Where did the idea that it is wrong to change your view/perception of life come from?
I find myself in conversations with people who seem to have a Ph.D. in what is normal and natural.
When you hit the door of reasoning of what is normal to you may not be to another, they try to break the tie by using nature.
You explain that nature is not govern by human laws and precepts, thereby not making nature the best tie breaker for human reason. They pull out morality/religion.
A punishment factor comes in when you change your view in some religion and some religion criticizes what others accept as their way of life.
At this point you are explaining to them it is prejudice to discard someone’s way of life as abnormal and wrong because they do not agree with your concept of religion or morality.
The moment you cannot make anyone see the stupidity and prejudice in judging another person’s sexuality, religion, race or choice because they do not agree with yours, you are stuck.
They then call you a prejudice also for kicking against them for not being open.
And you wonder, does that make me a prejudice of the stupid or does calling them stupid make me prejudice?
There is no person, religion or view who owns the sole right to what is normal and what is not because you cannot relate with something or someone does not make it/they abnormal and wrong.
picture by gratisography from pexels.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment