# The concept of "open minded"



## mrhnau (Jun 10, 2008)

I received a ping the other day for being "very close minded". I don't mind pings, but it reminded me of one of my huge peg peeves. The concept of being "open minded".

It seems lately these days that "closed minded" seems to imply "you don't agree with me", and its been implied to be a negative. The complement, being "open minded" seems to be praised and exalted as the zenith of moral and social awareness. Having an opinion about a topic and not wanting to change or accept it has become the enemy, especially if your views are "traditional" or have a more rigid moral code than "us/me".

Should we indeed exalt these noble "accepting and understanding" figures and isolate those people capable of forming an opinion? Must being "closed minded" imply the rejection of people rather than the rejection of their life choices?  Is it indeed close minded to condemn those individuals that are close minded? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Even the most amoral person holds judgment about some issues, so is that indeed still being open minded? Or is it only acceptable to be open minded about the correct moral content?

When faced with a moral question, of course I will consider it, often from many angles, then I will form my opinion.  Chances are it won't be changed, barring extraordinary evidence. I tend not to be swayed by polls and social trends too much unless they actually make sense. Does that make me close minded? If so, I'll happily wear that mantle...

People are allowed to make their choices as well as state their opinions. However, I also hold that same right, permitting the proper medium asian: Bob)


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 10, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> I received a ping the other day for being "very close minded". I don't mind pings, but it reminded me of one of my huge peg peeves. The concept of being "open minded".
> 
> It seems lately these days that "closed minded" seems to imply "you don't agree with me", and its been implied to be a negative. The complement, being "open minded" seems to be praised and exalted as the zenith of moral and social awareness. Having an opinion about a topic and not wanting to change or accept it has become the enemy, especially if your views are "traditional" or have a more rigid moral code than "us/me".
> 
> ...




One can disagree and even have an argument. (* Look it up one might be surprised at what it means *) The point is that both sides need to acknowledge the fact that the other side has a point, even if one decides to disagree. If you express why one has the opinion and you recognize that another opinion than yours is possible then it can be a discourse or argument. If one of neither side acknowledges the other side than there is no point in the discourse. To acknowledge a point does mean one has to agree with it nor support it. It does mean you recognize that there can be different opinions than yours. 

I like steak well done or no pink. Many people think I am crazy and I ruin the flavor of the meat. One can still have flavor and have it not be pink, it just requires skill to cook. Now, for me it is how my stomach digests the meat, and well done and leaner is better for me. But, I recognize that many others have a different take on this and have no problems with someone eating rare in front of me. I support their choice of eating for themselves. But when asked what I prefer I tell them.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 10, 2008)

Some people are TOO open minded. All ideas are NOT ok. Child molestation, rape, murder, theft, etc, etc, may be fun for some people, should we be open minded and accept that? Of course not. Sadly, some do.


----------



## morph4me (Jun 11, 2008)

I have to agree with Rich,  closed minded isn't the rejection of an idea and acceptance of a person, it's the unwillingness or inability to accept that the other persons point of view lacks validity. You can totally disagree with a persons choices, lifestyle, or whatever, and still accept that their opinions and choices are just as valid as your own.


----------



## Grenadier (Jun 11, 2008)

People have a right to choose.  They have a right to disagree with each other as well.  As long as someone isn't breaking the law, then they should have the right to do as they please.  

I sometimes wonder about the people who start screaming at others just because they don't respect someone's choice of lifestyle.  Yet, by not allowing someone to believe as he wants to believe, is this not akin to the pot calling the kettle "black?"  The knife cuts both ways...

I may not like your choices, or what comes out of your mouth, but as long as it's within the law, I will fight for your right to do so.  

I posted something similar to this in another forum, and it bears worth repeating here.  

I was reading an old Captain America comic book, where the bad guy who had telepathic powers, asked Cap what his beliefs were towards prejudice and hatred of mutants.  Cap says that it's the people's choice to be who they want to be.  What they DO is their responsibility, though.  

So, the bad guy uses his telepathic powers to cleanse Cap's mind of any possible hatred of mutants, and then asks the same question.  Cap surprises him by saying "I still believe that someone has the right to choose, even if he is a racist!"  

We could learn a lot from Captain America, even if he is just a comic book hero.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2008)

All points of view are not equal.


----------



## jkembry (Jun 11, 2008)

This is just me kinda thinking outloud...but to me an 'open mind' is one that is willing to listen to many points of view...from the good, bad and indifferent and then making appropriate decisions on each.  Yes some idea are bad as indicated above...child abuse...etc.  But none the less are ideas.  If action is taken on ideas and opinion then one must also be willing to accept the responsibility and consequences of those actions.

