logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Planning Ahead, Keeping AD's community together
net2007
post Jun 13 2018, 06:03 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,236
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I was wondering if anybody else here thinks it's a good idea to have a backup plan just in case Americasdebate goes down. It's possible that Mike and Jamie will come back with further plans for AD because they're continuing to pay for the cost of the domain and thus far when the website has gone down, as it did a few days ago, they've worked to fix the problem but in the scenario that we do lose AD, we'd lose what's left of our debating community and some of us have debated here for over a decade. Personally, I've debated here since 2007, have gotten to know some of the members, and developed a lot of my debating skills here so from my perspective it'd be unfortunate to see that happen. AD is also an interesting concept in itself, I think America should have a dedicated spot to debate a range of issues, including with members of other nations when they find an interest.

As for what we'd plan to do if the website goes down, I'm open to any ideas. Perhaps we could think of a common place we'd meet in the scenario that the website goes down, or exchange contact information and figure that out at a later time, there's a number of things that we could do.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jun 13 2018, 06:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
droop224
post Jul 29 2018, 10:10 PM
Post #41


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,825
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



As always Net no worries to your delays, take your time.

QUOTE
To start this, I want to see where you're coming from, I do on some of what you're saying but can't help but think there's a part of the story you're missing or not considering. I understand that some of what you say applies to the right, though I'd definitely differ with you on the amount of inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals are on the right. I don't think those types represent a tiny problem that we don't need to be concerned about but the worst ones aren't near as mainstream as modern liberals sometimes let on, (I can explain the phrase modern liberal if you want, it's pretty straightforward).
No need to define the label of modern liberal, because it would only be an opinion and I've read enough from you to pretty much understand. That being said I think when you sum "inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals" together like you did, it distracts from my point. I don't consider people on the right to counterproductive, unless its counter productive to certain ideals like equality. I don't think the right is generally, anymore "inconsiderate" (although that could change if we were discussing a specific subject). I do think that racism is abound in modern conservatism and historic for that matter, but the mask its hidden behind allows for all the plausible deniability you could hope for.

And for the record I have no problem with the points you make toward leftist hypersensitivity, but I think you miss my point. My point was directed more at Looms statement but I am extremely happy to get other conservative feedback so I'm happy you wrote something.

QUOTE(Droop)
WHEN do I get to judge the morality of your beliefs and make argument for or against it? Lately I feel as though conservatives are hmmmm "hiding" behind this statement of "it's a political belief". Just listen to Fox or just listen to yourselves. Its as if you feel your political beliefs hold NO MORAL weight.
When do I get to call into the question the morality of beliefs, without (I might add) shutting down debate?

So let me pose a completely hypothetical scenario to you.

2 individual are driving in their respective vehicles down a highway. Driver A cuts off Driver B so close that it causes Driver B to swerve and almost wreck. Driver B recovers and speeds to meet Driver A who has stopped at a traffic light. Lets say 1 of the following 3 events happen.

1. Driver B pulls up and flips off driver A and calls him some really bad names laced in profanity.

2. Driver B pulls in front of driver A jumps out the car with a bat and starts physically destroying the car.

3. Driver B pulls beside driver A, reaches into the glove box, grabs a gun and starts shooting into the car, hitting drive B.

Now, my question to you is two-fold.

1. Do you believe that the responses of Driver B all have an equivalent moral weight or do you think behavior in each scenario becomes more immoral?

2. Do you believe, in your opinion, that most conservatives think how you do given this scenario.

I'm trying to honestly gauge, stripped of our differing abilities to justify, do you as a conservative and I as a liberal hold similar ideas of morality.






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jul 30 2018, 07:08 PM
Post #42


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,332
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
Looms, you have to understand its hard to differentiate which supremacist philosophy is truly behind the conservative belief.



Classic example of why debate isn't really possible this days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jul 31 2018, 12:25 AM
Post #43


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,825
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 30 2018, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
Looms, you have to understand its hard to differentiate which supremacist philosophy is truly behind the conservative belief.



Classic example of why debate isn't really possible this days.


Surprising as this may sound, I couldn't agree more. What we may disagree is the "why" this kind of remark shuts debate down. My guess is its similar to the point Looms was making. He doesn't think its right, in any form, for his personal morality to come into question, based on his political beliefs. Now, it seems absurd to me as a liberal that you all think you can hold certain positions with out any moral accountability. There are probably a few sociological reasons for you all. But as you see with Net2007 this is what i am trying to accomplish. I'd love for you to tell me your perception of why my statement shuts down debate, but again, i don't disagree.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jul 31 2018, 08:26 PM
Post #44


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,332
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 30 2018, 06:25 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 30 2018, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
Looms, you have to understand its hard to differentiate which supremacist philosophy is truly behind the conservative belief.



Classic example of why debate isn't really possible this days.


Surprising as this may sound, I couldn't agree more. What we may disagree is the "why" this kind of remark shuts debate down. My guess is its similar to the point Looms was making. He doesn't think its right, in any form, for his personal morality to come into question, based on his political beliefs. Now, it seems absurd to me as a liberal that you all think you can hold certain positions with out any moral accountability. There are probably a few sociological reasons for you all. But as you see with Net2007 this is what i am trying to accomplish. I'd love for you to tell me your perception of why my statement shuts down debate, but again, i don't disagree.


Because there is an assumed inherent character or morality flaw, which therefore becomes the foundation of the discussion, directly or indirectly. There isn't really anything to debate when the other side just assumes you are a morally reprehensible person or its a morally reprehensive belief to start with. This is why most debates devolve into name calling almost immediately. If you even try to be objective about anything going on...not really even defending it...you almost instantly hear "Witch! Witch! Burn her!!!!" You can't really debate with someone who not only has no respect for you, but openly disdains you (this is directed broadly, across many conversations, with many people). Which is pretty ironic, coming from the supposedly open-minded and all inclusive group. There are certainly exceptions (on both sides) but their perspective gets drowned out in the cacophony from everyone else. I and many others I know simple stopped bothering to even try having discussions any more.


Case in point:
QUOTE
Now, it seems absurd to me as a liberal that you all think you can hold certain positions with out any moral accountability.



Who is 'you all'? We've had this conversation before, but I doubt you could explain my beliefs on most things, yet I'm lumped in with some perceived immoral group anyway. As for not holding moral accountability, this gets back to the assumed character/belief flaw. There is an assumed moral failure, without even really thinking about it. Ironic, considered that the religious right would fall into this category, yet they base almost all of their beliefs around moral accountability. But how, or maybe more importantly why, would one debate with that perspective already draped over them? It isn't worth it. You spend all of the time vainly trying to change an ingrained false perspective, which isn't going to change anyway, all while being castigated by people who don't know you at all. There's no point to it. Which is unfortunate, because aren't we at a time in our country when there are actually a great many things that need to be talked about and discussed?


QUOTE
He doesn't think its right, in any form, for his personal morality to come into question, based on his political beliefs



There is a difference between questioning it, and just assuming it is flawed. Actually, even questioning it is probably questionable. Questioning why they might hold a certain political belief is fine. Jumping right past that and questioning the morality behind it is leaping to conclusions without understanding the basis.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Jul 31 2018, 09:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Aug 2 2018, 06:52 AM
Post #45


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,236
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Droop

QUOTE
As always Net no worries to your delays, take your time.

QUOTE
To start this, I want to see where you're coming from, I do on some of what you're saying but can't help but think there's a part of the story you're missing or not considering. I understand that some of what you say applies to the right, though I'd definitely differ with you on the amount of inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals are on the right. I don't think those types represent a tiny problem that we don't need to be concerned about but the worst ones aren't near as mainstream as modern liberals sometimes let on, (I can explain the phrase modern liberal if you want, it's pretty straightforward).
No need to define the label of modern liberal, because it would only be an opinion and I've read enough from you to pretty much understand.

That being said I think when you sum "inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals" together like you did, it distracts from my point. I don't consider people on the right to counterproductive, unless its counter productive to certain ideals like equality. I don't think the right is generally, anymore "inconsiderate" (although that could change if we were discussing a specific subject). I do think that racism is abound in modern conservatism and historic for that matter, but the mask its hidden behind allows for all the plausible deniability you could hope for.


I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism, that part I can agree with but I've never seen anything conclusive which demonstrates that racism is mainstream on the right or inseparable from conservative beliefs. Racism, as well as violence, is "abound" within left-leaning groups but you'll never hear me use words like majority, and believe me, I've seen a LOT. I think we have to look with bigger eyes than that and that a person has to be laser-focused strictly on the flaws and bad deeds of their oppenents to come to the conclusion that groups as large as Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, or Democrats don't have positive characteristics or ideas to contribute, or that our opponents are mostly racist. We have serious problems for sure but right now I think we're in a state of functional dysfunction. In other words, there's chaos and a great deal of hate but we're keeping it together enough to press forward and make progress. If racism is what defined this country that wouldn't be the case, it's a part of our culture, sure, and it was an even larger part of our culture 100 years ago but it never defined us, it's been more like a thorn in our side.

Now, I will say that people are usually tribal in nature and that an unknown amount, perhaps most, have racist thoughts that can creep in but the title racist is better reserved for someone who is inseparable from a mindset that they are superior based on their skin color. Saying someone is a racist comes off as an all-inclusive title, but it appears much more common for people to simply have occasional racist thoughts which don't reflect in their actions.

