something that might change the social fabric of the good ol' U.S.A. It is not that these areas are totally unimportant, but that they garner obsessive attention at the expense of equally important topics.

It's sort of like how the media does overkill on irrelevant minutiae. Anna Nicole Smith's probate problems are a prime example.

http://info.detnews.com/wrightoon/details.cfm?id=772

Note: I also posted this on the joke thread. Humor does make a serious point at times. There just must be something in the air that's causing it - we might call it "emotional warming" - an occurrence that threatens to melt intellectual glaciers.

There, now you have it, an admitted "elitist’s" take.

nah, it just means that they're are as many varieties of Danes as there are of Danish cheese. (You do have more than one variety, right? )



ahh, see, here's where you and I disagree, and in truth, pretty much everybody on this board disagrees with your sentiment. Not all views should be respected. If someone came on here and advocated child molestation, nobody would "respect" that view. To respect such a view is to give it equal weight, and while its easy to see the foolishness in such an extreme case, the principle holds true throughout. If I think I'm right about something, I'm not going to give a view that differs from mine as much respect as I'll give a view that agrees with mine. If I do, then I lack the courage of my convictions. My gut sense is that you don't give views you disagree with the same respect you give views you agree with either.

Now, the matter that you allude to in your "alone at a party" reference is a valid one, because it points to another concern. Is the person putting forth the view being treated with respect? That's a whole 'nudder ball of wax, and I think that overall, folks here at give a pretty good accounting of themselves in this regard. Not, mind you, perfect, but pretty good. Do not make the mistake of confusing disagreement with your position with disrespect for you.

It is best to accord others the same respect you desire. If you think it is not disrespectul for you to disagree with someone else's viewpoint, then do not attempt to play the "you're not respecting my views" card when they disagree with you.

I think you are correct as an overall observation about Americans, as far as people on this board, I just don't know. "I was wrong" is a phrase heard all too seldom in this country today, and its scope is not limited to political discourse. Add to that the incompetent buffoon we have as a head of state, that refuses to admit any wrong and the general populous sees the green light to take a stand, and the facts be damned, never admit error. Quite to the contrary, go on the offensive and find the errors of all others around you and use them as a smokescreen to shield yourself from blame.

I'm with Moif here, America's Debate does not claim to represent America as a whole and hypocrisy here does not equal American hypocrisy in general. The original complaint is a generalization.

CP

Come on my fellow country man, if you have a leader of your country (GWB), who openly proclaim es; "either you are with us or against us", and more or less legalize torture, does n´t that imply nationalism and patriotism gone over it´s borders?
Should n´t we always be on the lookout for tendencies like this? Given history?

Unfortunately GW Bush does not post on and no one here can be held accountable for anything GW Bush has said.

Yes we should be on the alert for extremist nationalism, but that has nothing to do with any one posting here on where the moderation is swift and fair.

You seem to making an argument that because GW Bush is to your disliking, then every one here at ought to respect and consider your posts. My advice to you then is if you want respect and consideration, don't make generalized arguments.

Give respect and consideration and you will reap the reward.

Of course, you underestimate the fact that emotions is what makes us act in most cases, not the intellect. Were it only so
Besides I would like to make a confession regarding this post; I hold prejudice against the US. But I insure you I had noblest intentions with coming here, namely to rid myself of them. I don´t like holding prejudice against any people, but I can´t help it. My apologies, I´m truly sorry. And I think it´s every persons finest task in life to rid oneself from prejudice. Maybe finding some people with whom I could agree, and then go "ah, they are just like me", or just discover the diversity of the people in the US.
Last fall I went with my dad to NY for a week, a "son and dad thing", (+ my dad used to live there with my mom when they were young, and wanted to see the place again before he dies), and I hoped this visit would jerk my views on Americans.
But I guess one week in one place just isn't enough, I think I must make a cross-country tour of the Americas, and meet up with a lot of people, to kill my resentment. I am sure that will work.
Your media certainly isn´t doing the job. Judging solely from US movies and TV, all Americans ARE alike, I have seen it myself in countless of hours of watching.
As for this forum, well maybe I´ll just have to stick around for a longer time, for it to work, and be more patient. , that is if I´m not kicked out....