- Jeff -


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

I listen to anything, then i put it in to a slot.

1. I agree
2. i dont agree, but I can see why they think that
3. something to think about
4. Utter crap

to end up in cat. 4, something has to lack a factual basis. Sorry, if it isnt based on FACT, i am not gonna accept it as valid. Things that are purely "opinion" go into either 2 or 3

I consider myself very open minded, because I think things through before I accept them or dismiss them.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 11, 2008)

To echo Rich and morph, being open minded doesn't mean someone doesn't have an opinion, it means that one can accept they might not see the whole picture or happily own one's own opinion without damning a person with an opposing or different opinion. 

If the open minded point out you're closed-minded does that automatically mean judgment? Because I see judgmentalism as different from closed-mindedness.  Perhaps we're really talking about the difference between being decidedly _opinionated_ and _judgmental_.  

Open-minded people do not automatically accept child molesters or rapists - that's a horrible and incorrect comparison.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 11, 2008)

&#8220;I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.&#8221; 
-Harold T. Stone


----------



## zDom (Jun 11, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Open-minded people do not automatically accept child molesters or rapists - that's a horrible and incorrect comparison.



I agree. At a certain point, you just have to take the Karl "Slingblade" Childers stance:

"Don't you say another word about that boy. Fact'o business, don't you say another word to me. I ain't listening to you no more."


Mmmmm-hmmmm 


One of the most disturbing pieces of fiction I read was "Red Dragon." It is dangerous to be led toward empathizing with a character like Francis Dolarhyde, to be lured into following his thought processes.

I imagine it must be even more dangerous to WRITE a character like that ...

"As a man thinketh in his heart so is he..." (Proverbs 23:7)


----------



## thardey (Jun 11, 2008)

One of the things that helped me a lot in this area, was when I began to understand the nature of a person's World View.

Depending on the context of the conversation, the specific definition of a worldview can change, but for me, it's basically this:

Certain ideas are established as a foundation. (Sometimes called _a priori beliefs) _
Certain Facts are introduced.
These facts are interpreted through those foundational ideas, and a conclusion, or argument is concluded.

If someone has a different worldview than I do, then I have to understand and accept that they will interpret these facts differently. As long as their conclusions aren't contradictory to the foundation of their worldview, there's not much I can say, other than "I don't agree with the framework, but the logic does work."

I think of this as "Open Minded".

If, however their logic contradicts their worldview, or if they begin mixing incompatible worldviews to make a point, then I call "Bull." The logic of the argument fails, and I reject it as false.

Religious worldviews are different that social/political worldviews, but it doesn't take long (if you're actually listening) to determine what someone's _a priori beliefs_ are. They usually pop up. At that point, arguing _a priori beliefs_ are pointless, because no one's been able to come up with an unbiased method of testing those beliefs. There's no common ground to argue them from. 

Some people can't tell the difference, and if you don't accept their _a priori beliefs_ then you're called "Closed Minded." This would be false.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 11, 2008)

Couldn't have put it better myself, *Thardey* :tup:.

To be open-minded, in the sense that I think we're discussing here, is to retain the critical facility to assess the information that comes to you.  

If the information contradicts what you think you already know about the world, then you can further analyse both the background to the new datum and also re-examine your current view to see where the contradiction occurs.  

If it turns out that the new information carries a more accurate view, then the open-minded person will change their stated opinions accordingly wheras the closed-minded person will maintain their previous stance.

A blunter way of phrasing it is that the open-mind learns whilst the closed one ossifies.  

Sadly, it would appear that natural selection has not been very effective at weeding out the closed-minded - I blame advancing technology and medicine which preserve them from the consequences of their general failure to adapt and learn .


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 11, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> I received a ping the other day for being "very close minded". I don't mind pings, but it reminded me of one of my huge peg peeves. The concept of being "open minded".
> 
> It seems lately these days that "closed minded" seems to imply "you don't agree with me", and its been implied to be a negative. The complement, being "open minded" seems to be praised and exalted as the zenith of moral and social awareness. Having an opinion about a topic and not wanting to change or accept it has become the enemy, especially if your views are "traditional" or have a more rigid moral code than "us/me".
> 
> ...


 
I don't think you are talking about open or close minded here at all you are taking about morality and belief systems. 