How about this, on your end see if you make a specific claim that you can prove. If most conservatives are racist, prove it. If racism is what drives conservatism, prove that. I think you'd be able to show that it's a factor and that racism is present but that you're likely to miss the root cause. Conservatism isn't what drives racism, human nature in general often does and because conservates are human you'll be able to give examples but you'll have to leave out that fact that hate and racism is widespread to pin this primarily on the right. The Democrats have a very long history, steeped in racism and the details of that alone throw a huge wrench in many of the claims made by the left about how conservatives or conservative ideology is somehow tied at the hip with racism.


QUOTE
QUOTE(Droop)
WHEN do I get to judge the morality of your beliefs and make argument for or against it? Lately I feel as though conservatives are hmmmm "hiding" behind this statement of "it's a political belief". Just listen to Fox or just listen to yourselves. Its as if you feel your political beliefs hold NO MORAL weight.
When do I get to call into the question the morality of beliefs, without (I might add) shutting down debate?


You can call into question anything as far as I'm concerned, as to whether or not you shut down an argument depends both on how good/fair your argument is and how sensitive the other person may be.

QUOTE
So let me pose a completely hypothetical scenario to you.

2 individual are driving in their respective vehicles down a highway. Driver A cuts off Driver B so close that it causes Driver B to swerve and almost wreck. Driver B recovers and speeds to meet Driver A who has stopped at a traffic light. Lets say 1 of the following 3 events happen.

1. Driver B pulls up and flips off driver A and calls him some really bad names laced in profanity.

2. Driver B pulls in front of driver A jumps out the car with a bat and starts physically destroying the car.

3. Driver B pulls beside driver A, reaches into the glove box, grabs a gun and starts shooting into the car, hitting drive B.

Now, my question to you is two-fold.

1. Do you believe that the responses of Driver B all have an equivalent moral weight or do you think behavior in each scenario becomes more immoral?

2. Do you believe, in your opinion, that most conservatives think how you do given this scenario.

I'm trying to honestly gauge, stripped of our differing abilities to justify, do you as a conservative and I as a liberal hold similar ideas of morality.


In the past, I haven't often gone for your multiple choice questions because in some circumstances you've left out details in the questions or left out alternative answers that I'd sooner go for. This type of thing can also narrow the scope of more complicated political topics, containing many variables, down to something simplistic that may or may not translate well to a broader discussion. I'm not saying this because I'm concerned that you could potentially demonstrate something nasty about conservatives with this but I am quite fond of accuracy. I'll give this a try though to see where you're going to go.

To answer your question, in the context of the situation you presented in the question itself, I'd find it unnecessary and unwise to respond with any of the retaliatory responses you laid out for driver B. As for whether or not any of the responses are morally equivalent to cutting off a car and almost causing it to wreck, the third response is not morally equivalent, at least not according to my morals. I believe most people, including conservatives, would agree that responding by speeding up and shooting the other car and driver is not right or morally equivalent. I feel safe saying that for the second response as well, speeding up to catch the other car so you can smash it up with a baseball bat would also be considered worse than what driver A. did in my eyes.

As for responding by flipping off driver A and calling him some really bad names laced in profanity, it still doesn't strike me a morally equivalent although it's closer. How close depends on whether or not driver A. knew they were cutting the other driver off too close and had already considered they could cause him to wreck but simply didn't care. In that situation, both drivers would have done something that made them a danger to others on the road and done so intentionally with knowledge of the consequences, although the aspect of revenge and the verbal offense would still be something additional on the part of driver B in that scenario.

How that hypothetical translates into a real-world political situation depends on a number of things.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Aug 3 2018, 05:31 PM
Post #46


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,332
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?

QUOTE
I'm trying to honestly gauge, stripped of our differing abilities to justify, do you as a conservative and I as a liberal hold similar ideas of morality.



That this is even a question shows the disconnect. People are people, most people everywhere have the same sense of morality. Certainly people from the same culture do, as that's a large part of what defines the culture. We're all part of the same culture, so the assumption would be we all have the same general sense of morality. Our legal system, for example, is completely based on this fundamental assumption. Given that it IS a fundamental assumption...what is the basis for the question? Why change the assumption? This is why questioning morality, as opposed to say actions, gets very problematic, and almost always ends up missing the point. Whereas, if you stick with the assumption, and then seek to understand why one group may have a different approach to something assuming that they have the same general sense of morality...that's a completely different discussion.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Aug 3 2018, 05:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Aug 4 2018, 09:58 PM
Post #47


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,236
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 3 2018, 01:31 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?


Right, it does work both ways, defining "modern conservative" would be equally important tongue.gif The approach I try to take when referring to large groups of people is to state up front that not everyone fit's perfectly into a category. Political labels like conservative or liberal can give a rough idea of the beliefs of those who identify with that label in some fashion but it's a tricky thing given how diverse people can be, that's especially true in America.

It's impossible to give justice to large groups of people with one or two words so if I need to identify a group of people who have common interest, I try to use the term that's the most reflective of who I'm trying to identify but stay open to their thoughts on the matter the best I can. On another note, that can get complicated in some situations because there are people who actually identify as animals like cats, wolfs, or even dragons and some think this is true literally, I'm not kidding. Those who identify as animals are called Otherkin. So what do you do in a situation where someone isn't what they say they are? That's another consideration.

One of the things I think of when I use a word like liberal is how much liberals have changed. There're often more adamant about gun restrictions now, actually government restrictions in a broader sense as well, they're often less prone to be supportive of concepts like free speech than they once were. Being supportive of individual liberties is actually in one of the definitions of the word liberal, but now conservatives are often as much about individual liberties as liberals are, actually they can be much more supportive of individual liberties than liberals depending on the topic. With that said, I'm more prone to say modern liberal given so much has changed. I've also heard the word progressive used a great deal to distinguish between classical liberals and those who have evolved in their interpretation of what it means to be a liberal.

It's complicated but I think ultimately people just need to acknowledge that not everybody fits into a box where they think exactly alike. Labels wouldn't be so bad if people didn't forget that there are people behind them, but often in debates these days people are prone to taking the following approach... (You're a conservative or liberal so I'll group you together with the worst that your constituency has to offer.) That's definitely complicating our situation and making some people wary of getting involved, unfortunately. There are ways around this though, a strive for communication may not reach everyone but there are those who are willing will hear what you have to say and communicate. I'm also confident that there are those who are absorbing good points made by their opposition even if they don't outwardly admit it, because to some, that's admitting defeat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Aug 6 2018, 04:02 AM
Post #48


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,378
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



One of the great strengths of real debate involves rules of not only behavior but of argumentation.

Real debate requires the definition of terms so that all sides (can easily be more than two) understand what they're talking about -- also the audience and especially the judges.

Real debate has judges who award or take away points, depending on the rules of argumentation. There's also some wiggle room for/against creative argumentation.

Since this site has moderators and not judges, real debate doesn't generally happen here, never has. So that leaves it up to participants regarding how it turns out, and gee, it often becomes like family fights. There should be no surprise when people get sick of it all and go do something else.

Still, there's worthwhile stuff that happens too. Maybe it's the times that has drawn people to Facebook and other sites that skew heavily this way or that and all points thereabout. Or maybe we're up to here with fighting for/against whatever. Another possibility is that it has become clear that no amount of argumentation will change minds that are already made up, so people have given up trying to influence folks through various strategies, some more clever than others, and usually the same kinds of tricks I remember my family using regularly.

Then there are the technically sound arguments, but those tend to get lengthy and dull. Real debate is live, with a living audience, and so elements of show biz are often used. That's where the observation that politics is show biz for people with radio faces comes from.

And these live debates use teams more often than not, so getting personal is not only bad argumentation, it's a bad performance, given the environment.

Which brings me to name-calling versus description. I might call you a low-life dirty hippie biker tokin' and pickin' your commie pinko folk music, and that would be calling names while defining a stereotype. Someone else might say I'm a hypocrite, since I pretty much do, or did, all that stuff myself, and that person would be describing me by what I say and do/did. One take is valid, the other isn't.

One take would lose at real debate, and the other would win.

So . . . out here in the Free World (in which one should Keep On Rockin'), what kind of debate is winning?

I'm hoping it's the valid kind but have to admit it's not nearly as entertaining and distracting. Maybe it's just a phase we're going through. The Terrible Two Thousands? Could also be a periodic thing in history where conditions turn insane quickly, a crazy eruption, then carry on from what's left.

We could all be stuck in a VR world too, but I think the Earth being flat has a better chance of turning out true.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Aug 6 2018, 04:06 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Aug 10 2018, 02:21 PM
Post #49


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,332
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 4 2018, 03:58 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 3 2018, 01:31 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?



It's complicated but I think ultimately people just need to acknowledge that not everybody fits into a box where they think exactly alike. Labels wouldn't be so bad if people didn't forget that there are people behind them, but often in debates these days people are prone to taking the following approach... (You're a conservative or liberal so I'll group you together with the worst that your constituency has to offer.)


Exactly! So...why not simply debate something on its content or merit, without involving stereotypes at all? At best, its a strawman, which is bad debate anyway. What 'group' someone is or isn't from is really irrelevant to whatever issue is being discussed. Never even really could be. Everyone is in a group of one. I, for example, don't know another single person who doesn't think differently than I do on something. Generally, they think differently than I do even on things we might agree on. So, thinking I think what anyone in a group thinks about anything is just almost never correct. Which is why when, in a debate, somebody says 'you think....', they are almost always wrong. They are stating what they think some group thinks (and are often even wrong on that) but unless they possess some supernatural clairvoyance, they really have no idea what I think. Heck, even people who are close friends often don't know what I think. Certainly, somebody who has never met me doesn't know. Combine that with whatever follows 'you think...' is almost always a negative comment, its doubly bad. First, they are wrong on the surface, then they are further alluding negative connotations on top of the false assumption. As I said above, it quickly makes debate completely pointless.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Aug 10 2018, 02:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Aug 12 2018, 08:07 AM
Post #50


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,236
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 10 2018, 10:21 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 4 2018, 03:58 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 3 2018, 01:31 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?



