Why people dislike "neutrals"

[KoGy 187]

@@Krosp I,

True.

 

Of course politics to change in Hungary.

I doubt that's possible.
Maybe when my country will change owners.

 

I don't really care anymore.

Edited June 14, 2014 by KoGy

[Evil Nightmares 552]

What makes a Brony turn neutral? Gold, Lust for power, or were you just born with a heart of neutrality?!

 

Ok, i had my fun. Anyway, It's kinda like when people seek out something that pisses them off instead of just avoiding it. Like if your walking down the street and you see and advertisement for a movie you don't like, People who are neutral would just simply walk past it and continue with there day (why get involved in something that you dislike, right?). People who aren't "neutral" (for lack of a better word) will look at that movie advertisement and complain about how much they hate that movie, and they will start telling others about how much they hate that movie, etc..... They don't have anything better to do. Just like anti-bronys who seek out brony sites and attack them, they disagree with us and really don't have anything better to do (atleast that's what they believe).

So in a way, i guess it's just a matter of maturity.

 

I really hope this doesn't sound stupid and that it fits in here. If it doesn't fit, then just ignore my reply completely.

~Thanks

[Arctic Night 884]

What makes a Brony turn neutral? Gold, Lust for power, or were you just born with a heart of neutrality?!

 

Ok, i had my fun. Anyway, It's kinda like when people seek out something that pisses them off instead of just avoiding it. Like if your walking down the street and you see and advertisement for a movie you don't like, People who are neutral would just simply walk past it and continue with there day (why get involved in something that you dislike, right?). People who aren't "neutral" (for lack of a better word) will look at that movie advertisement and complain about how much they hate that movie, and they will start telling others about how much they hate that movie, etc..... They don't have anything better to do. Just like anti-bronys who seek out brony sites and attack them, they disagree with us and really don't have anything better to do (atleast that's what they believe).

So in a way, i guess it's just a matter of maturity.

 

I really hope this doesn't sound stupid and that it fits in here. If it doesn't fit, then just ignore my reply completely.

~Thanks

It's a little different with politics. I'd like to say that certain things just "shouldn't bother me," but when I am affected directly, it's not the same.

[Evil Nightmares 552]

It's a little different with politics. I'd like to say that certain things just "shouldn't bother me," but when I am affected directly, it's not the same.

Oh yes, i completely agree. If you are directly involved in a situation that requires you to chose a side then you really don't get the luxury of remaining neutral. I was referring more to situations that we can chose not to involve ourselves in.

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

 

 

Coups and insurrections are illegal in my country. I don't even have billions of dollars to roll back my country's goverment. So the question is... how?

Uhmmm He says 

 

Candidates not the kind you like? Get involved.   Society a wretched hive of scum and villainy? Get. Fucking. Involved.

And you immediately jump to make a coup? Really... i am sorry if i smother a small chuckle at this but you're taking this to the extremes dude. There are other ways to get involved... and first of all is talking it through. 

[Invincible 2,091]

I'll never vote to candidates which i can't have faith in. That goes against everything i believe in. And neither should anyone else in my opinion. Do i hurt another caste of people by not aligning my vote with theirs? What about their voting - does it not hurt my caste the same way? I can respect and see where some of you draw your political views from. But i can't find it justified when a group of people can't isolate themselves from something they can have no true opinion of - we all have our needs and desires.

 

Crude as it may sound, think about the last time you thought of those closest to you most and in protecting their ideals you damned the strangers.

 

I don't expect anyone to follow my example- that's just the sense of belief i hold. Democracy can be good, but it's not perfect. Idealism is but a dream - and as long as we don't all think the same way people will be hurt by politics.

[KoGy 187]

@,

Speaking solves nothing at all.

Of course I respect those who can believe in idealist stuff.

That's really cute.

Edited June 15, 2014 by KoGy

[King 5,625]

People feel the need to know where everyone stands, they dislike the idea of grey and prefer things to be black and white, that way they're able to read you.

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

 

 

Speaking solves nothing at all. Of course I respect those who can believe in idealist stuff. That's really cute.

... That's not being idealistic... that's being PERSISTENT. Nothing is going to change just because you shouted once "HEY ASSHOLES CHANGE THE FUCKING WAY YOU BEHAVE!!!". You gotta fight for what you believe if you believe in something... and if you want things you like to stay or improve you gotta speak up... otherwise you're considering stuff for granted and that ends up being against you... 