Open Mind - A mind receptive to different opinions and ideas, 

Close Minded - Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.



mrhnau said:


> Is it indeed close minded to condemn those individuals that are close minded? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?


 
aaaa no this is like saying it is wrong to tell someone that is wrong they are wrong.

To say someone is close minded is to say that they are Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others. Not saying what you believe is wrong more that someone that is close minded is likely not to except any beliefs or opinions of others that do not agree with theirs.

It is possible to tell someone you do not agree with what they are saying but except the fact that their beliefs or opinions are different from yours and that is their right. That is as long as what they are saying or doing is not harming others.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 11, 2008)

Regardless of what is accpeted being open minded means one of two things:
1, You have your own oppion, but are willing to examine the same issue from the side of your oppostion, and thus grow, or develop a new understanding of the issue at hand.
2, You don't really have your own oppion, so, you are examining all possible sides to a discussion, and deciding which makes the most amount of sense.

However, being close minded just means that you have your oppion and are unwilling to let anyone else's oppion be even remotely legit. However, the concepts of close minded-ness and bias have (de)evolved to being nothing more then insults, and ways of syaing that your opponent is automatically wrong. That's called the 'ad hominem fallacy'.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 11, 2008)

Grenadier said:


> Yet, by not allowing someone to believe as he wants to believe, is this not akin to the pot calling the kettle "black?"  The knife cuts both ways...



Not really.  You can decide someone is a scumbag, a Nazi, a racist, or just a jerk for holding the beliefs they do.  However, that is not the same as "not allowing" them to believe as they do, and you could fight for their right to do so.  The classic example would be the ACLU fighting for the rights of the Nazi party to march in Skokie, IL.  Free speech does not mean people can't decide you are a bad person for what you are saying.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Sorry, if it isnt based on FACT, i am not gonna accept it as valid.



I agree.  Does that mean you share my atheism?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 11, 2008)

thardey said:


> At that point, arguing _a priori beliefs_ are pointless, because no one's been able to come up with an unbiased method of testing those beliefs.



Sure we have, that would be empiricism.  People just tend to ignore it though when their foundational assumptions about the world fail to match up to reality.  That sort of profound reflection and reorganization of a worldview based on such a paltry thing as real world evidence is beyond most people.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 11, 2008)

The "closed minded" accusation is used more as a weapon against someone you disagree with rather than an actual fact.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 11, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I agree.  Does that mean you share my atheism?



I am kind of an agnostic, oddly enough. I dont really understand atheism.


----------



## thardey (Jun 11, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Sure we have, that would be empiricism.  People just tend to ignore it though when their foundational assumptions about the world fail to match up to reality.  That sort of profound reflection and reorganization of a worldview based on such a paltry thing as real world evidence is beyond most people.



Empiricism has support in the arena of Science, true. But in Philosophy it is still in the proving stages.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 11, 2008)

I'm having difficulty (for once) expressing my thoughts on this. 
I do dislike those who are closed minded but am having difficulty in expressing what I mean by that. 
I like to think that I'm open minded. I can accept the concept of religion and atheism together or separately. I can accept the concept of creation and evolution, I can accept the concept of mix marriages, I can accept the fact of crimes and wars and disease. I can even accept the concept of high gas prices, accept the concept of vegetarianism and meat eaters, gay and straight and a host of other things... but with all of them... I can either agree or disagree with the ideas depending upon what they are.  
I hold a personal opinion on each of those (and other) things and they're my own. If they don't jive with yours it doesn't mean that I'm closed minded. Agreeing or disagreeing with an idea/opinion is the same as saying like/dislike. I like green peas but don't like broccoli. Am I being closed minded about broccoli? No, it's a vegetable that some people eat and some don't. I'm one of those who don't. Is that being closed minded? No of course not. 
Same with capital punishment. I am open to the idea of it. It's there and it exists. Some folks don't agree with it, are they being closed minded because I happen to agree with it (in certain circumstances)?? I don't think so. 
Closed minded would be someone saying there is no capital punishment, when in fact there is. 
Closed minded is the refusal to the facts, period. 
Example of that I think would be a Christian's refusal to *accept* an atheist's belief that there is no God. A Christian may stoutly believe that there is a God but they cannot be "open minded" if they refuse to accept the atheist's stand that there isn't. 
You can hear a difference of opinion and still maintain your own. 
My oldest brother and I got in to a argument about the beliefs/doctrine about the LDS church. Was he being closed minded... not in my opinion, he just disagreed with the beliefs. 

