posted
Stone, people are understanding your arguments just fine. They are also asking answerable questions, unless you mean 'unanswerable by my ethical theory as far as it has been demonstrated'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok. So your answer is that one is just as diminished by calling a lyncher a bigot as they are by calling someone who uses a racial slur in speech a bigot? Because what you quoted isn't a clear answer. First you say it doesn't matter which could be interpreted as a 'no, one is not any more diminished' or 'your question doesn't matter'. You further muddy the waters by suggesting the lyncher should be labeled simply a murderer...which is in fact a judgment, a label, but set that aside for a moment.
In another example of my 'not replying to your arguments', let me address that: it is not a better name to label someone who lynches a homosexual simply a murderer.
Murderer is a very general word considering all the types of killing there can be. Should we use the same description only to describe a man who gets into a fight with a friend and kills him in a fit of rage, as we should the man who hates black people and hangs a black man from a tree for trying to vote?
Of course not. And I know there are no murderers here. That's not the point, and I'm not just talking about how to treat people here. I'm asking about a philosophy you've expressed, which you've gone further in than just here.
I've asked for clarifications because you've already admitted some exceptions to your rule, but then you revert to replying in generalities again. Hence my asking questions about whether there might be further exceptions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC can do as he likes. Is your argument 'mine is a better system' with respect to judging people or is it 'it's against the rules'? Because you're right. It is against the rules. That's not what is being discussed. What's being discussed is whether it's a good rule.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm genuinely curious here; if Obama leaves office without signing a National Sunday Law, will the country be safe from the prophesied disaster until it once again elects a black man president?
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Stone, people are understanding your arguments just fine. They are also asking answerable questions, unless you mean 'unanswerable by my ethical theory as far as it has been demonstrated'
I've read this entire thread three times...once as it was "born" so to say. And more reviews of hotly contested posts.
I hear you...I do not agree that the evidence supports your conclusion tho.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, it is not an unsupported assertion to note that you have always been wrong about everything. Rather, it reflects the fact that you have never, as long as I have known you, been right.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Ron has made a prediction that could proven to have been true, or disproven if false, about actual events that have transpired and can be checked by anyone, I have not heard it.
Ron, if you've been as right as much as you've said you have, it should be simple to point to such a prediction. I'm happy to wait.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: OSC can do as he likes. Is your argument 'mine is a better system' with respect to judging people or is it 'it's against the rules'? Because you're right. It is against the rules. That's not what is being discussed. What's being discussed is whether it's a good rule.
It IS a good rule.
For the many reasons I pointed out.
I feel as if I'm trying to tell you guys about a car that is a few model years newer than the one y'all are driving and are like
How will we get to our destination without a car? (Who will stand up to for oppressed people? )
I'm like: you still drive it...it just has new features. (Still challenge bad ideas & behaviors, just be specific to actions & concepts instead of people)
It isn't a big change I'm calling for here. But the philosophy behind this little tweek of how we treat each other requires you guys to admit you have stepped on toes unnecessarily & show maturity & restraint and you seem to be going to great lengths to paint this as "Uh oh...here goes that StoneWolf with his crazy ideas and thin skin...watch me provoke him so we can go back to the comfort safe place where simply ignore him.
But it's not working, bc I'm not loosing my shit & going off topic as I have in the past
And boy are you guys trying. But it was my pattern...I admit. But this time there are two major differences
1. I recognize my pattern & choose a different road.
2. I'm not wrong this time.
I love you guys.
You were right about me in many ways.
You taught me "how to drive" when I was still taking the public (not short:wink: ) bus.
So if you can't hear me now bc of our past stuff...um...okay. I can understand that. I made that bed.
posted
So...the really REALLY bad bigots...surely we can alienate them .
Am I worried about the bigot's feelings? Only when speaking to them or in their "pool" (we are in OSC's pool, and the pool has rules).
No...the point isn't to sheild their tender feelings...it is to not condemn them...to not hate them...to not label them as if that label alone encapsulated them...bc it's a healthier more sane choice.
All humans are bigots. I am a bigot. I hold views which are intolerat & wrong & so does every single one of us who drew a breath.
This model car gets better milage AND has Corinthian leather with quad climate control! Turn in your's today!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elison R. Salazar--so basically what you are saying is that the Germans overran Europe in a blitzkrieg that gave them control over almost the entire continent in a mere matter of months because they were "lucky." Lucky again and again and again. Every hear of Murphy's Law?