Well, I don't know what specific characteristics you have found that makes us so similar, but I can point to this study to illustrate how the 80's "ME" generation mindset sure did take hold and is still running strong. American society has become very dog-eat-dog, very hostile to criticism, not willing to take responsibility, highly polarized and calously self serving.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17349066/

Worried Dane:

Maybe it would be easier to take criticism if you had something good to say also. That's your problem, as we rarely hear some speak good of America, only bad. I suspect the one video that asks one and all to speculate on the world condition in our absence is designed to get some to understand that maybe some good things should be thought and said as well. You must otherwise not be a Christian, since that "with us or against us" was, in the case of my Lord, "with me or against me". I'm not equating my Lord and Dubya, but it's not like what they said was or is anything new to the human ear. I don't otherwise think that Dubya was saying that you had to agree with everything single thing that we do, but only the broad outline. The other problem you have is that it appears to some, me, that your criticism is rather selective. Fine, we've "tortured" people. But some others are far better and far more frequent in that regard than us, and so if you really care about eliminating torture, then why no criticism for them? What message gets sent when you don't criticize the others? That you are a principled no-torture human, or that you just don't like America? AI, HRW and some others have a related problem, since while they criticize all, they seem to morally equate all, and there's a difference between limited "torture" and systemic "torture", i.e., we "torture" some select souls who we believe are the proud possessors of certain valuable infomation, while some others "torture" to stifle dissent and maintain their rule. Both might be wrong, but one certainly seems worse than the other to me. I would lastly simply suggest that you keep all this in mind [as opposed to letting any worry run amok].

Now, re your specific "prejucide", how so? What is it that you don't like? Just the "torture"? Can't be from what you said in your last, so what then? I ask because you might actually find some Americans in agreement with you on certain points. We otherwise aren't speaking here in the US of "culture war" for nothing. Some would like to say that it only has to do with homosexuality, gay marriage or homosexuality, etc., but my considered opinion is that the value of a life in America has become cheaper owing to a declining respect for person. So if that's your complaint, then please know that we are treating each other in the same manner as well, so we're equal opportunity disrespecters of person [as it were], and some here aren't happy with that [which is not to say that I would agree with you re the totality of our interrogation practices, since I don't]. But I'll be waiting for your 500 word essay on why you don't like America and Americans.


Charged Dust:

Re the narcissism of it all, well, I haven't looked upon the water of that reflecting pool so that I might admire my own beauty, so maybe I'm not Narcissus? And that "I can do what I want", well, depending on just what one wants, then we call either out or safe at home, so that phrase is ambiguous, I mean, I can do what I want, as I am free in Christ, but that ought not to pose any danger or harm to you. So don't some need to know what I want before they can interpret what I mean when I say that "I can do what I want"? And re that "very well-off financially", yeah, why not, I mean, when I'm in that baranguay with an empty belly, raw sewage is running through the "street", and you're not helping... So even that statement needs to be qualified, since maybe I don't want to step on some of you on my way up, maybe I simply wish to be very well-off financially so that I can help some others and won't have to worry about whether, come my time of need, you'll be there to help? So, might I ask if these souls doing the testing actually went out into the field and monitored their test subjects to see if their actual lives correlate with the interpretation of their NPI scores? I didn't think so.

Lastly, I found this rather intriguing, and disgusting, from some headshrinker [vision here of headhunting cannibals in New Guinea] who claims to have overcome a narcissist during her own divorce:

"Control of the child is a primary goal of a narcissist in a divorce, even when this is not in the child's best interest. Custody battles are vicious, emotionally draining, and the hallmark of the personality disordered who knows how to control the emotions of the mother/child bond.

Father's rights groups are springing up all over with attorneys running them for profit and revenge. They are teaching fathers how to use the legal system as a battering ram to overcome unsuspecting, naive mothers. Women are reluctant to take a proactive stance and are constantly on the defensive. This is a perfect avenue for narcissists and others to take control and bully. Women's lawyers too encourage women to keep quiet and be good. They do not like to represent a woman in a vicious custody battle. Here are several links to different types of custody issues and situations with abusers."

Of course, she fails to say that the battering ram crushed the other way for a while, I mean, it wasn't so long ago that it was presumed that a child of "tender years" was best left in the custody of her/his mother and so a man didn't have to merely prove "better" but that mom was "unfit".

Sorry, I lied, one more. I simply cannot count the number of times that I've read on that Ex Parte Petition For A Temporary Restraining Order For Protection And Statement, under the heading, "Other Reasons" [or somethign like that], "he said I was worthless." Sounds heartless but, judge, she may be, and sorry that he didn't say, "you're special, unique, and need be treated better than all other humans." To be fair, I've no doubt that some men did rather unfairly call the gal worthless, but still, in any number of cases, when the facts came to light, my thought was, yes, she is worthless, at least when it comes being your more intimate partner, but I digress...oh, sorry, and yes, in any number of cases, he too was worthless. Nothing serves to test your faith in our humanity quite like the Family Court. Well, maybe those working the criminal court will object.