I think people just get bent out of shape because there's someone out there who doesn't think they're right. It's an ego thing. They're so sure of themselves and *their* beliefs about a subject that there cannot possibly be any other answers. That to me is being closed minded. 
To me that's petting the sweaty stuff.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I am kind of an agnostic, oddly enough. I dont really understand atheism.


 
Agnosticism is believe that no one can really know if there is a God or not (or what He/She/It wants), but they're pretty sure there is a God. Atheism is the complete disbelief in the existence of God.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 11, 2008)

That can take either slant, *Nhuka*.  I'm agnostic and I'm pretty sure there isn't a God to pull our asses out of the fires of our own idiocy.

Agnostic means "Case Unproven".  If the Bearded-One comes down, smites all the Evil-Doers and declares "I am your Lord" I'll be quite convinced there is a powerful Being after all ... who still has no right to enforce his will on his creation ... or is that fuel for another discourse? .


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 11, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Agnosticism is believe that no one can really know if there is a God or not (or what He/She/It wants), but they're pretty sure there is a God. Atheism is the complete disbelief in the existence of God.



Not quite.  Gnosticism is knowledge of divinity.  Theism is the belief in divinity.  The two do not always track together.  At one time I was an agnostic theist - I believed in God, but claimed no sure knowledge.  Now I am an agnostic atheist - I do not believe in God, but still claim no sure knowledge.


----------



## thardey (Jun 11, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Not quite.  Gnosticism is knowledge of divinity.  Theism is the belief in divinity.  The two do not always track together.  At one time I was an agnostic theist - I believed in God, but claimed no sure knowledge.  Now I am an agnostic atheist - I do not believe in God, but still claim no sure knowledge.



I've also heard that referred to as "Soft Atheism." As opposed to "Hard Atheism" which claims knowledge that there is no God. Is that similar to what you are saying?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 11, 2008)

thardey said:


> I've also heard that referred to as "Soft Atheism." As opposed to "Hard Atheism" which claims knowledge that there is no God. Is that similar to what you are saying?



Yep!


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 11, 2008)

Big Don said:


> All points of view are not equal.





> All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others..


Animal Farm, George Orwell.


----------



## Ray (Jun 11, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> If the Bearded-One comes down, smites all the Evil-Doers and declares "I am your Lord" I'll be quite convinced there is a powerful Being after all ... who still has no right to enforce his will on his creation ... or is that fuel for another discourse? .


I agree with you. I don't believe that Father in Heaven enforces his will on his children.

Insofar as being open minded: when brainstorming you may hear an idea that sounds like nonsense but with a little tweaking it turns out to be a wonderful solution. As it might apply to the divergent ways we live, and philosophies we embrace I think it's okay for others to believe differently than I do so long as they don't disrupt my legal activities; and I hope that I'm not disrupting other peoples lives or causing them undo stress by my beliefs.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 11, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> I listen to anything, then i put it in to a slot.
> 
> 1. I agree
> 2. i dont agree, but I can see why they think that
> ...



I accept #'s 1-3.

Thinking things through is good... however, to be truly open-minded, IMHO, means that you have to be willing to re-examine your opinion periodically.  Also, like others, I have a problem with #4 - simply because something is not based on fact does not make it crap; neither is something credible simply because it _is_ based on fact.  Facts can be interpreted in a variety of ways, based on the knowledge and experiences of those who are making the interpretation.  

To dismiss something as "crap", because, in your opinion and experience, it is not based on fact, is, to me, very close-minded - and excludes philosophy, some parts of higher math, and some parts of science - in each field, there are things that can only be believed; they cannot, under our current knowledge, be proven; that's why science and math are full of theorems and hypotheses - scientific concepts that have not yet been proven, as the facts are either incomplete or unobtainable using current technology.  And yet, scientists _believe_ they are true, and _use_ them as if they are true - but still, they may or may not be true; they are currently unprovable, and thus not based on fact.

To be truly open-minded, one has to be willing to examine all ideas - and to re-examine them as new experiences bring new understanding, as new proofs are presented, as old proofs are disproven; to place an idea incontrovertibly in a category (no matter how open-minded the process that places the idea there) and never revisit it is, IMHO, ultimately as close-minded as refusing to examine it to begin with.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 11, 2008)

Kacey said:


> I accept #'s 1-3.
> 
> Thinking things through is good... however, to be truly open-minded, IMHO, means that you have to be willing to re-examine your opinion periodically. Also, like others, I have a problem with #4 - simply because something is not based on fact does not make it crap; neither is something credible simply because it _is_ based on fact. Facts can be interpreted in a variety of ways, based on the knowledge and experiences of those who are making the interpretation.
> 
> ...