It's complicated but I think ultimately people just need to acknowledge that not everybody fits into a box where they think exactly alike. Labels wouldn't be so bad if people didn't forget that there are people behind them, but often in debates these days people are prone to taking the following approach... (You're a conservative or liberal so I'll group you together with the worst that your constituency has to offer.)


Exactly! So...why not simply debate something on its content or merit, without involving stereotypes at all? At best, its a strawman, which is bad debate anyway. What 'group' someone is or isn't from is really irrelevant to whatever issue is being discussed. Never even really could be. Everyone is in a group of one. I, for example, don't know another single person who doesn't think differently than I do on something. Generally, they think differently than I do even on things we might agree on. So, thinking I think what anyone in a group thinks about anything is just almost never correct. Which is why when, in a debate, somebody says 'you think....', they are almost always wrong. They are stating what they think some group thinks (and are often even wrong on that) but unless they possess some supernatural clairvoyance, they really have no idea what I think. Heck, even people who are close friends often don't know what I think. Certainly, somebody who has never met me doesn't know. Combine that with whatever follows 'you think...' is almost always a negative comment, its doubly bad. First, they are wrong on the surface, then they are further alluding negative connotations on top of the false assumption. As I said above, it quickly makes debate completely pointless.


I see your point, there's certainly a risk of strawman arguments or miscommunication when using labels like conservative or liberal at all, many other types of labels as well. The way I look at it is that usually depends on the intent of the one making the argument, whether or not they're willing to get detailed, and whether or not they're receptive to any feedback they're getting. I'm willing to use those types of words because I feel there needs to be a way to identify and address those with roughly the same common interest, in certain situations.

There are practical uses for being able to identify those with roughly similar political interest. For example, many states set it up to where a Republican can't vote for a Democrat or vice versa during the primaries. A member of the opposing political party could be less likely to understand the candidates and more likely to cast a vote with ill intent, perhaps by voting for the candidate they feel would be less likely to win a general election. Again, that possibility wouldn't apply to every person who wants to vote in an opposing parties primaries, in fact, you could even say someone could simply be changing their mind about what party they support, so here again, there are risk involved with a political label. What we're really talking about are the varying statistical odds between the two groups. Republicans are more likely to want the best for the Republican party and vice versa, it just doesn't apply across the board.

In a debate, I think there's a difference between saying something like....

"Democrats don't support a border wall so you wouldn't know anything about what the benefits would be"

and

"Democrats less frequently support a border wall, is that where you stand?"

In the second scenario, you still have to be willing to not jump to conclusions but intent and willingness to communicate are often what makes the difference in debates. I definitely understand where you're coming from, too many people are misusing common political terms, just as they misuse words like black or white, but I think it has more to do with the individuals who are misusing those the words rather than the words alone.

QUOTE
Which is why when, in a debate, somebody says 'you think....', they are almost always wrong. They are stating what they think some group thinks (and are often even wrong on that) but unless they possess some supernatural clairvoyance, they really have no idea what I think.


Agreed, I think that's a bad approach unless, perhaps, the other person has already told you what they think. Sometimes I'll say something to the effect of, "Some Christians think that if you don't accept Jesus, you won't go to heaven" because I've heard Christians say that before, but you certainly don't want to state something like that as an absolute for an entire group, or take it to the level of stating that as a fact about someone who's a Christian if they haven't been clear on it. My girlfriend is Christain and doesn't believe it's that simple so judging too fast is never a good thing.

This post has been edited by net2007: Aug 12 2018, 08:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Aug 13 2018, 05:31 PM
Post #51


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,332
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 12 2018, 02:07 AM) *
In a debate, I think there's a difference between saying something like....

"Democrats don't support a border wall so you wouldn't know anything about what the benefits would be"

and

"Democrats less frequently support a border wall, is that where you stand?"


Or even when like the first one, except 'Democrat' is replaced with 'you', even though you haven't actually indicated your position on that issue at all.

the second one wouldn't necessarily need the first part qualified 'Democrats less frequently' could still be 'Demoncrats don't'...so long as the follow on question around that person's position is asked. Otherwise one is inferring their position, and usually then expounding on it, when it may well be a false assumption to start with.

QUOTE
In the second scenario, you still have to be willing to not jump to conclusions but intent and willingness to communicate are often what makes the difference in debates.


Agree, but good luck with that. Leaping to conclusions is what the vast majority of online discussion is.

QUOTE
I definitely understand where you're coming from, too many people are misusing common political terms, just as they misuse words like black or white, but I think it has more to do with the individuals who are misusing those the words rather than the words alone.


Misusing them is almost inherent. Go back to 'modern conservatism'. Does ANYONE really know what that means? I doubt it. I suspect if you asked 10 experts on it, you'd get 10 different answers.


QUOTE
Agreed, I think that's a bad approach unless, perhaps, the other person has already told you what they think. Sometimes I'll say something to the effect of, "Some Christians think that if you don't accept Jesus, you won't go to heaven" because I've heard Christians say that before, but you certainly don't want to state something like that as an absolute for an entire group, or take it to the level of stating that as a fact about someone who's a Christian if they haven't been clear on it. My girlfriend is Christain and doesn't believe it's that simple so judging too fast is never a good thing.


Exactly. Particularly if you're not even sure if the person is actually Christian.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Aug 14 2018, 06:33 PM
Post #52


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,825
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Net2007)
In the past, I haven't often gone for your multiple choice questions because in some circumstances you've left out details in the questions or left out alternative answers that I'd sooner go for. This type of thing can also narrow the scope of more complicated political topics, containing many variables, down to something simplistic that may or may not translate well to a broader discussion. I'm not saying this because I'm concerned that you could potentially demonstrate something nasty about conservatives with this but I am quite fond of accuracy. I'll give this a try though to see where you're going to go.

To answer your question, in the context of the situation you presented in the question itself, I'd find it unnecessary and unwise to respond with any of the retaliatory responses you laid out for driver B. As for whether or not any of the responses are morally equivalent to cutting off a car and almost causing it to wreck, the third response is not morally equivalent, at least not according to my morals. I believe most people, including conservatives, would agree that responding by speeding up and shooting the other car and driver is not right or morally equivalent. I feel safe saying that for the second response as well, speeding up to catch the other car so you can smash it up with a baseball bat would also be considered worse than what driver A. did in my eyes.

As for responding by flipping off driver A and calling him some really bad names laced in profanity, it still doesn't strike me a morally equivalent although it's closer. How close depends on whether or not driver A. knew they were cutting the other driver off too close and had already considered they could cause him to wreck but simply didn't care. In that situation, both drivers would have done something that made them a danger to others on the road and done so intentionally with knowledge of the consequences, although the aspect of revenge and the verbal offense would still be something additional on the part of driver B in that scenario.

How that hypothetical translates into a real-world political situation depends on a number of things.
w00t.gif Real world? Do you know the difference between the real world and you perception of the "real world"?

QUOTE(Hobbes)
That this is even a question shows the disconnect. People are people, most people everywhere have the same sense of morality. Certainly people from the same culture do, as that's a large part of what defines the culture. We're all part of the same culture, so the assumption would be we all have the same general sense of morality. Our legal system, for example, is completely based on this fundamental assumption. Given that it IS a fundamental assumption...what is the basis for the question? Why change the assumption? This is why questioning morality, as opposed to say actions, gets very problematic, and almost always ends up missing the point. Whereas, if you stick with the assumption, and then seek to understand why one group may have a different approach to something assuming that they have the same general sense of morality...that's a completely different discussion.
There is no disconnect for me. And I think you are right that most humans have the same morality, regardless of culture, what differs is our scope, our application, and most importantly our ability to justify our actions to excuse a lapse in those very similar morals we hold.

The point of the questions was simple to me. The first represented incivility. The second represented economic damage. The third represents damage to human life. As a debater, liberal to conservative, I have learned over the years of debating conservatives you just CAN'T measure a person's ability to justify. Take a minute to understand what that word "justify" means.

And while you are at it think about what we are willing to justify.

So the question just goes to show an amoral escalation... without justification. The whole point is to make scenario where we can all agree, because no one is trying to say "Well, this is why I think its ok" Right simple. I want to scream it at you all sometimes. Taking human life... really bad, really really bad.. causing economic oppression, really bad... incivility, bad.

Hobbes you continue to discuss these assumption being made. There are assumptions being made, I admit, but not unjust ones. Its is fair for me to assume you as a conservative support conservative positions on certain issues. Will I always be accurate, absolutely not. But it is appropriate to think that a conservative holds the conservative position on a certain subject, until they say other wise. Same goes for you Net. I've had this discussion with you before. Now that being said morality of positions are what is being judged, and you are being judged because it is assumed that a conservative holds conservative positions.

Now, I don't think its relevant to get liberal vs conservative positions for this debate of moving ahead, but I would like you all to think on something. The positions\viewpoints we hold can be very reflective of our morality. Can our viewpoints explain the totality of our morality. I don't think so. But, lets say, I walked into work after the Charleston massacre and someone talked about how it was a good thing for Dylan Roof to shoot up the church. Let's say he had a series of justifications. That position holds moral weight, in my opinion. It doesn't mean that he does not have a right to that position. It doesn't mean on other things, like being polite to coworkers, taking care of his family, being a great neighbor, etc he sucks at. That position is an immoral position by MY morality and thus there is going to be some judgment I am inherently going to make on his morality.

So lets follow up that understanding and apply it to the scenario. When we see actions that cause death and bodily harm to human beings, domestic or foreign, if our morality is similar we should be equally offended. We shouldn't support it. If we see position that causes economic destruction on a people, foreign or domestic, if our morality is similar we should be equally offended. If we see a position that promotes incivility, foreign or domestic, if our morality is similar we should be equally offended.

More importantly shouldn't our "scale of morality" tilt "heavier" when there is destruction to human life vs economic oppression vs ... incivility. Well as we can see in the scenario, it does!! However, in the real world we have that thing humans are uniquely qualified to do. We can JUSTIFY! So we come back again to this great difference between left and right thinking individuals. While every human has the ability to justify and does justify, we differ in our application and we differ in our scope to justify. Should I expand on that, maybe not, not for this debate. I'm just trying to offer you all some perspective.

Net2007 you go on and on about how uncivil the liberals, modern liberals, progressives, etc, even if I grant you that there is mass liberal support for this behavior that you cherry pick out to show as "evidence" (which I don't), but even if I agreed for the sake of moving the argument along, how does that match up against the policies, domestic and globally, overwhelmingly supported by conservatives that cause economic stresses on human beings. How does that stack up to the policies, domestic and global, that causes thousands, tens of thousands, of mutilations and deaths.




But Hobbes, Net, Looms, this again takes back to the scenario I presented. I'm not going to add anything to the scenario because I want it to be as unconditioned as possible, because as we add in conditioning statements our differing capabilities to justify will start kicking in.

So I HOPE you all can get the importance of us having different capabilities to justify and what we are willing to justify and what that means. What does it mean? It means you can be aware that an action took place that caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people and be fine with that outcome, someone else may find that act morally reprehensible. In fact, you could have less moral outrage at the deaths of dozens of unarmed HUMAN BEINGS and be morally outraged at the actions of a football athlete that protests the deaths of these unarmed HUMAN BEINGS if you are person that morally justifies the homicide of those particular HUMAN BEINGS and find protest of sitting or kneeling at the flag of your country morally reprehensible. To your point Hobbes , do I know specifically your stance on every police killing in the US? Nope. Do I know your stance on NFL players protest. Nope. Would your individual stance change the general support amongst conservatives who find many unarmed homicide justifiable or the general intolerance of conservatives when it came to the NFL protest? No it wouldn't. I say this because, when we discuss an issue I can't know in a country of #)) plus million what each individual thinks on each specific issue, nor does it matter. What matter is if there is enough public support out there to allow a position to "politically" exist. And if I find that a particular position finds great acceptance in one political group over another and you subscribe to that group, its absolutely fair to assume you agree. You may not agree, and can correct me, but stop taking offense. I'm arguing a position, and I'm arguing the morality of a position and YES to a degree the morality of people that support a position, because these positions do not exist in vacuums... millions of human beings must subscribe to them.

Side note Net. I saw this clip and thought of you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8_eI-stGQc

Reason I thought this was good is because the lady was clearly, "rude". But what's incivility compared to war? What's incivility compared to mass incarceration? What's incivility compared to sanctions and embargos that cause mass poverty? etc etc. I'm not saying civility isn't important, just that on the totem pole of morality, it's got to be pretty low. I mean you can the most polite person to walk the Earth but if you advocate for the death of hundrends of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS what does that make you? A courteous homicidal (fill in the blank)?

As to racism, let just say this, I could try to convince you. As you say, you deal with facts. The statistics of inferiority in Black and Brown are out there. Now I've proposed to you either... there is an innate inferiority or there is systemic social structuring causing the inferiority. You believe there is possible some other... reason to explain. OK. I'll give you a personal story to explain how I see you.

Years ago I told this story on ad.gif I'll make it short. Years ago I was denied entry into a night club. The reason why is I had a SeanJohn shirt on. Now, this shirt was a button up collar shirt. The guy points me to the policy on the door. Rocawear, FUBU, SeanJon, South Pole, Baby Phat, Just a crap load of clothing brands commonly worn by Blacks and Browns. Dress codes is nothing new in a nightclub. They are used to generate a particular crowd in the club. I ask for the manager. I had a cop behind me and I still told the bouncer and the manager "this is some racist bullsh.." The manager responded as if HE...HE was the person offended because I was accusing him of racism. "I'm not racist and neither is my policy, because if a White guy comes in here and has any of these clothes on he doesn't get in and if you go home and change your clothes you could get in."

That's how conservative racism works Net. Its built into systems and that disproportionately effect disenfranchised communities. IN the micro it worked just like the owner wanted it to work. He figured how do I get less Blacks in his establishment without being overtly racist. He had the effect he wanted. Now Net the facts about racism are out there. The statistics are out there. So what debate could we have on racism, other than if you want to call it racism or not? How could I possibly prove something that is hidden in plain sight?

My return question is how do you and other conservatives on this board support systems that you see disproportionately effect communities based on racial lines, but still think it wrong for people from that community to believe you support racism.

Back to my real life tale, which I admit is small fries in the grand scheme of things... Am I as a Black person supposed to be so naïve as to believe that this man just happen to list clothing brands that are predominately worn by minority groups? Am I to believe that race had no part in the selection of brands of clothing. EVEN if I believed that the allowing or disallowing of people in the club was strictly enforced REGARDLESS of race. Its not possible for me to see the creation of such policy, see the effects of the policy, and not think that the purpose was based on racist philosophy.

Same goes for many conservative supported policies. Its hard for me to phantom some one seeing the formation and reasoning of these policies, see the effects of these policies, but deny any racist intent. That being said I admit as said to Hobbes its also hard to distinguish racism, classism, and nationalism. Bottom line while I admit I may inaccurately call someone a racist when really they are just being a nationalist, I'm good with that because nationalism, racism, classism are all philosophies steeped in supremacist ideals and not humanist ideals.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Aug 16 2018, 06:08 AM
Post #53


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
Droop

QUOTE
As always Net no worries to your delays, take your time.

QUOTE
To start this, I want to see where you're coming from, I do on some of what you're saying but can't help but think there's a part of the story you're missing or not considering. I understand that some of what you say applies to the right, though I'd definitely differ with you on the amount of inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals are on the right. I don't think those types represent a tiny problem that we don't need to be concerned about but the worst ones aren't near as mainstream as modern liberals sometimes let on, (I can explain the phrase modern liberal if you want, it's pretty straightforward).
No need to define the label of modern liberal, because it would only be an opinion and I've read enough from you to pretty much understand.

That being said I think when you sum "inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals" together like you did, it distracts from my point. I don't consider people on the right to counterproductive, unless its counter productive to certain ideals like equality. I don't think the right is generally, anymore "inconsiderate" (although that could change if we were discussing a specific subject). I do think that racism is abound in modern conservatism and historic for that matter, but the mask its hidden behind allows for all the plausible deniability you could hope for.


I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism, that part I can agree with but I've never seen anything conclusive which demonstrates that racism is mainstream on the right or inseparable from conservative beliefs. Racism, as well as violence, is "abound" within left-leaning groups but you'll never hear me use words like majority, and believe me, I've seen a LOT. I think we have to look with bigger eyes than that and that a person has to be laser-focused strictly on the flaws and bad deeds of their oppenents to come to the conclusion that groups as large as Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, or Democrats don't have positive characteristics or ideas to contribute, or that our opponents are mostly racist. We have serious problems for sure but right now I think we're in a state of functional dysfunction. In other words, there's chaos and a great deal of hate but we're keeping it together enough to press forward and make progress. If racism is what defined this country that wouldn't be the case, it's a part of our culture, sure, and it was an even larger part of our culture 100 years ago but it never defined us, it's been more like a thorn in our side.

Now, I will say that people are usually tribal in nature and that an unknown amount, perhaps most, have racist thoughts that can creep in but the title racist is better reserved for someone who is inseparable from a mindset that they are superior based on their skin color. Saying someone is a racist comes off as an all-inclusive title, but it appears much more common for people to simply have occasional racist thoughts which don't reflect in their actions.

How about this, on your end see if you make a specific claim that you can prove. If most conservatives are racist, prove it. If racism is what drives conservatism, prove that. I think you'd be able to show that it's a factor and that racism is present but that you're likely to miss the root cause. Conservatism isn't what drives racism, human nature in general often does and because conservates are human you'll be able to give examples but you'll have to leave out that fact that hate and racism is widespread to pin this primarily on the right. The Democrats have a very long history, steeped in racism and the details of that alone throw a huge wrench in many of the claims made by the left about how conservatives or conservative ideology is somehow tied at the hip with racism.


QUOTE
QUOTE(Droop)
WHEN do I get to judge the morality of your beliefs and make argument for or against it? Lately I feel as though conservatives are hmmmm "hiding" behind this statement of "it's a political belief". Just listen to Fox or just listen to yourselves. Its as if you feel your political beliefs hold NO MORAL weight.
When do I get to call into the question the morality of beliefs, without (I might add) shutting down debate?


You can call into question anything as far as I'm concerned, as to whether or not you shut down an argument depends both on how good/fair your argument is and how sensitive the other person may be.

QUOTE
So let me pose a completely hypothetical scenario to you.

2 individual are driving in their respective vehicles down a highway. Driver A cuts off Driver B so close that it causes Driver B to swerve and almost wreck. Driver B recovers and speeds to meet Driver A who has stopped at a traffic light. Lets say 1 of the following 3 events happen.

