While I do not completely agree with his whole book, Shane Claiborne speaks some truths on many ugly topics of our society. I agree with him that there needs to be a higher concern in our society for the less fortunate, poor, and those who do not have a voice in local government. He speaks for an alternative thinking, conveying an idea that the traditional church isolates itself from the poor and disenfranchises many LGBT people. He communicates to his audience; it is okay to question a church that may be wrong in their views or traditions. I believe our generation subjects themselves to staying neutral on controversial topics.
Most of us have faced in justices in our lives, but how many of us have taken a stand against those injustices? Even if some of us do stand up and fight it is usually on a small scale and only to benefit ourselves or the people that are closest to us. People generally feel as though they alone will not be enough to make a difference. However, there are others that stand up strong and refuse to sit down until there is resolution to the issue. These are the people that leave lasting marks on our world and make it a better place for the rest of us to live out our lives in a positive and meaningful manner.
A lot of people are just trying to get by life without ever stopping and thinking about how their actions are going to affect us now and later, they just go by life trying to get to the end without trying to make a change or impact in our world. Everyone should be here to do that. America does have it's good thoughts though, they have good means for the change that they want to do, but it's all talk, no action. We can't expect something to get done when all we do is talk about it, we have to actually get up and do something about the problems and the changes we think are here and should happen. I'm sure we could be an even greater nation, where people do care about what they do, and they think about everything they are going to do before even doing it..
Many will agree with this, although almost everyone has participated in the morally wrongness of this situation and many few can be excluded from this act of injustice. Overall, the morals of the common person needs to change. It needs to change to be less selfish and be willing to give without getting. This change will not happen for many people. The amount of narcissism in our society has increased from generation to generation, lessening the amount of self willingness to only give for a non profitable reason.
The overall opinion of Crash was that racism will never change, and that there is no way to stop it. It also showed how all cultures is prejudice to each other, in more ways than one. In some ways this is an agreeable statement but for the most part is false. This is because racism can be stopped there just has to be many people dedicated to stopping it and would have to take a significant amount of steps to stop it.
Another thing that makes assimilation bad is the fact that people use it so much that they don’t see that it could be a danger in the future. Many people lose their history, traditional inhabits, and national culture, national spirit and therefore small nations can disappear. People don’t realize that assimilation not only hurts them but it affects the future generations and nations that could vanish if everyone decides to change their customs. One of the beautiful things of this world is how diverse and different everyone is. If we were to live in a world where everyone was the same it would be boring and dull.
In this very populated world we inhabit there are different people carrying their personal beliefs and stances on particular issues. With so many opinions coming from everywhere it is hard for everyone to be at peace with one another and figure out who is right or wrong because one can feel very strongly about the topic at hand and want things to go their way. Very often there are those people who will not be silenced and argue their point of view until they win, while there are others who just do not feel as strongly as others on topics so they do not argue and just go with the flow. But, what does it even mean to “argue?” Frank L. Cioffi’s “Argumentation in a Culture of Discord” essay defines it for us in the context of writing argumentative
These factors that many think that could be adversarial are race, gender, sexual orientation, and pedigree. Those people believe that all those components will be a problem to some who think that just working hard is enough to become successful. Although many people such as Horatio Alger, the author of “Ragged Dick”, have different opinions on how an individual can accomplish something in life, everyone achieves success differently. For most citizens of America, they believe that they must work hard to achieve what they want in life. Some do not think that any other factors such as race or social economic status can affect the outcome of an individual’s life.
The problem now, is that people feel too much of themselves. Everyone wants to be independent and an individual but they have to see that one day they’re going to need assistance from someone else. We would rather criticize and attack instead of rationally discussing our differences of opinion. We see this every day in our culture. Our community as a whole loves to be argumentative.
Foremost Thoreau addresses the paradox of kindly praising a solider, and deeming the solider as a “good citizen”, who does not wish to serve in unjust war yet, the people still pay taxes and abide by the law of the land. Also, Thoreau addresses the fact that many people oppose a fact openly yet once the time arrives to make an aberration no one is present. “There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing”. This excerpt from Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience openly reveals the paradox of society. Subsequently, Thoreau uses a rhetorical question to reinforce his contentions.