Is it fair to consider someone more intelligent if they are educated?
Education augments intelligence just as intelligence aids in the learning process, however if a person is educated it does not follow that they are intelligent in the same way that an educated person can demonstrate unexpected intelligence.
If being educated does not directly dictate your level of intelligence does it follow that intelligence cannot be acquired? You either are or you are not?
What people believe is not always based on fact. Some of the strongest beliefs are based on faith.
If one were to send, for example, a hoax email to those who do not require proof in order to believe in something, would it then follow that they would be more inclined to believe it?
Taking it even further, would these people be less inclined to question something they read or hear even if they know the source is unproven?
Others’ opinions shape your own but should never define them. If one takes another’s opinion as one’s own it cannot, in fact, be considered a true reflection of opinion.
Rather let another opinion open the possibility to change your opinion or create a new one.
And while your opinion is entirely your right, it is equally another’s right. Therefore, you have the right to speak your opinion but it does not immediately follow that others must agree with it. If others take offence, one could argue that this is entirely due to their conflicting opinion.
In a world were society’s rules were not enforced, would one be able to truly speak their mind?
Snap judgements are never fair but what if one could pay better attention to the instinctual perceptions that inevitably assail one upon a first meeting? Would that not be a truer opinion? And perhaps it would leave one open to the true nature of the new acquaintance.
A basis of truth to any relationship is clearly the best, therefore one should not take others’ opinions to heart when forming your own. How could they truly be considered your own if you do?
If one can accept the danger of getting into a car and driving on the highway, why not accept the danger of riding on a rollercoaster? Why fear one more than the other when the latter has fewer fatalities?
One argument suggests that certain dangers are more acceptable than others and that it is general perception that prevents certain activities and encourages others rather than common sense.
If one were to grow up believing that driving a car was equally dangerous to riding a rollercoaster, would it provide the same thrill?
No one likes being called a criminal and yet so many people are.
A blasé approach to certain seemingly more mundane crimes breeds apathy towards crime in general even though a crime as heinous as murder should never be grouped with one such as speeding.
The intention is to illustrate the mindset of the average person when it comes to breaking the law. Breaking the law is viewed differently in every culture. In many countries it seems to be viewed as something acceptable or, at the very least, inevitable.
One must wonder: if this mindset could be changed would that perhaps be the first step toward being a law abiding society?