1. Driver B pulls up and flips off driver A and calls him some really bad names laced in profanity.

2. Driver B pulls in front of driver A jumps out the car with a bat and starts physically destroying the car.

3. Driver B pulls beside driver A, reaches into the glove box, grabs a gun and starts shooting into the car, hitting drive B.

Now, my question to you is two-fold.

1. Do you believe that the responses of Driver B all have an equivalent moral weight or do you think behavior in each scenario becomes more immoral?

2. Do you believe, in your opinion, that most conservatives think how you do given this scenario.

I'm trying to honestly gauge, stripped of our differing abilities to justify, do you as a conservative and I as a liberal hold similar ideas of morality.


In the past, I haven't often gone for your multiple choice questions because in some circumstances you've left out details in the questions or left out alternative answers that I'd sooner go for. This type of thing can also narrow the scope of more complicated political topics, containing many variables, down to something simplistic that may or may not translate well to a broader discussion. I'm not saying this because I'm concerned that you could potentially demonstrate something nasty about conservatives with this but I am quite fond of accuracy. I'll give this a try though to see where you're going to go.

To answer your question, in the context of the situation you presented in the question itself, I'd find it unnecessary and unwise to respond with any of the retaliatory responses you laid out for driver B. As for whether or not any of the responses are morally equivalent to cutting off a car and almost causing it to wreck, the third response is not morally equivalent, at least not according to my morals. I believe most people, including conservatives, would agree that responding by speeding up and shooting the other car and driver is not right or morally equivalent. I feel safe saying that for the second response as well, speeding up to catch the other car so you can smash it up with a baseball bat would also be considered worse than what driver A. did in my eyes.

As for responding by flipping off driver A and calling him some really bad names laced in profanity, it still doesn't strike me a morally equivalent although it's closer. How close depends on whether or not driver A. knew they were cutting the other driver off too close and had already considered they could cause him to wreck but simply didn't care. In that situation, both drivers would have done something that made them a danger to others on the road and done so intentionally with knowledge of the consequences, although the aspect of revenge and the verbal offense would still be something additional on the part of driver B in that scenario.

How that hypothetical translates into a real-world political situation depends on a number of things.



I have issues with untangling the Gordian knot that is morality when for the past couple of years the concept has become increasingly fluid. The point of propaganda is to frustrate discussions with another group. Do you think such a tactic is in use today? If so is it even sane to try? I would argue that morality beyond the individual level has become so twisted at the state level it is affecting the little guy down down to a level he does not even realize. Therefore frank discussions involving morality have to be first untangled before proceeding. How that is done requires a heavy dose of philosophy and the patience of a Saint.

For example, have you noted the huge differences in content from serious online articles and the what passes for television? It is stark. It is sobering and it is sad. If one comes to the conclusion that television is simply an indignation machine should I be concerned when someone gets all hot and bothered when they saw something taken out of context on television? It is like two different stories are wrapped together in one reality. The guiding principles which we are debating as rock solid principles are not static. I think it is a brilliant Jedi Mind trick that people connect with a distant incarnation of a current political party and pretend it is still current, like wearing pantaloons at the mall. I am guessing this is where you were going Net.

When was the last time the Conservative party accepted a smaller military as part of a smaller government? Answer, not recently. Instead lip service libertarianism found a place inside the party and is only used for large infrastructure projects where there is human price to be paid. Or said another way, to avoid talking about the social and environmental costs associated with any given mega project, or in a manner the works against new anti trust ideas the spectre of the lone business person is brought forth.

A decade ago the banks went into free fall because of really questionable mortgages. Regular injections of money are now necessary to keep the credit cycle going because someone in the 80s realized you could grow the economy quickly on credit. The Democratic party realized that after the dot com bubble there wasn't much manufacturing anymore. Representing trade unions was a dwindling demographic. On Bubba's advice of the it's the economy silly, the party moved their focus from labour unions to wedge issues and unrestricted immigration (aka Chinese malinvestment in housing bubbles), At no time can any of the limited immigration stances shared by both parties 60 years ago be applied today without one getting labeled. This was a Machiavelli inspired move because new citizens overwhelmingly vote democratic. Attacking the party is no longer useful when the corruption is systemic.

Morality has taken on the same meaningless morphology as terrorism. Morality has been used heavily by media as the cudgel to pigeon hole and deplatform any of the more traditional stances whether the optics deem them conservative or liberal. This is intentional.

You could debate in terms of civility or incivility but I came to the conclusion long ago it would be more accurate to describe any given political issue in terms of sincerity. It can vary depending on whom you talk to and should you talk to a paid operative, aka politician, the chance of insincerity rises. This is important because in insincere situations which is 99% of big media, the point of the discussion is to slander and evoke an emotional response. At that point the discussion isn't about facts it is about which fabrications will or will not stick. Do you get upset at the fabrications, or do you get upset with whomever uttered them? Or do you get upset by those who did not get upset? You see indignation is a merry go round.

Since I'm neither a saint nor a philosopher I'll just stick to the policy points, it is simpler that way.

This post has been edited by Trouble: Aug 16 2018, 06:12 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Aug 16 2018, 07:38 AM
Post #54


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,825
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(trouble)
Since I'm neither a saint nor a philosopher I'll just stick to the policy points, it is simpler that way.
To what end? If morality is not what guides you to the policy points you want to fight for or against?

I get what you are saying in all this. Maybe humanity isn't... anything. A part of me understands this. Just highly intelligent sentient beings, but really no different then a domesticated animal. But I keep that part of me small and quiet, because then all feels futile.

QUOTE
I would argue that morality beyond the individual level has become so twisted at the state level it is affecting the little guy down down to a level he does not even realize.
Morality isn't twisted above the individual level, it doesn't exist. But getting people to see that is difficult. Morality can only be conceptualized by sentient beings of higher reason, precisely because we made it up.

Basic, I believe its wrong to kill other humans. My morality, but shared by most of the world. However, I know that there are instances where the situation requires me to kill. Now influential people use these competing understandings to their benefit. This is what causes the warp in our morality collectively. At levels higher than the individual, like the State, justifications for necessity are created. Some human beings buy into the justification and some don't. So those that do not see the necessity are still working with very similar morality as those that don't. But with out necessity, that person has to see the killing as immoral. And the person that has allowed themselves to be influenced by the justification still see killing as wrong, but now they feel justified.

QUOTE
Morality has taken on the same meaningless morphology as terrorism.
I disagree. Terrorism never meant anything... ever. Morality still has the same meaning and it is the singular concept that prevents us from being mere animals. (yes, I admit thinking we are more than mere animals may be delusional).

QUOTE
This is important because in insincere situations which is 99% of big media, the point of the discussion is to slander and evoke an emotional response.
Again, to what end? Why? I agree 100% and I been in enough media debates to know... the merry go round goes around and around and they never can seem to achieve the "why". The media behaves this way whether it the Democrats or Republicans in power. I say that and some one will come out and start arguing how "No they do it to Republicans more" it will go off the rails, but they will never look at the why. People won't want to look at power, what it is, how exists, why it exists, and who really has it. Why does the media do this? "Duh they want rating!" but why?










Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Aug 17 2018, 02:10 PM
Post #55


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,378
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(droop224 @ Aug 16 2018, 03:38 AM) *
QUOTE
Morality has taken on the same meaningless morphology as terrorism.
I disagree. Terrorism never meant anything... ever. Morality still has the same meaning and it is the singular concept that prevents us from being mere animals. (yes, I admit thinking we are more than mere animals may be delusional).

QUOTE
This is important because in insincere situations which is 99% of big media, the point of the discussion is to slander and evoke an emotional response.
Again, to what end? Why? I agree 100% and I been in enough media debates to know... the merry go round goes around and around and they never can seem to achieve the "why". The media behaves this way whether it the Democrats or Republicans in power. I say that and some one will come out and start arguing how "No they do it to Republicans more" it will go off the rails, but they will never look at the why. People won't want to look at power, what it is, how exists, why it exists, and who really has it. Why does the media do this? "Duh they want rating!" but why?

Why do media want ratings, aka readers and/or viewers? So they can sell advertising space/time, thereby making money and staying in business (also existence).

A way out of this is to charge money directly to read/view the media. However, it's most profitable to do both -- subscription charges and advertising income.

Anyway, there's only one morality worth anything, and that's our beloved Golden Rule. Do unto others as you'd want them to do unto you, and variations of that really simple concept. Yep, easy to say, harder to do, and there are lots of examples in which the complications disallow an easy set of decisions. Do you sacrifice a few lives to save many others, for example.

Most of our moral decisions are pretty simple though, so the Golden Rule holds up. Ergo, we continue to exist as a social species.

Then there are the people who want to be destroyed/humiliated/imprisoned/other bad stuff. The Rule doesn't work so well for them and anyone they encounter. Probably the most common manifestations of this are among people with self-contempt issues.

So you get projection, megalomania, and a bunch of other things that are very common in politics and other environments that worsen an already messed up moral perception.

The species survives regardless, which I often think is amazing. Kinda points to how many more exist who do have Golden Rule morality than who do not.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Aug 17 2018, 02:12 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Looms
post Aug 19 2018, 07:55 PM
Post #56


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
January 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 429
Member No.: 1,416
Joined: October-11-03

From: Where you are, there you is
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
LOOMS!!

Man let's chat, everyone else is welcome of course.


Lets. Appologies for taking so long to reply, work has been crazy.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
QUOTE
Right, that must be it. Racism is the basis of the basis of conservative ideology. I voted for Trump. Am I a racist unworthy of any moral consideration? Or was I already that anyway because I lean right/conservative? And since you declare me unworthy of any moral consideration, I have to ask: how far would you personally be willing to go? Simply doxing my family? Ruining my career? Get me deplatformed whenever I try to express my opinion? Actual violence? At which point do you stop and say to yourself, "this is a person"...do you ever even reach that point, or is your zeal boundless, despite me having done NOT A DAMN THING TO YOU?
What is this style that conservatives do? What's this tactic called? I see from Net, Mrs P, and just so many conservatives I know.

Its like you get all hyper-sensitive in order to deflect from addressing points. I'm not saying Cruisingram had the greater point in this case, I just REALLY want to know what the tactic called.

Let's say, I say, "that's a racist policy you support" or "you support racism by supporting blah blah blah." The response is not an explanation of how this (blah blah blah) position supported, is not racism. Its ..."Oh I'm such a racist, burn me at the stake..." and on and on without ever actually addressing the point.

To take it completely out of politics, its like I tell my kid "you need to clean your room its messy and I'm sick of telling you" and they respond "I'm just a horrible child, I know! I am dirty filthy and nasty and don't deserve to live under your roof. You should send me to an orphanage" I'm pretty sure this type response has a title. Its not sarcasm I think. Maybe one of you more developed writer can help me out.


No. You misunderstand what I'm "hypersensitive" about. I don't stay up at night worrying if someone thinks I'm racist. I don't give a damn. I am, however, "hypersensitive" when it comes to doxing, getting people fired, political violence, deplatforming and moral panic. I'm also "hypersensitive" about murder. What of it? And what points did I deflect from, exactly? Where there any points buried beneath the blind zealotry and moral outrage that I was responding to? The fact that in your analogy I'M the one reacting with butt-hurt and hyperbole (those are the words you are looking for, you're welcome), whereas CR is being sane and rational, is just brilliant. I'm simply asking how far he would personally go, based on actual things that are done by people for the same reasons and ideology.

I think two different things are being conflated here. The first is my concern over the issues that I mentioned and the effect it's having on society. The second is that on a PERSONAL level, I find what CR is doing to be disguisting. They are not entirely independent from each other, but they're not one and the same, either.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
QUOTE
Do you have any evidence that Ted or akaCG are racists? Have they ever professed any sort of belief in the superiority of their race? Or is this just a scarlet letter you are attempting to put upon them? Hint: nobody cares if you call them racist anymore, it lost all meaning. I get called racist 3 times before I manage to have my coffee in the morning for the most banal of reasons, such as believing that borders should exist, or that Israel shouldn't be destroyed. But lets assume, arguendo, that they are, indeed racist (which they are not). So what? People are allowed to have bad ideas. They're still Americans. They're still people.
First thing I want to point out. I notice you said "They're still Americans. They're still people." Not a big deal at this point I just think it interesting the idea they are American seems to be put on the same level as they are people. This unconscious connection is important to observe when debating conservative of any group. Their group identity is a part of their being that affords them special privilege.


I assure you it was in no way unconscious. I quite consciously said what I said, although you're wrong that I put the category of "Americans" on the same level as the category of "people". They are not on the same level, "American" is a subcategory of "people" that takes precedence over other subcategories of people at the same level (that of a nation). And yes, being a citizen of a certain country aboslutely DOES afford you special priviledge within that country. For example...voting for the government of said country. Is this somehow countroversial? Also...now you're against group identity, all of a sudden? Your "tactical individualism" has been noted.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
As to being a racist. I get you and that is part of the Trump effect. Whites are sick of being called racist, even if they do support a policy steeped in racism. Even if in the statistics you can see the effects of racist policies. You guys are starting to embrace that racism with a "So what, WTF you going to do about it" attitude. This is problematic for the left and our nation in general. Ironically, at the same time, you all whole heartedly deny that you are racists. I kind of get it.


You're pointing out an inconsistency which is not really inconsistent. I can respond to the 8th person of the day that called me racist for no good reason by saying "So what, WTF you going to do about it?" while still denying that I'm racist. Because I'm not. A flippant response to a mental midget doesn't change your core beliefs. As far as racist policies...what do you mean? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you're speaking in terms of "disparate impact"...one of the most idiotic legal concepts in the history of this country. According to disparate impact theory, murder laws should be considered racist. They disproportionatly affect black people, this is a fact. Shall we repeal them?



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
Looms, you have to understand its hard to differentiate which supremacist philosophy is truly behind the conservative belief. Its one of the "isms" Nationalism, Racism, Classism... It blurs. One thing we can be sure of is that you do not practice humanism.


"I reject your ism and substitute my own", said Droop, without the slightest hint of irony. Do you honestly not yet understand why I consider the left to be the equivalent of presuppositionalist Christians, and vehemently oppose them on the same grounds? No, I don't "practice" humanism, whatever that means...I consider it to be a vapid ideology. Why do you assume that everyone has to? Atheists don't practice Christianity, Buddhists don't practice Islam, etc...what of it? What I would really like to know, though, is where the supremacism comes into play.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
All I can say about conservatism is that you fight to keep a system where "we" remain dominate. DOMINATION is essential to conservative philosophy. You are fine with your government causing suffering to other people if you are convinced it improves your life. There is a catch though, I admit. You all still want to feel that you are good people.


No, I think pragmatism is essential to conservative philosophy, and in many ways, that's what it's all about: pragmatism vs idealism.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
Moving on past all the above. One thing I want to ask, is about morality and debating conservatives. WHEN do I get to judge the morality of your beliefs and make argument for or against it? Lately I feel as though conservatives are hmmmm "hiding" behind this statement of "it's a political belief". Just listen to Fox or just listen to yourselves. Its as if you feel your political beliefs hold NO MORAL weight.


Why is moral condemnation so important to you? Why are you so invested in it? "Can I do it yet? Can I? How about now?" What is this?

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
Hear-Me-Out!! Every political decision or belief does not hold moral weight. I don't think it does. Should we change the name of a street sign? No moral weight. Should we change the name of a street sign because some citizens recognize that person as a racist? Some moral weight.


According to who?

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
You might ask well "how do we measure which political views hold 'what' moral weight?" Well, there is no calculator I can send you to Google to do calculations. But I would propose that we can look at the most important gauge, human suffering. Sufferance to human life being at the highest level.

Do you and fellow conservatives feel there can be moral weight that we on the left can ascribe to your political beliefs? I know for a fact that conservatives have NO problem ascribing moral weight to other people beliefs, especially foreigners.


"Foreigner" is not a political position.. This is a non-sequitir.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
One ceiling I know I will NEVER be able to find is the "conservative justification ceiling". Anything can be justified. We had to enslave them, kill them, destroy them, slaughter them, and this isn't hyperbole at all. I've watched people justify the necessity of dropping nuclear bombs on human beings... "it just had to be done" these same human beings couldn't fathom a reason some human being from the middle east would feel justified to come over to our country to kill Americans. My point, before it gets lost, is: I don't want to get into conservative ability to justify why they are moral in their stances that cause human suffering. (I've been in that "false equivalency" argument waaaaay too many times.) I want to understand why it seems to me you all feel slighted when called, bad, evil, immoral, etc. when you support policies that cause human suffering?


Why do you? Or do you think that supporting policies that cause human suffering is exclusive to any one political position? Human suffering is unavoidable.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
If I can show that the policy you support causes the death of tens of thousands of lives, or just the suffering of thousands of human beings can I call that evil? Can I call your support for that policy evil WITHOUT you thinking debate is shut off?


You can do whatever you want. You're free to be morally outraged, and I'm free to tell you that I don't care about your moral outrage. Or we can actually have a reasonable conversation.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
I've stated on this board that conservatives of all nations to include ours are morally corrupt. I believe this. My evidence is the ability to point at actions that support and justify behaviors of domination and practices of human suffering. The more you can justify the more corrupt I think your morality barometer is. Human beings that we refer to as "terrorists" have corrupt senses of morality.

Even saying all that I understand its complicated, thus the need for debate on a MORAL level.


Congratulations. You've just rediscovered Catholicism and the concept of original sin.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 08:25 PM) *
Lastly, if you believe in liberty, but not equality, then you believe in liberty for some, not all, which is not liberty. SUCK ON THAT!! tongue.gif
You are absolutely wrong. You cannot have liberty and equality, because every human is not the same. The only way you can actually attain equality is via totalitarianism. Unless you are referring specifically to legal equality, in which I case I agree and support it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Aug 20 2018, 05:45 AM
Post #57


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,236
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(droop224 @ Aug 14 2018, 02:33 PM) *
QUOTE(Net2007)
In the past, I haven't often gone for your multiple choice questions because in some circumstances you've left out details in the questions or left out alternative answers that I'd sooner go for. This type of thing can also narrow the scope of more complicated political topics, containing many variables, down to something simplistic that may or may not translate well to a broader discussion. I'm not saying this because I'm concerned that you could potentially demonstrate something nasty about conservatives with this but I am quite fond of accuracy. I'll give this a try though to see where you're going to go.

To answer your question, in the context of the situation you presented in the question itself, I'd find it unnecessary and unwise to respond with any of the retaliatory responses you laid out for driver B. As for whether or not any of the responses are morally equivalent to cutting off a car and almost causing it to wreck, the third response is not morally equivalent, at least not according to my morals. I believe most people, including conservatives, would agree that responding by speeding up and shooting the other car and driver is not right or morally equivalent. I feel safe saying that for the second response as well, speeding up to catch the other car so you can smash it up with a baseball bat would also be considered worse than what driver A. did in my eyes.

