All papers are checked via
|← Dealing with Psycho-Social Disorders||Assignment →|
It is argued that the person who defines the terms wins the argument. Argument for or against hate cannot be won on the basis of mere talk. It takes more than the talk to change the perceptions of the masses towards the victims of hate. Most of the people will always work hard to attain winning an argument. Everybody will strive to be right and have the last word in any conversation or argument. It is human nature to be mean, sharp and smart with the words they use. In principal everyone wants to emerge victorious after any argument and generally argument can be looked as healthy in some situations though corrosive in some instances.
Whichever way you look at it, one can never win an argument. Arguments trigger exchanges of opinion in various aspects and it usually results in emergence of ideas and varied opinions on the subject matter. What will always come forth will be the individuals perspective of the subject matter rather than factual basis of the discussion or argument. The various opinions form the basis under which different camps that support different points of view emerge and this usually results in those for or against the positions being advocated or discussed about.
Usually whenever you are involved in an argument, it would be futile to assume that you can win or you have won the case. Your efforts to make your points clear and possibly counter their point of view may not necessarily be able to make them change their opinion or believe that you are right. It is an argument and usually nobody is a winner in such cases. What usually results is the case where those with different opinion will opt to avoid you or even become upset. Some may opt to resent you and sometimes become passively aggressive in revenge.
In the case at hand, hate cannot be regarded as a crime. It's a fact that you can't quantify hate, there only two possibilities in such cases, some hates or not. Such nature of the situation makes it an absurd state for any person or government to attempt to pursue charges against hate crimes believe the victims of crimes need more of understanding and tolerance from the masses rather than the sympathetic redress that the judicial or the legal process can offer. The change of perception of the parties involved will go a long way in addressing the differences in opinion that might have resulted in hate crime.
Sometimes acceptance of the perceptions or the majority believes may be able to address most of the challenges that victims of hate crime suffer. It will be prudent if the system is put in place to be able to address the deeper root cause of the variance in opinion instead of criminalizing the act. In fact tolerance may help a lot when each other respects the others opinion or perception instead of indulging in any argument.
We must also acknowledge that hatred is playing a big role in motivating people to pursue their goals in life. Due to the fact that the other party does not subscribe to your point of view does not mean that you stop exploring the best way to address your needs and desires based on your tastes and preferences. Harmonizing the system in place in such a way that human diversity is accommodated in all working environments. There must be proper channels that will allow people to seek conflict resolution without necessary opting for any extreme measures that may jeopardize the human life in the earth. Above it all everyone subscribes to the relativity principle. The implication and meaning all depends on various factors which must be looked holistically for one to be able to really make the essential judgment of the situation.