 

If I may be so bold as to interpret what he was saying:

Hypothesises (?) are concepts based on observations.  They do hold a basis in fact, while they have not necessarily been proven.  Even Einsteins Theory of Relativity is not proven, hence, it is still a theory.  But that doesnt mean that there is no basis for it in fact.  

I do not believe that #4 means that, in a strick sense, that just because it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, he means that it is utter crap.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jun 11, 2008)

thardey said:


> I've also heard that referred to as "Soft Atheism." As opposed to "Hard Atheism" which claims knowledge that there is no God. Is that similar to what you are saying?


or

I'm a lapsed agnostic, so I don't the attend the meetings  hand out the literature. It also absents me from the, "Is there a god?" debate. How can I debate what I don't know. For my part, I haven't heard a worthwhiledGod exists / God does not exist argument in thirty-five years since Catholic middle school.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2008)

jks9199 said:


> Animal Farm, George Orwell.


I thought about that line. Some animals may well be more equal than others, but, some ideas, Female Genital Mutilation, forced marriages, honor killings, these are not equal to others. 

The (Widespread and growing) belief that there are "Gray areas" is really horrible for the world. Morals matter. Claiming that horrific things are moral because a segment of society likes it that way is ludicrous, child molesters, rapists and serial killers, while not a religion or ethnicity think their behavior is hunky dory, but that certainly doesn't make it so.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 11, 2008)

Big Don said:


> I thought about that line. Some animals may well be more equal than others, but, some ideas, Female Genital Mutilation, forced marriages, honor killings, these are not equal to others.
> 
> The (Widespread and growing) belief that there are "Gray areas" is really horrible for the world. Morals matter. Claiming that horrific things are moral because a segment of society likes it that way is ludicrous, child molesters, rapists and serial killers, while not a religion or ethnicity think their behavior is hunky dory, but that certainly doesn't make it so.


 
OK, who (other then you) brought these up? We were talking about open mindedness, not honor killings. Or am I in the wrong thread?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 12, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> OK, who (other then you) brought these up? We were talking about open mindedness, not honor killings. Or am I in the wrong thread?





CuongNhuka said:


> Regardless of what is accpeted being open minded means one of two things:
> 1, You have your own oppion, but are willing to examine the same issue from the side of your oppostion, and thus grow, or develop a new understanding of the issue at hand.
> 2, You don't really have your own oppion, so, you are examining all possible sides to a discussion, and deciding which makes the most amount of sense.


Your own definition makes all ideals/points of view equal, they aren't. Some things are just wrong, regardless of how many people do them, believe them, etc.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 12, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> OK, who (other then you) brought these up? We were talking about *open mindedness*, not honor killings. Or am I in the wrong thread?



He's right... lets keep it focused on the *subject* rather than get sidetrack on this or that topic.


----------



## thardey (Jun 12, 2008)

Gordon Nore said:


> or
> 
> I'm a lapsed agnostic, so I don't the attend the meetings  hand out the literature. It also absents me from the, "Is there a god?" debate. How can I debate what I don't know. For my part, I haven't heard a worthwhiledGod exists / God does not exist argument in thirty-five years since Catholic middle school.



I think open-mindedness has to include a fair amount of agnosticism. It appears that agnosticism is more of a continuum than a specific position. I could very well claim some agnosticism about my beliefs in God - while I do believe that there is one, I know little else. And, since I would ideally make my moral choices based on what I believe God would prefer, that leaves a lot of questions about specific things being "right" and "wrong."

In fact, I believe that God has purposefully hidden himself, for reasons which are more relevant for another thread, so I can't blame people for not finding proof, nor do I offer any.

Not to dive into a debate about "situational ethics" here, but when we discuss "murder" as wrong, doesn't that only differ from "killing" by the circumstances surrounding it? Being willing and able to see the different circumstances surrounding different actions and beliefs is also a part of open-mindedness. Some people hate killing in any form, and won't accept people who train to kill. They won't open their minds enough to realize that sometimes killing, although not preferred, is justifiable.

Morals matter, and they do not change, however, _how_ those morals are applied will be different in different situations. Wisdom is in knowing _when_ as well as _what_.



