FWIS3

When I joined this board, my morals/ethics were such that I would have cheered the idea of someone killing Zimmerman to "get him back" for what he did. Now, I think that would be a horrible idea.

By the same token, I would be understanding if one of Trayvon's parents killed Zimmerman. I would even hope that they could do it without anyone knowing it was them and get away with it.

But there's a part of me that isn't quite sure about that desire.

Why am I writing all this? Because it's fascinating to me that I still question and change my morals at 40+, and I know so many people who do not. I'm really happy living in the gray and not having "all the answers".

Does this make any sense to anyone?

Umm, hell yes!

(It figures though, I'm still stitching my worldview together.)

I don't think my ethics have changed so much as my ability to see different points of view. When I was younger, I saw less, thought less.

Funny, when I look at my parents I feel they've definitely become less broad-minded in their views. They've got about 20 years on you though, and doubt you'll ever watch even a fraction of how much Fox News they watch.

Rommie wrote:Funny, when I look at my parents I feel they've definitely become less broad-minded in their views. They've got about 20 years on you though, and doubt you'll ever watch even a fraction of how much Fox News they watch.

Nope. I did all my Fox News watching as a teenager. The only time I watch it now is when my car is in the shop and I get trapped in the waiting room.

I hate Fox news.
It should be illegal to call a propaganda outlet a news service.
if I could make one change in the USA it would be that to call your outlet a news service you would need to show as much impartiality as possible.
News, not opinions.
Facts, not unverified speculation.
Call yourself whatever you want but not a news service.

FZR1KG wrote:I hate Fox news.
It should be illegal to call a propaganda outlet a news service.
if I could make one change in the USA it would be that to call your outlet a news service you would need to show as much impartiality as possible.
News, not opinions.
Facts, not unverified speculation.
Call yourself whatever you want but not a news service.

I agree with you 100%. I have a local NBC station with an anchor who belongs (according to his opinons) on Fox News. I will not watch their telecast during the times that he is on. I think he is related to a so-called minister (with the same last name) who believes God thinks slavery is just fine as long as non-Christians are the slaves to Christians.

OldCM wrote:

FZR1KG wrote:I hate Fox news.
It should be illegal to call a propaganda outlet a news service.
if I could make one change in the USA it would be that to call your outlet a news service you would need to show as much impartiality as possible.
News, not opinions.
Facts, not unverified speculation.
Call yourself whatever you want but not a news service.

I agree with you 100%. I have a local NBC station with an anchor who belongs (according to his opinons) on Fox News. I will not watch their telecast during the times that he is on. I think he is related to a so-called minister (with the same last name) who believes God thinks slavery is just fine as long as non-Christians are the slaves to Christians.

How would that even work? Do you get freed as soon as you get "saved"? 'Cause I'd be happy to lie. I have ethics, but I also have survival instincts.

Rommie wrote:Funny, when I look at my parents I feel they've definitely become less broad-minded in their views. They've got about 20 years on you though, and doubt you'll ever watch even a fraction of how much Fox News they watch.

This is one of the reasons I love the Internet, and in particular, FWIS. I constantly get my worldview challenged, and some of my beliefs are proven, while others get refined into something better.

SciFi Chick wrote:How would that even work? Do you get freed as soon as you get "saved"? 'Cause I'd be happy to lie. I have ethics, but I also have survival instincts.

I haven't a clue how they think that would work. They probably think that the only "saved" are the members of their church. Just guessing, though.

geonuc wrote:I don't think my ethics have changed so much as my ability to see different points of view. When I was younger, I saw less, thought less.

^^^This^^^

My views were always awesome. Even when they weren't.

SciFi Chick wrote:

Rommie wrote:Funny, when I look at my parents I feel they've definitely become less broad-minded in their views. They've got about 20 years on you though, and doubt you'll ever watch even a fraction of how much Fox News they watch.

This is one of the reasons I love the Internet, and in particular, FWIS. I constantly get my worldview challenged, and some of my beliefs are proven, while others get refined into something better.

I agree- much as some of my friends like to jokingly complain it's annoying how one no longer needs to argue facts over drinks at a pub anymore, it really is amazing that you can always just go and get information on issues even when you don't see it on TV.

See the interesting thing is my dad once told me that the reason he watches all that stuff is it used to be you needed to read the major weekly news magazines (ie Life, Newsweek, etc) to know what's going on and what people are thinking but these days that "important dialogue" happens on talk TV news shows. I really disagree and think if you want to know you should head to the Internet and find a news aggregate or forum or what not... he dismissed it because "anyone can say what they want on the Internet!" I countered the exact same with cable TV, he kinda got mad and clearly thought I was getting disrespectful or something.

See, the really interesting part of that is that there's a generational divide - younger people favour the internet, and older people favour traditional media. Which means that if you only get your news and opinion from one, you're missing out on a huge segment of the population. And because younger people tend to skew socially liberal, and older people tend to skew socially conservative... well. Recipe for disaster.

So at 48 I'm a young person?

"Tend to skew."

So now I'm skewed?
You got a problem with me?

The Supreme Canuck wrote:"Tend to skew."

Wrong answer! The correct answer is, "Yes. You are a young person."