The allies were lucky that Hitler made so many amateur mistakes, like choosing to launch Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Russia) before putting the last touches on finishing off Britain, when Britain was clearly on its last leg. Like choosing not to continue Luftwaffe attacks on British aircraft and aircraft factories, when they were only DAYS away from thoroughly destroying British air capability. Like choosing to abandon the use of the paratroop Fliegerkorps, after they were misused in Crete and suffered heavy losses. Like being overconfident when he launched the invasion of Russia, and did not equip the German invasion units with winter clothing.
Yes, it has been long debated what the exact results would have been if the three major cities of Russia--or just Moscow, even--had been taken by German forces. Another factor many forget is that the United States sent enormous amounts of aid to Russia, without which Russia could not have rushed into production those advanced tanks that were able to take on the German Panzers. This massive aid would not have materialized if Russia had remained an ally of Germany--which it was until the surprise German invasion of Russia. But if the administrative centers that directed the building of the Russian military had been taken, how could Russia have continued to fight? Remember, the fatal weakness of the Soviet Union, especially in its military, has always been its overly centralized structure, where its commanders are not expected or trained to take initiative on their own.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heya Ron...did you ever take Elison up on his generous offer of joining the historic discussion forum?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I have not claimed to be a prophet. I have from time to time set forth logical predictions of what could likely occur.
You liberals have predicted that President Barack Obama would be a "uniter." But he has proven to be the most divisive president in history. That his federalized health care plan would improve healthcare in America. In fact Obamacare is an utter failure that has increased costs and driven many doctors not to accept Medicare patients, and has NOT allowed people to keep the doctor of their choice. You have predicted that Obama would act to defend our country, and negotiate for us sensible treaties with other countries. Instead we get the treaty with Iran, that gave them 150 billion dollars for nothing, and we have Obama treating Israel like an enemy instead of our best ally in the Middle East.
When Reagan was president, his conservative principles of lowering taxes resulted in something liberals all had said was impossible--11 straight years of sustained economic growth. But liberals desperately try to deny or obfuscate this, and claim that Obama's approach to economics is what we need. Because of Obama, America's recovery has been slow and prolonged, and more in spite of what Obama and the Democrats have done than because of it. Were it not for the Republican majorities in Congress putting the brakes on the worst of Obama's excesses, we would not have had any recovery at all. And we're still 19 trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Just paying the interest on that is busting our budget!
[ May 30, 2016, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Heya Ron...did you ever take Elison up on his generous offer of joining the historic discussion forum?
No. I already am a member of more forums than I have time to participate in regularly.
Cool beans...just out of curiosity...did you thank him & demure? Or just ignore him? Or something else?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A comment about bigotry: What is meant by bigotry needs to be defined. It is normal and healthy for anyone to prefer the company of his own ethnic group. Tolerance is accepting others, and giving them fair treatment. Bigotry should properly be defined as being determined to judge people solely on the basis of personal prejudices, and not being open to having those prejudices corrected. Refusing to discuss those prejudices, however, is not tolerance. This again is the weakness liberals show, when they stage near riots to try to prevent conservatives from speaking in public venues.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf_, I have answered him twice, in detail. Beyond this point, I probably will ignore him.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Hey Ron..."you liberals" is not a cool way to address this forum.
Or even accurate really.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Conservatives do not talk this way. Nor do we stage near riots to try to prevent liberals from speaking in public venues. We prefer to go online and ANSWER them, point-by-point.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and yes...I fully admit that it can seem like a hall monitor (politeness police?) at times.
...but part of what I'm advocating for that the car analogy points out, one still challenges individuals whom they feel need to be challenged. One simply does so showing respect.
The respect one shows others reguardless of who they addressing only reflects the respect one should expect to recieve.
"He hit me first" & "he deserved it" never really worked w mom either.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Hey Ron..."you liberals" is not a cool way to address this forum.
Or even accurate really.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Conservatives do not talk this way. Nor do we stage near riots to try to prevent liberals from speaking in public venues. We prefer to go online and ANSWER them, point-by-point.
I disagree on the strongest terms.
The views and people here vary & in no way should we be all grouped into a little word like "liberals".
It is unfair & silly really.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stone_Wolf_, I have answered him twice, in detail. Beyond this point, I probably will ignore him.