> There is a time for  everything,​     and a season for  every activity under heaven:​ a time to be born  and a time to die,​     a time to plant  and a time to uproot,​ a time to kill and a  time to heal,​     a time to tear  down and a time to build,​ a time to weep and a  time to laugh,​     a time to mourn  and a time to dance,​ a time to scatter  stones and a time to gather them,​     a time to  embrace and a time to refrain,​ a time to search and  a time to give up,​     a time to keep  and a time to throw away,​ a time to tear and a  time to mend,​     a time to be  silent and a time to speak,​ a time to love and a  time to hate,​     a time for war  and a time for peace.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 or The Byrds - to Everything There Is a Season
> ​


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 12, 2008)

thardey said:


> In fact, I believe that God has purposefully hidden himself, for reasons which are more relevant for another thread, so I can't blame people for not finding proof, nor do I offer any.


 
OH man I tried, really I did but I just can't restrain myself here and I Am REALLY sorry about this thardey

First
As God said to Bender 
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

And Last
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 or The Byrds - to Everything There Is a Season

OK I'll go now


----------



## thardey (Jun 12, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> OH man I tried, really I did but I just can't restrain myself here and I Am REALLY sorry about this thardey
> 
> First
> As God said to Bender
> "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."


Too true!



> And Last
> Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 or The Byrds - to Everything There Is a Season
> 
> OK I'll go now



Fixed that.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 12, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> As God said to Bender
> "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."



Bender: So do you know I'm going to do something before I do it?  
God: Yes.  
Bender: What if I do something else?  
God: Then I don't know that.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 12, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Bender: So do you know I'm going to do something before I do it?
> God: Yes.
> Bender: What if I do something else?
> God: Then I don't know that.


 
OH man this is going off topic fast... or is it.. if one has an open mind they will likely see it as ok. And I did not know that was who played the voice of God, thanks

Bender: Cool... cool. I bet a lot of people pray to you, huh?
God: Yes, but there are so many asking so much, after a while, you just sort of tune it out.


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 12, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> OH man this is going off topic fast... or is it.. if one has an open mind they will likely see it as ok. And I did not know that was who played the voice of God, thanks
> 
> Bender: Cool... cool.* I bet a lot of people pray to you, huh?*
> God: Yes, but there are so many asking so much, after a while, you just sort of tune it out.


Yep, and I'm praying that this thread gets back on topic... fast.


----------



## qwksilver61 (Jun 12, 2008)

The new re-emerging studies on LSD & Psychotropics.........


----------



## Ray (Jun 12, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> And Last
> Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 or The Byrds - to Everything There Is a Season


I have two words for you: "Bob" "Seeger"


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

Kacey,
maybe it would help if i give some examples of things that end up in my cat 4?

the 9-11 truthers
the US government faked the moon landing
Elvis is still alive

those sorts of things that have been proven to be false over and over and over and yet some people still choose to cling to them..

Not much gets in this cat. less than 1% by far

everything else is either 1,2, or 3


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Kacey,
> maybe it would help if i give some examples of things that end up in my cat 4?
> 
> the 9-11 truthers
> ...



I'm with you there, brother.  Some things just aren't worth taking seriously.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Some people are TOO open minded. All ideas are NOT ok. Child molestation, rape, murder, theft, etc, etc, may be fun for some people, should we be open minded and accept that? Of course not. Sadly, some do.



Don,

I would like to have an open minded discussion with you.

I make some statements and then ask a question or two. Then you reply and also make some statements and even ask a question or two of your own.

First: I am Circumcised. I understand why it is done for health reason and I respect that it is done for cultural and and religious reasons. 

Second: I will argue that it is wrong to circumcise to show that all subjects should be discussed. 

Does the child that is a baby have a choice in the mutilation of their genitalia? No their parents decide for them. Is this right? If you decided for your children does this make you a Child molester? I could see where such an argument could be made. 

Yet it is accepted and it is practiced in many cultures and countries. But if people believe it is wrong and condemn me for thinking it is right, is that right? Or should they be willing to listen to what I have to say. In the end, one could argue that as long as they do their thing and I do mine then it is all fine. 

As to your quote here:



Big Don said:


> I thought about that line. Some animals may well be more equal than others, but, some ideas, Female Genital Mutilation, forced marriages, honor killings, these are not equal to others.
> 
> The (Widespread and growing) belief that there are "Gray areas" is really horrible for the world. Morals matter. Claiming that horrific things are moral because a segment of society likes it that way is ludicrous, child molesters, rapists and serial killers, while not a religion or ethnicity think their behavior is hunky dory, but that certainly doesn't make it so.