 

 

That's really cute.

Also... i don't like the way you said this... wtf is that supposed to mean? 

[KoGy 187]

@,

People won't change for the better.

Their destiny is preset. There is nothing to be done.

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

@,

People won't change for the better.

Their destiny is preset. There is nothing to be done.

Only thing i can say here is no. This is wrong on SO MANY levels...

[KoGy 187]

@,

You're entitled to believe what you believe.

 

Of course I don't see how I could change anything.

Edited June 15, 2014 by KoGy

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

@,

You're entitled to believe what you believe.

 

Of course I don't see how I could change anything.

In any case this "preset" mindset is fostering some dangerous tendencies. Like denying your responsibilities and stuff. Sure there might be stubborn people but they are never "destined" for anything past the things they choose to.

[KoGy 187]

@,

I don't have any responsbilities, lucky me.

End of discussion.
I won't, I can't change my opinon.

Edited June 15, 2014 by KoGy

[Dayrs Monelth 13]

I'd consider myself a temporary neutral as my oppinion of things changes all the time. I only care about things that could affect life as we know it, though on the above topic, I feel like some people dislike "Neutrals" because they feel they are lazy and add nothing to society. Your voice isn't needed to add to society, just being in a working enviornment can contribute as well. Personally I think people worry too much about politics and economy nonsense and not enough about actually doing anything productive. Sure we need people to yell at eachother in a room until a problem is solved, but we also need people working towards fixing that problem with their sweat and blood so to speak.

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

 

 

I don't have any responsbilities, lucky me. End of discussion. I won't, I can't change my opinon.

... Until further notice/proven otherwise... it's only time until that. 

[Washougal_Otaku 1,020]

You should tell that to people who carry their AK-47-like guns in public or publicly show their guns at places. No human being should show their gun unless being directly threatened by someone else. The view of a gun can shut down mouths, shift the course of debates, e.t.c. Why? Because the gun inspires fear... and if someone views you carrying it they definately ain't gonna act too friendly with you...

 

Ever read Maciabelli? Or however its spelled... he believed it's better to be feared than loved. If you are of the ones that believe in fear inspiring respect then you're inspiring the wrong kind of respect.

With notions such as "Perception" it is hard to actually have someone be entirely wrong. Especially when there is no black and white as we said.

Do you realize that almost NOBODY owns an AK-47, let alone carries it around with them?  And they don't always inspire fear; sometimes they inspire interest and/or intrigue.  It depends on the situation and approach.

I'm not saying that what you're saying about gun respect is accurate (in fact, it's far from it).  However, that "type" of respect can come in handy, mainly if you are in need to defend yourself.  Many of the common riffraff here in America will run away at the sight of a gun; you can't tell me that this is a good thing if they're trying to break into your car or rob another person.

Machiavelli's "fear" philosophies related to political and militant leadership, not the lives of everyday man; it wasn't from carrying a single weapon on your person for protection, either, but by acts of tyranny upon those that might speak up against the government.  Protecting your family is NOT the same thing as commanding fear from your minions.

[LED Dasher 228]

I tend to be neutral because I don't know what to do sometimes. There are many things which I am not fully informed of and it would probably be better if I didn't involve myself. Many times people make decisions and judgements about something without truly understanding the situation. People may think that they are doing the right thing and helping others, but they may end up causing more problems than solving them. There are times when I want to help others, but sometimes it's better to let people solve their own problems and learn from their mistakes. I don't want to accidentally cause harm to others while helping them. I just want to make sure I am doing the right thing. 

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

Do you realize that almost NOBODY owns an AK-47, let alone carries it around with them?

I said AK-47-like aka looking like them... It's one thing carry this... 

 And another thing carrying this...

 

 

 

And they don't always inspire fear; sometimes they inspire interest and/or intrigue.  It depends on the situation and approach.

I said "can" not "does".

 

I'm not saying that what you're saying about gun respect is accurate (in fact, it's far from it).  However, that "type" of respect can come in handy, mainly if you are in need to defend yourself.  Many of the common riffraff here in America will run away at the sight of a gun; you can't tell me that this is a good thing if they're trying to break into your car or rob another person.

There are also other types of self defense and i hope people are not so close minded to use them. Also one man can kill another and claim it was self defense with a gun... other means of self defense can do the same but without killing.

