| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
 Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 17:16:20
|
|
I do not subscribe to the theory of neutrality. I believe one is always on one side or the other of any issue.The way I see it, is that, in a given situation like; say a fight between two individuals be it in groups or single persons,the actors are mostly divided into two.There would be some who side this side or the other and those(the third party) who claim to be neutral in my opinion can be described as aiding those they perceive to be stronger and who/whom they believe would turn out victorious after the event.The winner may well be the other party but that comes as a shock or surprise.By not openly siding either party those supposedly neutral parties are in my opinion aiding one party by default.Therefore i submit that because the supposedly neutral party wants to see one party perceived as weaker, vanquished decides to sit the fence anticipating the expected result . Should it not materialize they simply shrug it off as of no concern to them and on seeing the desired result secretly gloat and celebrate an easy victory.
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 28 Jun 2008 : 19:33:55
|
Maybe, but I subscribe to the theory that there can be more than two sides to any arguement and that everything may not always be black and white.Therefore if you wish to side with neither party then you are nutural.Not so ? |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
 |
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 29 Jun 2008 : 23:53:15
|
Maybe, but I subscribe to the theory that there can be more than two sides to any arguement and that everything may not always be black and white.Therefore if you wish to side with neither party then you are nutural.Not so ?
In that sense I would agree with you ,but what about the I don't care attitude of people witnessing disputes. I think it is hypocritical of some to simply stand watching others suffer and shrug it off; unconcerned and claim that they are neutral. What happens here in my view is a covert support for the act by not intervening .It is also another way of supporting the other party ,that is by with holding needed support which if given would have neutralized the dispute or led to a stalemate . I want to believe we would have a lot of peace if people stop being aloof and work on being each others keeper,rather than being selfish .I do not know if I make any sense to you T1020 but some thing is bothering me in those lines. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 11:30:34
|
One reason why people do not interfere in disputes is nowerdays that they are likley to get injured by both original parties in the dispute uniting and turning on the person trying to make peace between them,no one wants to get hurt so better do nothing,respect for elders, police,parents,has become so diluted these days,I wont go on but you must have seen reports in newspapers stating such cases.
kaanibaa,I would put money on it that when you said:
"I do not know if I make any sense to you T1020 but some thing is bothering me in those lines." 
you had in mind "black and white", Well, rest assured that those words were used with the correct meaning, i.e. something quite clear without confusion,I believe in using language as it was meant to be used and if your sentence above implied anything other than that, then I am not happy that you should have thought that for a moment,the whole world has gone crazy with all this politically correct stuff (maybe I will have to take to my trench again with my tin hat ! )
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 30 Jun 2008 11:44:19 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 12:24:47
|
I think most people are potentially biased towards one outcome or another. However, neutrality is about not allowing that bias to interfere with your opinion or judgment of the outcome. Judges, referees, parents, etc are expected to exercise this kind of neutrality.
The reason people may not intervene in disputes and conflicts is a complex issue. There are many people who are heroic and they readily risk their own lives to assist/save others in danger. The law often protect such people (see the rescue doctrine). However, there is a phenomenon that social psychologists called "the by-stander problem". This happens when several people are watching a terrible incident happen and the tendency for none of them to intervene. Usually each of those as individuals would intervene, but as a group no one interevenes because each one feels that since no one is intervening I will not intervene. These are complex theories, perhaps beyond the scope of this discussion, but I hope it sheds some light on the issue... |
Edited by - kayjatta on 30 Jun 2008 12:27:18 |
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 12:42:02
|
| Kayjatta it was along those lines that I was thinking.T1020 I am sorry I did not get your point on the black and white issue in the first instance please go ahead as far as I am concerned this does not bother me at all, no missiles coming from me okay!. I do realize though that at times people believe there is a difference in the way white people perceive things from the way blacks do .I have no quarrels with this and believe it is open to discussion too. However My point of argument was that it is unacceptable for me that people would refuse to tell the truth using the pretext of being neutral.This and many such like attitudes prompted my writing and I suspected that a discussion on these may unearth the causes and may be a way out if not for all but for some issues. The desired neutrality of the judge ,an expected duty to be impartial and fair is something that needs to be looked into especially in our own National jurisdiction. The judge would not be doing his/her duty if he/she refuses to give judgment relying on a simple way out of the job by saying I am neutral , one side thus would fail to get justice. I again would like Kayjatta to add more pepper to this angle.I think one cannot play with the two words ;neutrality and impartiality , similar in some ways but dissimilar in may ways too. |
Edited by - kaanibaa on 30 Jun 2008 12:43:08 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 13:02:23
|
In this case, neutrality and impartiality may be interchangeable in meaning. It means not taking sides, but telling the truth without fear or favor.
I agree with you Kaanibaa that to refuse to tell the truth by claimimg to be neutral will amount to hypocricy. I think somebody said that "when an elephant has its foot on the tail of a lizard, you will be doing injustice if you claim to be neutral".
