'It does not follow that thinking something implies an assumption that everyone should live that prescribed view. '

Yes it does. It's all wrapped up in the overuse of the royal 'we'. These people assume to speak for others. Also the assumption that people who don't agree just cant see how they're being duped into enjoying their big screen TV is patronising and arrogant. Doubly patronising and arrogant when it expresses an opinion of other cultures though the lens of our 'superior' western culture.

'human beings are not robots, they feel compassion, hurt and pain for others. Conforming or adapting is not always courageous.'

Oh, so posting shite on a blog or writing an opinion column in the Herald about how you 'care' about 'humanity' is Courageous? Hahahaha.

I have true compassion for the people in my life, that I know. I really don't 'feel' compassion for those who I don't know. When some celebrity dies, I can envisage his family is upset, but it doesn't really affect me at all. I give charity where I think it will help, because it makes ME feel good, and I identify in some way to their predicament. I think if people were honest many would admit the same. Why did so few people donate to the Pakistan Floods compared to the QLD ones? Huh?

I don't see how humanism is based on compassion for others or is in any way courageous or non-conformist. It's simple self-aggrandisement and a case of the warm and fuzzies, mixed in with a bit of class snobbery.