|
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
1:15 AM
So lets begin rhetorically.
Who sets the stereotypes in this society? What conditions warping a stereotype defines its nature of right or wrong? Where do we confine the boundaries of what's right or wrong? What is the definition of being right? Where does this basis of being come from? The law governs our physical actions, but what governs our moral actions and intellectual perspectives? If someone says they are morally right based on the force of nature and how it works,is it sufficient? and if the someone is a majority of beings, are the minority wrong? Should the minority be suppressed? Suppressed for the fact that the majority is the convention and the easy way out is to follow the convention? Where is the mutual respect for morals? Who should be given more mutual respect? Is there a precedence to it? Or should it be equal regardless of race, gender or age? And this relates to human rights. Isn't human rights equal? How do you explain human rights? Is it not the little core of selfishness within one? Or is it that the minority of society are only approved when what they do and think benefits the rest? When the minority instead of voicing their selfish core, voice their selfless core to feed the selfish core of the masses with benefit. Is that the only time the minority are approved? Only War-heroes/heroines alike? Where for example their selfless çharacter enabled them to die for the country so the mass could hold on to their selfish core desiring to live?
as said by Justin
Propaganda by the government @ 1:15 AM
"The opposition never wins"
------------
|
|
&Profile
|
-Justin Tan.
-25th July.
-Patriotic to Down Under
|
x
|