In recent years, there has been a lot of polarity variation in opinion polls on various political issues, which leads to the person being in one of the proposed solutions issued by politicians. In a second step, this creates polarity among people within the neighborhood, at the university, within the family, etc. It is assumed that political opinion has a higher priority than personal opinion, as well as that they consider each other insufficiently relevant if they do not take the offered opinion. With such an attitude, we send the message that a person who has their own opinion is not valuable. As a result, this leaves the person alone in their environment and as an additional weakness, this leaves humanity without a single individual creative person with their own positive values such as attitudes, values, opinions, creativity, friends, loves, needs, experiences, etc.
This way of modern communication takes attack on human dignity.
As a proposed solution, I would like to open a dialogue based on the person’s perception, their feelings, needs, experiences on a certain main issue. In this part of the dialogue, I would like to shift the focus from the point of not being the focus by taking a position based on the attitude of others to the point where we can hear and see the reactions within people. This is more valuable than taking a position of predefined opinions. The reason for this approach is that in this case these people will be more involved in the dialogue, these people will bring more ideas, will and help others. The disadvantage of this approach is that the decision will not be made because the diversity of people will develop.
In conclusion, a society could be built that has two levels of conversation/rules/laws, one official and one unofficial. In an unofficial pool of discussion, this way of communication between people could be enabled. After a while, when some issues mature, it can be addressed to the official level.
In this way, it calls for the involvement of all interested persons in the unofficial level of society who, on a larger scale, can produce a good idea for all of us. Then more conditions will open up for respecting human dignity.
This will oblige society to provide intermediaries, instructions, supervision and education of people to respect the rules of communication. As for their participation, they can get a bonus for providing a summary when some issues are submitted to a higher official level.
In recent years, there has been a lot of polarity variation in opinion polls on various political issues, which leads to the person being in one of the proposed solutions issued by politicians. In a second step, this creates polarity among people within the neighborhood, at the university, within the family, etc. It is assumed that political opinion has a higher priority than personal opinion, as well as that they consider each other insufficiently relevant if they do not take the offered opinion. With such an attitude, we send the message that a person who has their own opinion is not valuable. As a result, this leaves the person alone in their environment and as an additional weakness, this leaves humanity without a single individual creative person with their own positive values such as attitudes, values, opinions, creativity, friends, loves, needs, experiences, etc.
This way of modern communication takes attack on human dignity.
As a proposed solution, I would like to open a dialogue based on the person’s perception, their feelings, needs, experiences on a certain main issue. In this part of the dialogue, I would like to shift the focus from the point of not being the focus by taking a position based on the attitude of others to the point where we can hear and see the reactions within people. This is more valuable than taking a position of predefined opinions. The reason for this approach is that in this case these people will be more involved in the dialogue, these people will bring more ideas, will and help others. The disadvantage of this approach is that the decision will not be made because the diversity of people will develop.
In conclusion, a society could be built that has two levels of conversation/rules/laws, one official and one unofficial. In an unofficial pool of discussion, this way of communication between people could be enabled. After a while, when some issues mature, it can be addressed to the official level.
In this way, it calls for the involvement of all interested persons in the unofficial level of society who, on a larger scale, can produce a good idea for all of us. Then more conditions will open up for respecting human dignity.
This will oblige society to provide intermediaries, instructions, supervision and education of people to respect the rules of communication. As for their participation, they can get a bonus for providing a summary when some issues are submitted to a higher official level.