I'm confused.
You emailed him twice & he ignored you, or you answered here twice talking about history stuff and you ignored his offer*?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stone_Wolf_, I have answered him twice, in detail. Beyond this point, I probably will ignore him.
I'm confused.
You emailed him twice & he ignored you, or you answered here twice talking about history stuff and you ignored his offer*?
Ron thinks that he has reasonably shut down all of his arguments in the forum.
We know he hasn't because we can just read everything he has written, but this is what Ron will decide has happened no matter what has transpired.
Thanks to you, I guess I can't just say "because he's deluded", I have to encode it "politely".
So:
If a person were to do what Ron is doing, it would be a significantly deluded action, and if it is how they acted across years, it would support that they are probably a deluded person.
quote: Elison R. Salazar--so basically what you are saying is that the Germans overran Europe in a blitzkrieg that gave them control over almost the entire continent in a mere matter of months because they were "lucky." Lucky again and again and again. Every hear of Murphy's Law?
Essentially they were "lucky";
How about in 1937 the French didn't declare war when Hitler ordered the Rhineland remiliterized?
Or how about in 1938 when Italy switched its position on Austria and backed Germany enabling the Aunchluss? Which again, most of the German tanks broke down on the roads to Vienna and the Allies could have dow'd to end the threat then and there.
Or Late 1938, the Sudentenland, the Allies could have backed Czechoslovakia with the support of the Soviet Union who were allied to the Czechs at the time and ended the threat there as well before they could gain the Prague tank works.
In 1939 when the Soviet Union was upset enough with the West to agree to the M-R Pact; otherwise the Soviets invading Germany through Poland in 1939 would've ended the war then and there.
Or how about also in 1939 when France and England refused but the most timid attempts to relieve the Pole's because they had the wrong intelligence about the strength of the of the Siegfried Line right when the Germans were at their least ready to resist Allied advances?
Or how about during the Phoney War when the British and French bungled the effort to relieve the Scandinavians but still managed to largely cripple and mission-kill the KMS Surface fleet? Which again, could not have happened with active Soviet assistance.
Or how about in 1940 when the French neglected indepth defense of the Ardennes forest and were generally slow to react to the German advance and had pushed in too deep in the Low Countries? And this only happened because Manstein and Guderian went over their superiors straight to Hitler? You keep saying Hitler was to blame for Germany's defeat and yet it was Hitler who gave the go ahead for Operation Fall Gelb instead of the modified "Schlieffen" Plan?
Or how about what if the French simply not surrendered when they did in 1940 and kept fighting? They still had reserves and a front line, and the BEF hadn't been completely surrounded yet; in all the time you posit the Allies suddenly surrendering what about what-if the French didn't surrender?
Or how about lucky again that in 1940 the Soviets picked a fight with Finland instead of attacking Germany while they were committed to Fall Gelb?
Not good enough for you? 1941 Stalin repeatedly ignored British intelligence reports and the intelligence reports of both the GRU and NKVD intelligence services warning him that the Germans were about to invade on but the most superfluous grounds. Only the Soviet People's Navy was ready and prepared for Operation Barbarossa. The Airforce was 60% destroyed and the border armies badly mauled; in the time the Soviets first recieved reports and June 22 was literally months in which the Soviets could've reorganized and prepared indepth defences and supplied ammunition and fuel to frontline units; the Germans completely failed to neutralize wither the Black Sea or Baltic Fleet in the opening days because of their readiness.
Regular professional war games of Barbarossa by the US military shows Germany never gets as far as they did between two equally competent players (and by players I mean professional career military officers).
Still not satisfied? The Germans only managed to surround Kyiv and it's 600,000 defenders because paranoia among the Soviet officers about issuing uncalled for orders to retreat meant they didn't react in a timely manner to German tank movements; when if they had reacted promptly a majority, hundreds of thousands of battle hardened veterans could have escaped to regroup; which would have prevented the Germans advanced in 1942.
Still not "lucky" enough? There are over a half dozen accounts of Soviet commanders not responding appropriately because they were worried they would be shot for retreating without explicit orders from STAVKA. There are repeated instances where Soviet counteroffences do not have the artillery and armour support because of bad decision making; what if they had good decision making? What if in 1938 the Soviets didn't purge Mikhail Tukhachevsky the premier advocate of Mechanized warfare because of elderly biased of people like Bedyuny who had Stalin's favour? What if Konstantin Rokossovsky wasn't in prison until the last minute of the German invasion? The purge of the Officer corps devastated their readiness and professionalism; but to suppose that didn't happen supposes a Soviet Union without Stalin, same applies to Hitler and Nazism.
STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YA!? 1942 STAVKA sends a flunky to supervise the defence of the Kerch peninsula and overrules the professional opinion of the ranking commanding Red Army officer and abandons their defencive posture and lets themselves get smashed by Manstein; which likely would've been extremely slow and costly overwise; this enabled Operation Fall Blau and the offensive towards Stalingrad and the Caucasus oilfields and allows the fall of Sevastopol.
1943 the Soviets push past their limits and get stomped at the 2nd battle of Kharkyv because of overconfidence, creating the Kursk Salient.
1944 A Bridge too Far, the Allies accidentally let Market Garden plans fall into German hands and screw up the aerial assault royally; preventing the ready collapse of Germany then and there.
Also 1944, the Allies because of infighting and bickering between Monty and Patton allows the majority of the German personnel to escape the Falaise pocket.
1944 Again, the Allies are lax and overconfident enough to let the Germans attempt round 2 in the Ardennes but at this point they fail to confirm their crit because the Allies respond appropriately to the German offencive.
Around the 1943 mark both the Soviets and the Western Allies stop making stupid mistakes and learn to respond appropriately with appropriate level of force and material to German actions and German success, as they exist, become less in occurrence and in scope; and in the Eastern front cease completely at Kursk and are largely ineffectual after Market Garden.
You are completely out of your depth here in this discussion with me.
quote: The allies were lucky that Hitler made so many amateur mistakes, like choosing to launch Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Russia) before putting the last touches on finishing off Britain, when Britain was clearly on its last leg. Like choosing not to continue Luftwaffe attacks on British aircraft and aircraft factories, when they were only DAYS away from thoroughly destroying British air capability.
Okay serious wtf, I just responded to this, I just completely destroyed your argument about this. So thoroughly that your argument is entirely has been turned to dust.
The Germans were losing the Battle of Britain; the British were gaining pilots and aircraft the entire time. The British RAF was never at a risk of being finished off.
Operation Seelowe was never going to succeed for the reasons I already listed.
quote: Like choosing to abandon the use of the paratroop Fliegerkorps, after they were misused in Crete and suffered heavy losses.
Where would they have been useful? You do not know, you are completely out of your depth.
quote: Like being overconfident when he launched the invasion of Russia, and did not equip the German invasion units with winter clothing.
:ironycat: And why is that I wonder? You realize that this was only an issue because Barbarossa failed by that point right? They didn't lose because they lacked winter equipment, they had already lost the war by that point.
quote: Yes, it has been long debated what the exact results would have been if the three major cities of Russia--or just Moscow, even--had been taken by German forces.
Except you're not debating this, you're insisting it matters without following up on why or how or explaining a follow up. The Germans couldn't get closer to Moscow; if they had gotten closer, what would have been the result? Would it have been better or worse for Germany? You don't actually know this, you're just speculating and assuming it's to Germany's advantage when there's zero evidence of the case that it wouldn't in fact worsen Germany's strategic and tactical situation to the point they actually collapse in the winter of 1942.
quote: Another factor many forget is that the United States sent enormous amounts of aid to Russia, without which Russia could not have rushed into production those advanced tanks that were able to take on the German Panzers.
Completely wrong; full production of the KV-1 and T-34 was already begun in 1939; the IS-II and T-34-85 weren't introduced until late 1943 at the earliest. After already a massive effort at reducing the cost to produce the T-34 and KV-1 by 50% as well as various incremental improvements.
US and British Lend-Lease certainly helped produce more tanks though, but recall that the Soviets produced over 100,000 tanks to Germany's 67,000. Without Lend-Lease Soviet production is less sure, and more of it is needed for railstock and locomotives, but it doesn't detract the total figures much.
quote: This massive aid would not have materialized if Russia had remained an ally of Germany--which it was until the surprise German invasion of Russia.
So? The Germans were always going to invade, and if they didn't they wouldn't have been Nazi's.
quote: But if the administrative centers that directed the building of the Russian military had been taken, how could Russia have continued to fight? Remember, the fatal weakness of the Soviet Union, especially in its military, has always been its overly centralized structure, where its commanders are not expected or trained to take initiative on their own.