As for responding by flipping off driver A and calling him some really bad names laced in profanity, it still doesn't strike me a morally equivalent although it's closer. How close depends on whether or not driver A. knew they were cutting the other driver off too close and had already considered they could cause him to wreck but simply didn't care. In that situation, both drivers would have done something that made them a danger to others on the road and done so intentionally with knowledge of the consequences, although the aspect of revenge and the verbal offense would still be something additional on the part of driver B in that scenario.

How that hypothetical translates into a real-world political situation depends on a number of things.
w00t.gif Real world? Do you know the difference between the real world and you perception of the "real world"?


I try to consider that there are other perspectives out there and that my interpretation is one of many, given the current political landscape, I think I do okay. I don't think you're absorbing my replies, it seems odd to me that you're asking me that question while quoting something where I'm suggesting that the world is more complicated than a short analogy, there's a lot that you're missing in a number of your debates with various members who you deem to be conservative. That's why I found it necessary to say this in my last reply....

QUOTE
"If you're still with me, I'm hoping you'll be able to see more than just the criticisms I'm directing at those who may think like you do because this will be more complicated than that, bear with me on this..."


Right now you're finding it necessary to ask if I know the difference between my own perception of the real world and the real world, with a little giggle icon thrown in for good measure. What prompted you to ask that after my reply to your analogy, can you show me that it's more than an attempt at spin or a little game you're playing? In your analogy you're asking what's morally equivalent in your scenario and here's part of what I said....

QUOTE
"As for whether or not any of the responses are morally equivalent to cutting off a car and almost causing it to wreck, the third response is not morally equivalent, at least not according to my morals."

"speeding up to catch the other car so you can smash it up with a baseball bat would also be considered worse than what driver A. did in my eyes."


That's not reflective of mindset where my perception of the world would be the only perception of the world or the only one that's correct. That's acknowledging variety and that others may have a different set of morals. One of the reasons my replies are often long is that I'm trying not to oversimplify things. I definitely don't always get it right and what I feel is right may not be right in every case but sometimes you're coming off as if you don't understand that this rule applies to you, frankly. Do you know the difference between the real world and your perception of the real world?

Do you have an idea why you might be getting responses from other members like the one below?...

QUOTE
[i]"Who is 'you all'? We've had this conversation before, but I doubt you could explain my beliefs on most things, yet I'm lumped in with some perceived immoral group anyway." [/i]


Or let's look at one of the comments you made when addressing me...

QUOTE
"Net2007 you go on and on about how uncivil the liberals, modern liberals, progressives, etc, even if I grant you that there is mass liberal support for this behavior that you cherry pick out to show as "evidence" (which I don't), but even if I agreed for the sake of moving the argument along,"


Remember your own standards on this, there's a difference between the real world and your own perception of the real world. I think one of the reasons you're getting confused at times is that you're taking things said by others, then rephrasing them, later to debate the rephrased version of what the other person said. In a sense, you're debating with yourself when you do that because you're creating your own characters to debate based on assumptions or oversimplifications.

I never made the claim that there's mass liberal support for violence, you're trying to debate that position but it's a position that came from you. So for one more clarification, you were making the argument that racism is abound on the right, I responded by agreeing, then later saying this....

QUOTE
"Racism, as well as violence, is "abound" within left-leaning groups but you'll never hear me use words like majority, and believe me, I've seen a LOT. I think we have to look with bigger eyes than that and that a person has to be laser-focused strictly on the flaws and bad deeds of their opponents to come to the conclusion that groups as large as Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, or Democrats don't have positive characteristics or ideas to contribute, or that our opponents are mostly racist."


I talk about violence on the left in my writings a good bit because it's clear that it's a problem that's getting worse but I don't think violence is representative of the left or the right altogether, those responsible for the worst of it make up a minority on both sides.

As far as modern liberal support for violence goes, I don't think that's mainstream either but I would make the argument that not enough people are condemning that type of behavior or confronting it head on to help combat what's going on. Just as with conservatives people often find it easier to just ignore or downplay violence and other forms of uncivil behavior. I've gone over that some, I think it boils down to some assuming that an acknowledgment reflects poorly on their preferred group in a larger sense. Personally, I think it helps to acknowledge when things go wrong in a party or group, as long as some perspective is offered. Those who are doing things which cause damage are a drain on those around them so it's not such a bad idea to confront that because those types inhibit the healthy growth of political parties and groups.

Behavioral trends have been worsening on both sides, as far as comparing the left to the right or modern liberals to modern conservatives, (to be more specific to current times), I do think there's a small but noticeable difference between these groups, and I'm not just talking in terms of rudeness or profanity in protest.

QUOTE
"Side note Net. I saw this clip and thought of you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8_eI-stGQc

Reason I thought this was good is because the lady was clearly, "rude". But what's incivility compared to war?"


We've had this debate already, it sounds like you're making the argument that there are conservatives who support military action, and since military action often involves violence, conservatives, therefore, must be violent or be accepting of violence so long as it achieves goals. It's an argument that is applicable on some level, so I'm not going to say that the right's tie to the military doesn't count at all, but here again you're oversimplifying. Remember there's a difference between your perception of the real world and the real world. About 80% of the jobs in the military are non-combat positions, and a chunk of that actually involves saving lives through humanitarian aid...

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/...tary-myths.html


Also, the military isn't as conservative as you let on either but I don't think that works against modern liberals who are involved in our military, often that says something positive about their character, though there are exceptions.....

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/does-...ean-republican/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rod-lurie/th...e_b_115934.html

You might have picked up on the left having stronger ties with the military than some realize if you had actually absorbed some of my prior writings or writings of others for that matter, but I don't see much of that. You either don't take them seriously or skip huge portions of what's written. Here's how I phrased it before....

QUOTE
"Comparing the left and the right on whether or not they want to take military action is complicated for a couple reasons. The first thing I'd state is that many on the left appear to be much more willing to take military action than you are. I'm not downing you for the beliefs you hold but have you heard the Democrats recently on whether or not we should have taken military action in Syria? Even Chuck Schumer has been quoted saying that punishing Assad is "the right thing to do". Admittingly this is upsetting some progressives within the Democratic party, but the same can be said for conservatives who thought we shouldn't be in Syria or Iraq.

Right here at AD, we see a great deal of skepticism in regards to taking too much military action from members like Conservpat if I remember right, and Gray Seal as you can see. DTOM wasn't a liberal either and he put up some of the strongest skepticism to the Iraq war. So you have neocons who want to fight in most situations, but there are conservatives and libertarians who certainly don't want to go to war unless it's under extreme circumstances. Laura Ingraham, who's very conservative, has been complaining about us taking military action in Syria and a substantial portion of Trump voters favor Trump because he was stating that we need to be involved with our own country rather than nation-building. He's certainly up and down on this issue and sends mixed signals with how involved we should be but that's frustrating many conservatives. At a minimum we're not involved in a ground war and regime change, that's a step away from Bush Jr. but we'll see what happens.

It's not so black and white where conservatives want to take military action while liberals don't"


Your argument comes off as if you look things this way... (military = bad, military = conservative, conservative = bad.) and I wouldn't be surprised that if we were to have this conversation again that you wouldn't have remembered or absorbed anything I wrote above. I don't think that's because you can't, I think it's because you choose not to. According to a lot of your writings, you view those who you deem "conservative" as intellectually and morally inferior so you're not learning much in these types of exchanges from what I can tell.

On violence, your notion seems to be that the left simply has some problems with incivility, but most of the serious forms of violence take place on the right. I demonstrated to you that violence on the left today involves more than rude language and uncivil protest. Again, I don't think violence is mainstream on the left but I showed you a lot more than cherry-picked examples, I think modern liberals have their work cut out for them for sure. I shared some of my more substantial sources in an exchange with you, then decided to give that topic its own thread. I don't want to mention it again here because it's very involved and would be premature considering I have the other debate in the works. Besides, for a casual thread, there's a lot of left VS. right in this exchange already so if you want me to point out the substantiation again, just let me know and I'll send it to you in a personal message. In the meantime, I don't claim the right as my group, I think they're wrong in some areas and right in others so believe what you want about the right, that's not going to change anyway, right?

I'm going to be out for a couple weeks to visit the area I'm probably going to be moving to. I'll only have mobile access to the internet with my phone so unless I write a reply on my laptop offline then take it down to the library to post than anything substantial will be difficult. I'll have limited time to do that so my replies would probably be very simple. Now's your moment to spin what I wrote and take things out of context without too much in the way of a rebuttle but there's an alternative.

Things could be different, I dont doubt that we could find some common ground. For example, I think it's good to consider that others will have a different view of the world and that our perceptions don't always match what's really happening and we also all have various standards when it comes to justifying our positions. I don't know how much you truly understand those arguments but I agree with you. If those positions are primarily being used to combat those who we deem to be the opposition and we don't apply those rules to ourselves then they loose meaning.

QUOTE
Years ago I told this story on ad.gif I'll make it short. Years ago I was denied entry into a night club. The reason why is I had a SeanJohn shirt on. Now, this shirt was a button up collar shirt. The guy points me to the policy on the door. Rocawear, FUBU, SeanJon, South Pole, Baby Phat, Just a crap load of clothing brands commonly worn by Blacks and Browns. Dress codes is nothing new in a nightclub. They are used to generate a particular crowd in the club. I ask for the manager. I had a cop behind me and I still told the bouncer and the manager "this is some racist bullsh.." The manager responded as if HE...HE was the person offended because I was accusing him of racism. "I'm not racist and neither is my policy, because if a White guy comes in here and has any of these clothes on he doesn't get in and if you go home and change your clothes you could get in."

That's how conservative racism works Net.