 

Machiavelli's "fear" philosophies related to political and militant leadership, not the lives of everyday man; it wasn't from carrying a single weapon on your person for protection, either, but by acts of tyranny upon those that might speak up against the government.  Protecting your family is NOT the same thing as commanding fear from your minions.

Stop making assumptions about me... never said that it's the philosophy of every gun-owner. But in my country as far as i am concerned you have to have legitimate reason or be threatened or have been assaulted in order to have a license to hold a gun. Unless every region of America is filled with all the world's outlaws i don't see the point every American to hold a gun... and when people hold guns there's one thing that's clear... The police ain't doing their job right. Nor are prisons.  Edited June 23, 2014 by nioniosbbbb

[Midnight Seeker 302]

Well, first of all I consider one's religion to be a personal thing. Ones spiritual views or lack there of are not mine nor anyone else's business.

Politics on the other hand. . .

Okay, some background. I am Scottish and a paid up socialist. Scotland has members in the Westminster Government, the EU government and our own Holyrood Government.

As some of you may know, we in Scotland have a rather big choice coming up this year. The choice to leave the UK.

I'll be voting Yes for Scotland becoming Independent and I will keep trying to push a socialist agenda.

While neutrality in religion is fine and dandy, you political views are what you think society should be. Now, I get why a lot of people are sick of it but that is how the big guys like it. Apathy means that the bad guys get away dictating who our societies should be governed.

The one thing the annoys me more than neutrals are the idiots who vote blindly out of habit. Labour for example, hasn't been Labour since Tony Blair took over. They stopped being a left wing workers party and started being a right wing party of the upper middle class (deregulating the banks helping the recession here and waging war in the middle east).

I'm not in favour of forcing folk to vote (I consider that a perversion of democracy) but if you don't vote then you are saying that you don't care who runs your country. Then you have no right to complain.

Right after I posted my first reply here, a friend of mine put this on Facebook and I think it captures the point perfectly.
 

[Treble Bolt 1,122]

I get called a political neutral because of my supposed, "in between" stance. But personally, it's not that I won't take a side, it's that BOTH sides are wrong IMO. Why choose the lesser of the two evils when you don't want to follow evil (per se)?

I get told that I shouldn't complain about political matters because I don't vote. Yet when my "complaining" puts people who support either political party in their place (i.e. they can't refute my arguments), is that really complaining? I'm just pointing out flaws/problems on the food chain that is American politics....I don't complain about why so and so is doing that, or why so and so isn't doing this (like most people), I'm pointing out why both are wrong, and no amount of votes on my behalf will solve the corrupted system. The sad thing is that I do care about who runs the country and I keep up with most political matters even though I do not watch TV (most of the tv news garbage is biased as can be anyways), but voting won't fix what's broke when it's those with money and enough financial backers (who support both sides btw) who run for office.

 

Other than politics, I often take stances based on my theological knowledge, moral wisdom, and heavy abstract mindset (I put myself in other peoples' shoes very easily). I don't see a reason to argue as why I believe what I believe about any particular issue, because nothing good will come out of it. I don't want to try to "convert" someone to my side because arguing changes no one's mind, and no matter how much you could ever try to prove someone wrong, they will not be swayed unless they allow themselves to be swayed. Hence, arguing about petty politics and frivolous religious matters is not my cup of tea and would rather stay out of such "debates" unless circumstances deem otherwise...

Edited June 23, 2014 by Treble Bolt

[Washougal_Otaku 1,020]

 

I said AK-47-like aka looking like them...

I said "can" not "does".

 

There are also other types of self defense and i hope people are not so close minded to use them. Also one man can kill another and claim it was self defense with a gun... other means of self defense can do the same but without killing.

 

Stop making assumptions about me... never said that it's the philosophy of every gun-owner. But in my country as far as i am concerned you have to have legitimate reason or be threatened or have been assaulted in order to have a license to hold a gun. Unless every region of America is filled with all the world's outlaws i don't see the point every American to hold a gun... and when people hold guns there's one thing that's clear... The police ain't doing their job right. Nor are prisons. 

Neither of those points are relevant; I am still correct in my response.  They are rare, and are even more rarely used in such a fashion.  Most of the few who own such guns do so as a "worst-case" scenario, such foreign armies invading or a zombie apocalypse (no joke).