This is incredibly ignorant of how STAVKA works or the roll the various Soviet cities played in the overall war effort. You have zero evidence that even if Moscow fell, that the Soviets would've lost the will to fight when losing everything West of Moscow already hadn't already broken their will to fight.
You still haven't elaborated on how exactly do the Germans take Moscow? How do they hold it? Remember the Winter counter offencive nearly destroyed the Heer's fighting effectiveness in 1942; how does this not repeat itself and be worse in a Scenario where the Germans exhaust themselves more just to take Moscow? Remember the Soviets already moved most if not all critical functions of Moscow to Gorky, a further 800 miles to the East, and were already preparing new railways behind Moscow; how do the Germans take Moscow before these are functional and the role of Moscow is duplicated a few dozen miles further East? And surely out of reach of a German advance for sure? You can't actually answer this.
You have now been thoroughly refuted; but I bet you'll just go "Lalalalala" and just repeat yourself.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: Ron Lambert
I'm genuinely curious here; if Obama leaves office without signing a National Sunday Law, will the country be safe from the prophesied disaster until it once again elects a black man president?
quote: Remember the Soviets already moved most if not all critical functions of Moscow to Gorky, a further 800 miles to the East, and were already preparing new railways behind Moscow; how do the Germans take Moscow before these are functional and the role of Moscow is duplicated a few dozen miles further East?
Was Stalin still in Moscow? Or had he moved already? The only thing I could see taking out the Soviets was killing Stalin and then the USSR collapses into infighting.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Stone_Wolf_, I have answered him twice, in detail. Beyond this point, I probably will ignore him.
I'm confused.
You emailed him twice & he ignored you, or you answered here twice talking about history stuff and you ignored his offer*?
Ron thinks that he has reasonably shut down all of his arguments in the forum.
We know he hasn't because we can just read everything he has written, but this is what Ron will decide has happened no matter what has transpired.
Thanks to you, I guess I can't just say "because he's deluded", I have to encode it "politely".
So:
If a person were to do what Ron is doing, it would be a significantly deluded action, and if it is how they acted across years, it would support that they are probably a deluded person.
Politeness. Winning.
Remember, too, that Ron or another person might not hear this and think, "They're calling me deluded," and so be more inclined to productive discussion. Furthermore, you are less diminished by doing the dance of the seven veils here, Parkour.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: BlackBlade is entirely capable of speaking for himself. I do wish you would leave off speaking on behalf of others. You're pretty bad at it. You can see an example of it recently in this thread.
This is wildly inaccurate.
quote:BB Do we really have to explain this again? I will get back to this when I'm done driving I'd appreciate it if the obvious TOS violations were removed before then.
If you need a hint try describing someone's opinion as bigotry instead of calling the person a bigot.
The "we" he is referring to is me & him.
Also the hypocrisy of saying BB can speak for himself is mind bottling! My mind is literally bottled right now guys.
He DOES speak for himself.
When someone violates the rules and thus causes BB unpleasant work, I think that's pretty disrespectfull.
I wasn't speaking for him, nor would I.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify: you are bad at speaking for (and frankly you've been bad about doing it in the past) others-what they think about your claims or what they would likely say about them. I was referring specifically to when you reference kmbboots' presumptive support of one of your positions, which she flatly rejected.
But hey, God forbid we 'disrespect' BlackBlade, right? The strange, wobbly line of who to respect how. Ron frequently says, more or less, 'these deluded liberal fools hate America', sometime even saying 'you liberals'. Now now speak reasonably in response to him blah blah blah.
In response to deluded, provably wrong predictions: 'holy cow this guy is deluded!' And the record scratches and right out the ****ing window with this respect you claim to value so highly. It's acceptable to accuse a group of people, wholesale, of really hideous crimes and intentions knowing full well quite a few people here fall into that group. Mention one by name, though, and suddenly some sacred meaningful line has been crossed.
If this were only about 'that's the rule, obey it' well that would be one thing. But when you try to pretend it's not somehow arbitrary, that the only real power behind the rule is that it's the rule, well then we're going to have a discussion about it.
