acceptance or tolerance?

49...

That's the score I got. Not very impressive.

According to the book, scores in the range of 85-100 are incredibly accepting of others, and scores in the range of 66-84 are the average scores of the majority of the people. Apparently I'm not very accepting of others.  Specifically, the book says that people who score from 0-65 "may be very cautious about and intolerant of others." Of course, those who know me know how true that is of me.  I've just had so many experiences that taught me not to trust others, to be wary of how others treat me, which I guess to some degree is a good thing.  People who are too accepting or trusting of others tend to be incredibly naive.

Our world today has become too tolerant of others, which to some people means acceptance, but it's not.  Just because you tolerate something doesn't mean you necessarily like it.  I tolerate this damn Kansas weather, but I absolutely hate it.  People nowadays, myself included, need to become more accepting of others.  Just because you're different from someone or have different beliefs or opinions doesn't make either one of you better or worse than the other.  Just makes you different.  And that's perfectly fine.  I, myself, love being different.  I think normal is just too damn boring.

Well, this post is a little disorganized. Oh well, I'm not worried about it.

social justice

So for my Skills and Techniques class the other day we were supposed to research the Warren Hill incidence that happened the other day... this is what I found on it 

Warren Hill is an African American male imprisoned in Georgia.  He was originally convicted on shooting and killing his girlfriend, and was sentenced to life imprisonment.  While in prison, he killed his cellmate by beating him with a nail-spiked board.  He was granted a stay of execution because he is developmentally disabled; however, I read one article that disagreed with that.  They said that the punishment should fit the crime not the person.  They said that since he was competent enough to murder two people that it’s okay, even just, that he be executed.  I disagree with them though.  I believe that since he was declared mentally retarded, he was not fully aware of his actions, and if he was he didn't know the true implications of what he was doing.  I believe without a reasonable doubt that he killed those two people, but I also believe that he shouldn't be put to death for his actions.  Neither do I believe that he should get away with it and be free to go.  He needs to be rehabilitated and put under state custody.  If he’s killed twice now, who’s to say he wouldn't kill again. He needs help though, not death.