 

Indeed there are other forms of self-defense.  Yet, the best-prepared are those with a diversity of defenses.  A couple of weeks ago, there was a shooting that took place at a high school nearby me.  The young man that apprehended the shooter used pepper spray.  While effective, his timing and/or aim could have been off, and he could have been killed.  Point being, what he did could have been just as effective by tackling him, kicking him in his male-bits, or whipping out a gun; it's a matter of availability and practice.  This doesn't negate the fact that a gun COULD work, possibly without firing a single shot, nor does it negate what my original post said about proper training.

 

To be fair, the way in which your original post was worded was taking assumptions about all gun owners.  You said that the sight of a gun inspires fear (which reflects on all), and seeing a gun on a person will prevent any acts of friendship (which reflects all).  You were the one making assumptions first, not me, and your assumptions are wrong.

 

So, what your saying is that a person should only own a gun if they've been threatened or attacked?  That's stupid.  100% stupid.  For starters, it's a good idea to have one BEFORE something happens.  Also, there's more than "protection" that guns are used for.  Some people just like to go shooting at a range, others use them to go hunting.  You're saying that I should have someone threaten my life before I can go hunting for elk?

 

If you think the right to own a gun = cops not doing their jobs, then you're the biggest idiot on these forums.  The police can't respond to everything in the blink of an eye; there could be times that you'd need to act immediately, and using a gun would be faster (and possibly more effective) than calling for the police.  In most cases, yes, calling the police first is best, but there are times in which they won't get to you soon enough.  It's all about knowing your situation and correctly analyzing it.

 

For example, if someone broke into my home right now, I would have to dial 9-1-1, wait for the operator to pick up, explain the type of crime taking place, provide my address, then wait for them to get here.  Even while speeding, the closest police station would be able to send help about 3 minutes after I make the call, if I'm lucky.  That's plenty of time for the invader to kill me, my roommate, and my son, or possibly kidnap my son and flee.  By your philosophy, the cops have done their jobs by helping my corpse, which now allows my dead body to own a gun and protect my kid that has now become the new Kyron Horman.

 

Now, odds are for me and what training I've undergone, I'd probably look for a change to physically apprehend the invader first, then either call the police myself, or have my roommate do it.  Yet, not everyone knows how to wrestle or fight, so this would be a very dangerous idea.  Owning a gun would be a good option for those in this situation.

 

There's always the possibility of an "outlaw" (strange choice of word there) looking for a victim or an opportunity, especially in larger cities.  The bigger the city, the higher the chances of one with criminal intent.  While smaller towns may bot be as likely to get hit with such a thing, it doesn't mean that it won't happen.  So yes, it is a good idea for anyone and everyone who can own a gun to have a gun.  As I originally stated, so long as they go through the proper training, why shouldn't gun ownership be available to those willing and able?

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

 

 

Neither of those points are relevant; I am still correct in my response.  They are rare, and are even more rarely used in such a fashion.  Most of the few who own such guns do so as a "worst-case" scenario, such foreign armies invading or a zombie apocalypse (no joke).

How can i trust the person is not going to shoot me when he has a gun like that? Why do they even have a gun like that?

 

Indeed there are other forms of self-defense.  Yet, the best-prepared are those with a diversity of defenses.  A couple of weeks ago, there was a shooting that took place at a high school nearby me.  The young man that apprehended the shooter used pepper spray.  While effective, his timing and/or aim could have been off, and he could have been killed.  Point being, what he did could have been just as effective by tackling him, kicking him in his male-bits, or whipping out a gun; it's a matter of availability and practice.  This doesn't negate the fact that a gun COULD work, possibly without firing a single shot, nor does it negate what my original post said about proper training.

Yet you prefer guns. That is all... maybe it's just preference. 

 

To be fair, the way in which your original post was worded was taking assumptions about all gun owners.

No that was all you. You assumed i assumed.

 

You said that the sight of a gun inspires fear (which reflects on all)

It does... when someone gets angry and they have a gun available it inspires fear. Imagine a heated debate with someone owning a gun. Don't tell me that doesn't scare you. That is unless you know the guy extremely well...

 

and seeing a gun on a person will prevent any acts of friendship (which reflects all).

Never said that. However this doesn't disprove the fact that the possibilities of someone approaching you or befriending you are lowered when you are holding a gun.