In the case of judges, neutrality and impartiality are expected because the judges are not supposed to have any personal or ideological interest in the cases they preside over. However, in the case of countries like the Gambia where judges are at the mercy of executive hiring and firing such neutrality and impartiality may be lacking if the government is a party in the case. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 13:08:56
|
kaanibaa,I feel that you are going off the topic that you originally started which was neutrality and your example of two people in conflict and those witnessing conflict doing nothing to resolve the situation,your latest posting has changed this into a discussion about neutrality and ipartiality of judges and fair trials, and as you say "I have no quarrels with this and believe it is open to discussion too." 
I am pleased that misinterpritation is sorted out  "T1020 I am sorry I did not get your point on the black and white issue in the first instance please go ahead as far as I am concerned this does not bother me at all, no missiles coming from me okay!.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
Edited by - toubab1020 on 30 Jun 2008 13:11:22 |
|
|
|
MeMe
United Kingdom
541 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 14:03:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by kaanibaa
Maybe, but I subscribe to the theory that there can be more than two sides to any arguement and that everything may not always be black and white.Therefore if you wish to side with neither party then you are nutural.Not so ?
In that sense I would agree with you ,but what about the I don't care attitude of people witnessing disputes. I think it is hypocritical of some to simply stand watching others suffer and shrug it off; unconcerned and claim that they are neutral. What happens here in my view is a covert support for the act by not intervening .It is also another way of supporting the other party ,that is by with holding needed support which if given would have neutralized the dispute or led to a stalemate . I want to believe we would have a lot of peace if people stop being aloof and work on being each others keeper,rather than being selfish .I do not know if I make any sense to you T1020 but some thing is bothering me in those lines.
Indeed! So why is everyone just standing watching now????? Where are those voices????http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7480584.stm |
It is better to die standing than to live on your knees - Ernesto Guevara de la Serna |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 15:08:28
|
| Thanks MeMe very thought provoking and I looked at the screen for some time not knowing what to say but feeling that I must say something.I of course agree with what you have said,no sensible person could disagree,I feel that the nations outside of Africa have formed the opinion that this is a problem that only Africa can deal with, and as such have decided not to become involved as involvment could be seen as trying to influence the development of Africa by outside forces,history has shown that this is not a good way to go,therefore confine yourself to critical words only and let the African nations deal with the matter.Using violence and food as tools for government and power is disgracefull. |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 19:49:58
|
| T1020, I do not see how I dived from my topic,can you please enlighten me on those lines. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 20:56:24
|
| OK you started off with the scene of two people arguing and no one coming to stop the arguement stating that one could be for one or the other,I gave my input on that,then that line fizzled out and the topic then became about judges neutrality and impartiality both of course are valid my confusion has been generated by "However My point of argument was that it is unacceptable for me that people would refuse to tell the truth using the pretext of being neutral" That I think I understand,do you mean that everyone has an opinion and therefore cannot be neutral? |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 21:20:05
|
| Neutrality and impartiality cropped up in my mind when Kay mentioned judges and magistrates etc,whose unique situation requires them to be impartial in their judgments.In a conflict situation , which could be a simple argument between two people or a scenario as that of armed combats between nations or power struggles between opposing parties.In such situations like Kay illustrated being neutral works in favor of the stronger party. My use of two people arguing was an introductory passage to the discussion I wished to start . Thanks for the inputs any way. |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 21:51:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by kaanibaa
Neutrality and impartiality cropped up in my mind when Kay mentioned judges and magistrates etc,whose unique situation requires them to be impartial in their judgments.In a conflict situation , which could be a simple argument between two people or a scenario as that of armed combats between nations or power struggles between opposing parties.In such situations like Kay illustrated being neutral works in favor of the stronger party. My use of two people arguing was an introductory passage to the discussion I wished to start . Thanks for the inputs any way.
No problem always pleased to give input and I misinterprited your original posting and defined it in a much too narrow way ,hence my confusion,but hey, if we could all get into each others mind that would be scarey.
|
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
kaanibaa
United Kingdom
1169 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jun 2008 : 23:57:34
|
| Mind reading would be wonderful ,did you see that movie on a guy who could hear women think .I believe it is entitled the man who knew what women want. Weired ! indeed that would be. |
Edited by - kaanibaa on 30 Jun 2008 23:58:39 |
|
|
|
toubab1020
12314 Posts |
Posted - 01 Jul 2008 : 00:28:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by kaanibaa
Mind reading would be wonderful ,did you see that movie on a guy who could hear women think .I believe it is entitled the man who knew what women want. Weired ! indeed that would be.
No sorry,a bloke never knows what a woman wants,if he thinks he does and says so, he will be wrong for sure but I do believe that there are some very good brains amongst women! but I know my place I am a bloke so I cannot say anything else can I otherwise I will be in trouble for sure  |
"Simple is good" & I strongly dislike politics. You cannot defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