Where do your morals come from? Is it religion? Is it belief in something greater? 

Personally I think all religion is wrong, for they project what you are projecting here. That if someone does not believe as then then they are wrong and will be punished in this life or in some afterlife. 

So can you prove to me that your morals have value. Can you prove to me that your morals have meaning to me? Being open minded is allowing you to express and try to convince me and or change my mind. Being closed minded even in the projection of being opening minded happens all the time.  So while I agree that there are people that make me just want to reach out and thump them (* You are not one of them *) I still try to give then a chance to express their point. Of course one the point has been made and if one chooses to disagree and move on then so be it. 

Can you explain to me why your morals are something that I should live for myself? Why are your morals better than mine? 

Morals
Values
Ethics
Law

Morals are what are taught usually via religion but sometimes via culture. 

Values are what people hold valuable as a group or individually. 

Ethics is what is ethical via society or personally. 

Law is what the people/ruler/law giver have/has decided to implement for society. These are usually what people have decided is best for society as a whole not always an individual. 

In the past in some Native America Cultures that were nomadic, it was the RESPONSIBILITY of the oldest male child not of age or gone through rite of passage to sneak into the dwelling of the family that had a deformed baby. It was their responsibility and requirement as a child to remove this liability to their society and what would weaken their group. While in today's society, this is not required, nor practiced, as technology and standard of living has changed. But I will not stand forth and be the one to tell that culture that in their past they were wrong. I will talk with about what is done today and possible try to persuade them to think that education to the contrary of this practice is good. But, if they choose not to believe as I do, I will move on, and not deal with them. I do not condemn them nor do tell them they are wrong. 

Of course you will continue to state that things like terrorism is just wrong. I will ask what about the Boston Tea Party which was about costing the British money and problems. They ended up winning and so it is not terrorism. 

I do believe that we should be able to defend ourselves. I believe that killing to defend ourselves is required as an option. Be it individually or as a society. Be it capital punishment or removing a threat to our society. But if the others choose to leave us alone I believe we should leave them alone, but if they choose to pick a fight then I think we should end the fight as soon as possible and as quickly as possible. 

I agree that some points have more meaning than others, as we all put different value on different ideas.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Kacey,
> maybe it would help if i give some examples of things that end up in my cat 4?
> 
> the 9-11 truthers
> ...



In the time of Galileo, everyone "knew" that the Earth was flat.  This was accepted fact, and disputing it could get you killed.  I'm sure that many educated persons accepted this "truth", and considered arguments to the contrary to be "crap", by the definition you give for your fourth category.  Nonetheless, it was later proven (despite the remaining members of the Flat Earth Society) that the planet is, indeed, more or less spherical.  I stand by my opinion (however close-minded it may be) that to dismiss something to the category of "crap" is limiting your options in an unnecessary fashion.

I do, however, thank you for the explanation.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 13, 2008)

You leave your mind open enough to "accept the possibility" of the elvis lives, no moon landing, etc. crap than your brain HAS fallen out.....


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 13, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> You leave your mind open enough to "accept the possibility" of the elvis lives, no moon landing, etc. crap than your
> 
> Now that would be Abnormal... or delusional


----------



## morph4me (Jun 13, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Now that would be Abnormal... or delusional


 
Is that a bad thing? The voices can't agree:idunno:


----------



## Big Don (Jun 13, 2008)

:lol:





morph4me said:


> Is that a bad thing? The voices can't agree:idunno:


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> You leave your mind open enough to "accept the possibility" of the elvis lives, no moon landing, etc. crap than your brain HAS fallen out.....


 
Well we'd actually have to care about whether Elvis lives etc to think about it and I doubt many of us have the time or inclination to.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 13, 2008)

morph4me said:


> Is that a bad thing? The voices can't agree:idunno:


 

I honestly can't say at this time, my voice are currently debating the issue and so far I am losing the argument but on the bright side...I'm winning. :uhyeah:


----------



## Kacey (Jun 13, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> You leave your mind open enough to "accept the possibility" of the elvis lives, no moon landing, etc. crap than your brain HAS fallen out.....



No... but I do leave my mind open to the idea that "what everyone knows" may not be so, something too few people I know are willing to do.