So, just to be clear because you've yet to answer this question specifically, only in generalities: I am diminished just as much if I call a verbally bigoted bigot a bigot as I am if I call a violently bigoted bigot a bigot? Please, please, just for the sake of the discussion whether you think you've answered it or not, please answer it again, this particular variation of the question?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, God, this hill is full of zombies. It is a zombie-infested hill and it is horrible because it is boring.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Remember the Soviets already moved most if not all critical functions of Moscow to Gorky, a further 800 miles to the East, and were already preparing new railways behind Moscow; how do the Germans take Moscow before these are functional and the role of Moscow is duplicated a few dozen miles further East?
Was Stalin still in Moscow? Or had he moved already? The only thing I could see taking out the Soviets was killing Stalin and then the USSR collapses into infighting.
Stalin stayed in Moscow but short of encirclement there was unlikely any serious risk of him dying, his security was good.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A comment about bigotry: What is meant by bigotry needs to be defined. It is normal and healthy for anyone to prefer the company of his own ethnic group.
Normal, sure. What about it is particularly "healthy"?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh and yes...I fully admit that it can seem like a hall monitor (politeness police?) at times.
You are the George Zimmerman's neighborhood watch of forum politeness! Unappointed and unqualified but, thankfully, unarmed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A comment about bigotry: What is meant by bigotry needs to be defined. It is normal and healthy for anyone to prefer the company of his own ethnic group.
Normal, sure. What about it is particularly "healthy"?
I can't believe he said that, does Ron also believe it's A-OK for people in an effort to advance the interests of staying with your own "ethnic group" to leverage economic policy and zoning laws to keep the undesirables out?
Does Ron object to the forceful desegregation of the military and overall society?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Normal, sure. What about it is particularly "healthy"?
Well it's healthy from an evolutionary standpoint - preservation of kin genes etc. - though I suspect Ron is probably not making an evolutionary argument. Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not so sure, I mean, if we could breed with snakes and make half human-half snake hybrids, wouldn't that improve our genetic diversity?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You are the George Zimmerman's neighborhood watch of forum politeness! Unappointed and unqualified but, thankfully, unarmed.
Because asking people nicely to not call eachother names is just like murdering an unarmed child...ohhhh...right...no it's not.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You are the George Zimmerman's neighborhood watch of forum politeness! Unappointed and unqualified but, thankfully, unarmed.
Because asking people nicely to not call eachother names is just like murdering an unarmed child...ohhhh...right...no it's not.
Ok, you can either criticize that calling a bigot a bigot is participating in the same mindset as an actual lyncher (and then later complain when lynching is brought into the question again), *or* you can complain kmbboots likened you to George Zimmerman, when it's clear she was referencing the whole 'bad at unasked for, unqualified policing' and not 'killing young men in enormously sketchy circumstances, at best'.
Doing both is pretty silly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And since you're clearly never going to address this directly, I'll just go where I was going with my question to illustrate the point.
Under your theory of courtesy and judging actions instead of people, if I called Ron Lambert a bigot, I would be diminished, as I was partaking of the urge to ostracize another human being and reject their fundamental humanity to make it easier to insult them. (We'll leave aside the fact that I don't at all think bigotry and humanity are mutually exclusive, or else I would have to simply reject most people who have ever existed as human beings, including some people I love).
Under your theory, and with your blanket condemnation as I guide, I would be equallu diminished if I were to label Lawrence Brewer a bigot, as well as a murderer. I was apparently not supposed to invoke a figure like that because it goes too far, this in spite of the fact that suggesting to accurately label someone a bigot partakes of the mindset of lynching.
To sum up: under your theory, it makes no difference at all whether one is completely accurate in their labeling, or unfair in their labeling. It engages in the same impulse to ostracize a human being as a lyncher experiences when someone unfairly labels another person a bigot...and that same impulse is active even if the label is totally accurate.
It's a pretty bold claim, to state that accuracy has no bearing on whether or not someone is dehumanizing someone else, as in the mindset of a lyncher. A claim that extraordinary requires extraordinary evidence, and merely repeating your fundamental argument-that judging a person negatively always engages in the same impulse to discriminate and lynch-isn't an argument. When you throw in the wild card that this theory of human interaction applies only to *bad* judgments of people, and has nothing at all to say about good judgments of people, well, the idea collapses.
It's an absolute rule, and earlier in this thread you appeared to recognize that absolutes are generally pretty bad whether they be harmful or simply inaccurate. That's a bit of wisdom I think it would probably be helpful to apply to this idea you have that judging people is always bad.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
