There is nothing so called as “impartiality” except in mythology. If anyone manages to write something balanced or impartial every once in a while it is considered only an instance of genetic mutation that will no sooner appear than vanish. The impartiality that I seek as a person is to dedicate the very same resources for both sides in any conflict; give them both (as much as possible) the same resources to voice their opinions or even give them (close to if not the same) means and exposure. If this type of impartiality is not attained then one party is overriding the other and the overridden party needs to be supported to try to mend the toppled balance as much as possible. I can never do that if I don’t fit within the overridden party’s agenda and if he does not fit into mine; because otherwise I’d be acting against my own cause. Once the agendas are matched and I take duty into mending the balance, then the way it will seem from inside (to anyone outside) is that I am biased and prejudiced. Yes of course I am! Arent we all biased and prejudiced to our own causes? Isnt the other side also biased and prejudiced to his causes or is it just me? In the big picture I am just trying to make things right by attempting to mend the balance of exposure given to my cause so in the big picture I am helping with the exemplary impartiality we all seek. In the small picture I am biased and prejudiced because I’m only expressing one side of the argument. It all depends which picture you’re looking at, so just think BIG :)
Posted on: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 06:50:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015