----------



## Ray (Jun 13, 2008)

Kacey said:
			
		

> In the time of Galileo, everyone "knew" that the Earth was flat. This was accepted fact, and disputing it could get you killed. I'm sure that many educated persons accepted this "truth", and considered arguments to the contrary to be "crap", by the definition you give for your fourth category. Nonetheless, it was later proven (despite the remaining members of the Flat Earth Society) that the planet is, indeed, more or less spherical. I stand by my opinion (however close-minded it may be) that to dismiss something to the category of "crap" is limiting your options in an unnecessary fashion.[\quote]
> 
> 
> I used to believe that statement about the people of Galileo's time.  I have come to doubt that they believed the world was flat.  A very long time ago the Greeks knew the world was round and had calculated it's diameter with astonishing accuracy.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 13, 2008)

Ray said:


> Kacey said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> You leave your mind open enough to "accept the possibility" of the elvis lives, no moon landing, etc. crap than your brain HAS fallen out.....


 
The inability to accept even the remotest possibility that what you think you know may not, in fact, be true is close mindedness.  Epistemology is a subject too nuanced for many to grasp, but it doesn't change the fact that knowledge is constantly being created and is constantly changing.  In this kind of environment, there is no way that you can say one structure or another is absolute.

So...

1.  There exists a possibility that Elvis still lives.
2.  There exists a possibility that the government faked the moon landing.
3.  There exists a possibility that 9-11 was an inside job.

What we "know" now may make all of this so remote as to seem ridiculous, but what we "know" now is not, nor will it ever, be static.  

This is why it's so important to listen to people even if you disagree.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 14, 2008)

I found this quote on GM Richard 'Huk' Planas' website.


> "Open-mindedness is vastly overrated.  Arriving at old age with a completely open mind may not be much of a character reference; it might mean you never cared very strongly about anything that ever happened to you."


Gary Sitten


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 14, 2008)

I don't know GM Planas so I can't parse that quote for how it fits in with his actual 'wholistic' view.  

I do feel that it must be out of context as it appears to rather miss the point of how life experiences should change you.

Things happen to you, you mature (hopefull) and learn, thus shaping your perception of the world.  Wise men are not those who refused to change their minds - they are the ones who took what life offered them in terms of experience and used it as a forge for their consciousness.  

You have to take care in the 'tempering' process so that you do not become either too hard (and thus brittle) or too ductile (and thus overly malleable) but the great advantage of the human mind is that it can deal with non-absolutes.  Things do not have to be "0" or "1" and that is what gives us mental flexability and the ability to 'intuit' an answer from incomplete evidence.

Well, getting a bit deep there for someone whose supposed to be packing his bags to go run around with sharps :lol:.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 14, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I don't know GM Planas so I can't parse that quote for how it fits in with his actual 'wholistic' view.
> 
> I do feel that it must be out of context as it appears to rather miss the point of how life experiences should change you.
> 
> ...


 

Thats the best way I've heard it put. Can't add anything to that!. :high5:


----------



## Ray (Jun 14, 2008)

Kacey said:


> True... but lots of information was lost in the Dark Ages, and it took a long time to rediscover it.


Can you demonstrate that the educated people of the "dark ages" lost the knowledge that the earth was round?  It has been suggested that Columbus and others had evidence of a spherical earth.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 14, 2008)

Ray said:


> Can you demonstrate that the educated people of the "dark ages" lost the knowledge that the earth was round? It has been suggested that Columbus and others had evidence of a spherical earth.


 
They actually did know the world was round. Go to the beach, and watch the ships come in. They come UP from the horizon. if the world was round, you would see them coming towards you. The same is true if you're up high. What they didn't know was how far, and what was between them and Asia. They were pretty there was something, they just didn't know what, and were afraid to find out.


----------



## Jenna (Jun 15, 2008)

mrhnau said:


> I received a ping the other day for being "very close minded". I don't mind pings, but it reminded me of one of my huge peg peeves. The concept of being "open minded".
> 
> It seems lately these days that "closed minded" seems to imply "you don't agree with me", and its been implied to be a negative. The complement, being "open minded" seems to be praised and exalted as the zenith of moral and social awareness. Having an opinion about a topic and not wanting to change or accept it has become the enemy, especially if your views are "traditional" or have a more rigid moral code than "us/me".
> 
> ...


Hey mrhnau  I think one other factor you might possibly consider is that those who might accuse you of closed-mindedness, may do so purely to mask their own dogmatism or indoctrination.  We all make our own moral judgements and one person's unmoving belief is another's closed-mindedness.
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 15, 2008)

I place this topic in the same category as "you cant judge me" or "you shouldnt judge others". Lack of sound judgement has landed many people in deep trouble.


----------