 

So, what your saying is that a person should only own a gun if they've been threatened or attacked?  That's stupid.  100% stupid. 

Your opinion is noted but nonetheless that is the law in my country and i support it.

 

For starters, it's a good idea to have one BEFORE something happens. 

None of this would be nessecary if there was adequate police presence or adequate education to prevent such things. If you think guns will prevent violence from occuring you are wrong.

 

Also, there's more than "protection" that guns are used for.  Some people just like to go shooting at a range, others use them to go hunting.  You're saying that I should have someone threaten my life before I can go hunting for elk?

There are different kind of licenses for those things and my grandfather being a hunter himself actually has one and my brother out of interest has actually proposed countless times to go with him. In adittion i have shot with the same gun my grandfather uses and i will not hesitate to say i was entertained.

 

If you think the right to own a gun = cops not doing their jobs, then you're the biggest idiot on these forums. 

I dislike being insulted. No i think that because we have the right to own a gun or more because we actually have people that say we HAVE TO own a gun then there's something wrong with the police not doing their job.

 

The police can't respond to everything in the blink of an eye; there could be times that you'd need to act immediately, and using a gun would be faster (and possibly more effective) than calling for the police.  In most cases, yes, calling the police first is best, but there are times in which they won't get to you soon enough.  It's all about knowing your situation and correctly analyzing it.

There are alarms, there are electrical fences there are cameras... I actually have met someone who has secured his place with 24 hour surveillance cams, electrical fence, alarms, big projectors/lights and he doesn't even have many valuable things inside... he just wants to feel safe.

For your own information my house has been stolen. Moreover it has been attempted again... The reason it happened was mostly because of a faulty small window. I tell you now that someone invaded my home i would not hesitate to grab a knife and attack them.

 

By your philosophy, the cops have done their jobs by helping my corpse, which now allows my dead body to own a gun and protect my kid that has now become the new Kyron Horman.

Refer to the above... a simple alarm most of the time hell even an electric fence is enough to discourage most burglars. Security doors also work.

 

Now, odds are for me and what training I've undergone, I'd probably look for a change to physically apprehend the invader first, then either call the police myself, or have my roommate do it.  Yet, not everyone knows how to wrestle or fight, so this would be a very dangerous idea.  Owning a gun would be a good option for those in this situation.

Well sure but that always depends on where you are and or live... as i said crime-heavy countries/areas have different legislations about owning a gun. For example in Exarhia-Athens the crime-rate is increased. I would not hesitate to ask for a license to own a gun if i went there even though i've never been there before.

 

There's always the possibility of an "outlaw" (strange choice of word there) looking for a victim or an opportunity, especially in larger cities.  The bigger the city, the higher the chances of one with criminal intent.  While smaller towns may bot be as likely to get hit with such a thing, it doesn't mean that it won't happen.  So yes, it is a good idea for anyone and everyone who can own a gun to have a gun.  As I originally stated, so long as they go through the proper training, why shouldn't gun ownership be available to those willing and able?

I remember when i was watching a documentary about after-WWII events where in Crete an old man that had a vendetta with another pulled a gun of his beard ((he had a friggin thick beard mind you)) a gun that he kept from the War and killed a man in court that he was angry with.

No not everyone should hold a gun if they had proper training. I am not about to let lunatics, paranoid people, psycologically unstable people own a gun. Training is not enough... training is not all it takes to properly hold/own a gun. You have to take into account the region, the mentality, the culture of the people.

We have derailed the thread long enough. If you intend on continuing this conversation pm me but please attempt at least to be less offensive and do not insult my intelligence for i have not isulted yours. 

[Washougal_Otaku 1,020]

I would, but I'm getting sick of this.  You're looking to fight, I'm trying to justify a valid opinion based off of facts and logical scenarios, which started off as my attempts to give examples of neutrality.

[IridscentNionios 1,420]

@@Washougal_Otaku,I am not looking to fight... do not assume you're the only one in here who has valid opinions, logical facts, e.t.c. I am perfectly calm... Likewise i respect those that want to hold a gun but i generally demand stricter policies for them and generally do not approve of anyone holding a gun. It is not that we disagree on this... it is that we have different preferencies. If you were agitated by any of this i am sorry but i do not share this feeling. 

Edited June 23, 2014 by nioniosbbbb