To wrap this up, that's how racism often works in a broader sense as well, some people really don't care, unfortunately. I've seen a lot of that, at times, myself, believe it or not, I can give some examples if you want when I come back. Sorry that happened though, people can be incredibly unfair and self-centered, that's at the heart of racism. As for the race debate in a broader sense, we can continue that in a few weeks as well, I don't disagree with everything you're saying but think that there's a lot of blanks to fill in. Americans often seem to think they're stuck between choosing to believe that this country is inseparable from the race-related problems that we have, where most of what we have is a product of a system where those who are less fortunate were taken advantage of to achieve goals or believing that racism is very rarely a factor and our country is so great that nobody else compares.

I take a different position, I think it depends on what we're talking about, America has progressed in ways that a lot of nations haven't and we have a lot to be thankful for here but we also have a checkered history and many problems that linger, problems that should be addressed. It's all about perspective, systemic and institutional racism have altered the paths of various groups in America on some level but so have many other things, such as the choices that individuals of each race make, that's first and foremost. The situation is very dynamic, there's institutional racism and prejudices built into our system that also work against the religious, whites, and conservatives, it's often downplayed but it's there. Ultimately though, America is defined as much by ingenuity, compassion, and cooperation as it is by those who are dividing us if not more so, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten far and wouldn't be able to work together at all. In short, I think both sides have good points on matters related to race but our communication could be so much better, I'm hoping for that to change but it's going to take work. Slowing down some to really hear out those who are unlike us is something that I think will help a great deal though it shouldn't be forced, people often come around at their own pace.

This post has been edited by net2007: Aug 20 2018, 06:04 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Aug 20 2018, 06:13 AM
Post #58


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(droop224 @ Aug 16 2018, 01:38 AM) *
To what end? If morality is not what guides you to the policy points you want to fight for or against?


If you ask three people to explain their relation with morality you'll get at least three different answers. That means when it is exercised it is subjective. Facts matter because they lay the middle ground upon which further arguement can be considered. If arguments are never uttered, say in a place like Canada, emotionally aroused people can just make allegations and shut down discussions. We discuss facts so rarely anymore than people either become confused or triggered when they hear them. My hope is that with enough wit and charisma the questions can then be turned around at the accuser. Right now, most people are asking the wrong questions. Here is what will happen, some people will take offense at a discussion that wasn't aimed at them and rather than provide a rationale or an arguement they are just going to push for tighter expression laws. More or less than what is happening on social media right now. Then some law will make its way up into congress. In Canada's case read bill 59. You only need to trigger a person for it to come into play and if someone expects you to say something you can be silenced in a preventative way. I hope Americans can find a different route because Canada has completely lost its way.


QUOTE
Morality isn't twisted above the individual level, it doesn't exist. But getting people to see that is difficult. Morality can only be conceptualized by sentient beings of higher reason, precisely because we made it up.


Sure morality exists on at cultural level. It is only absent in eras of cultural disintegration. Oh say about now for instance.

QUOTE
Basic, I believe its wrong to kill other humans. My morality, but shared by most of the world. However, I know that there are instances where the situation requires me to kill. Now influential people use these competing understandings to their benefit. This is what causes the warp in our morality collectively. At levels higher than the individual, like the State, justifications for necessity are created. Some human beings buy into the justification and some don't. So those that do not see the necessity are still working with very similar morality as those that don't. But with out necessity, that person has to see the killing as immoral. And the person that has allowed themselves to be influenced by the justification still see killing as wrong, but now they feel justified.


Congratulations for not being a psychopath. I can see where you are directing this line of thinking. Finding a base line and then associate your views as part of a baseline. Then, you'll flip this around by taking your view as a universal law yada yada ad naseum. This is how you'll attack the other group which by default means the conservatives. I'm not buying it.

Have you noticed homogeneous societies exercise morality differently than multicultural ones, young active demagraphics act differently than old ones, and tribal societies act out their sense of justice different again? Jeffersonian ideals are lost on tribal societies. You'll end up with a completely different emphasis on which values matter. I'm sure Afghan vets have plenty of stories to that end. But more to the point, this administration has changed said emphasis. Who is to say it is of lesser value? Perhaps a change was in order?


QUOTE
I disagree. Terrorism never meant anything... ever. Morality still has the same meaning and it is the singular concept that prevents us from being mere animals. (yes, I admit thinking we are more than mere animals may be delusional).


You mean "The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." has not been employed and then manipulated by the state for the exercise of imperial power? You are saying it never meant anything??

QUOTE
Again, to what end? Why? I agree 100% and I been in enough media debates to know... the merry go round goes around and around and they never can seem to achieve the "why". The media behaves this way whether it the Democrats or Republicans in power. I say that and some one will come out and start arguing how "No they do it to Republicans more" it will go off the rails, but they will never look at the why. People won't want to look at power, what it is, how exists, why it exists, and who really has it. Why does the media do this? "Duh they want rating!" but why?


I will accept that the idea insofar that the system should come under more scrutiny. Where we differ is I hold the position there is no left and right unless you watch a lot of television. If you can accept we are in a failing system a key characteristic of decline is a loss of egalitarian ideals. It is part and parcel of decline.

This post has been edited by Trouble: Aug 20 2018, 06:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Aug 23 2018, 07:26 PM
Post #59


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,825
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



WOW you guys just all let loose at once. I'm not sure how i'll try to reply, but i want to address the crux of all of your points. I want to reiterate from previous debates my views on "conservative" and "liberal".

Mindset\frame of mind\world-view, self-identification as part of a group, and political First, there is our mindset on an issue. How do we view issue? How do we think\process stimuli? In terms of mindset I think conservative is something we all are as well as liberal. Thinking conservatively is fundamental. Its natural. It’s about survival. The more threatened we feel the more conservatively we will think. The more self serving we think the more conservative our mindset would be. These opinioned observations might seem like slights or attacks on conservatives. But understand I too think conservatively on issues.

I do the mental work of understanding the other side, though I’m sure many of you will disagree. What is it that makes someone or myself conservative on certain issues? What is it that I\they are against? As an example, gay marriage. I didn’t think this issue should be decided in the courts, didn’t seem logical to me. At the same time, I didn’t have a huge issue if it was. Also, I think the whole “gay rights” issue is something that has purposely usurped the momentum civil rights based on race. Point is. I was of a liberal mind enough to want to see LGBTQ community have the right to marry. And conservative enough in mind frame to not care if they didn’t get it through the Courts. Regardless, it was a struggle for Gays to obtain the right to marry. I think we can all agree to that.

LGBTQ community wanted to call their committed relationships marriage. They wanted their committed relationships to have the same respect as that of heterosexual relationships. This is all they wanted. Yet, there was resistance. Where did that resistance come from? The right or the left? No surprise, the Right, predominately. Why, the Right? Well, that’s a rhetorical question and it has no real bearing on my point. People of a conservative mind saw a threat. Many, many, Blacks I know were against it, even though they vote democratically (the leftist political party) predominately.
https://sociology.yale.edu/sites/default/fi...ge_equality.pdf

Point is I didn’t see the threats to gay marriage that a religious person may see, nor a more homophobic person. But I did see a threat of my own that caused me concern. I still see that threat, as such I’m not extremely liberal on any of these gender\sexuality based political issues.
How conservative or how liberal I am on an issue may very well correlate to the threat I feel based on that issue. I’m not sure HOW someone can feel deeply threatened by Gay marriage, but it was very easy for me to acknowledge that people did. People saw it as the destruction of thousands of years of tradition. People saw it as unholy, literally, putting us endanger of God’s wrath. I’m not trying to debate any of this, just saying I was in a better position to observe and acknowledge these fears, even though I didn’t share them on this issue, precisely because I didn’t care too much about the outcome.
Anyways that’s enough about mindset. To conclude I think we all see things through a conservative lens, I think we all see some things through a liberal lens.

That leads me to self-identification… how often are we seeing things through a conservative lens vs a liberal lens will likely determine whether we call ourselves liberals and or conservatives. This in turn may greatly influence our political party choice. At this point in time, conservative associate with the Republican Platform in large part, while liberals tend to support the Democrats. This has and can change.

http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and...ched-platforms/

Lastly, there is liberal vs conservative which is an expedient way to summarize all the “right” and all the “left” political ideology. Its perfectly synonymous with the political terms “right” and ”left”.

Why is all this important? Well just want you all to get my perspective. No, I am not a conservative. Yes, I do have conservative views. As I have said before, my personal conservatism is something that I generally need to “grow” out of. That’s my opinion. Its not that conservatism is bad or evil. In my opinion, it is self-serving, it is uneducated, it is selfish, it is myopic. For all the religious faith conservatism around the world creates, it continues to be devoid of spirituality, connecting all humans.

And yeah for a little pragmatism. It doesn’t matter. Bottom line… while debate is fun and I can get caught up in it like the next person. I wish everyone of you the best, truly, because the world keeps spinning. I don’t think you are evil. Just unconcerned, unaware, or clueless that the power to create any reality, including one of peace is within our capabilities. But if someone can simple say… “threat” and you go “destroy” its unachievable. But we could nuke this world 15 times over and it would continue to spin and a few thousand years later life would start anew.

I’ll get back to the real replies later






This post has been edited by droop224: Aug 23 2018, 07:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Aug 24 2018, 07:56 PM
Post #60


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,236
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Droop

QUOTE
Its not that conservatism is bad or evil. In my opinion, it is self-serving, it is uneducated, it is selfish, it is myopic. For all the religious faith conservatism around the world creates, it continues to be devoid of spirituality, connecting all humans.


QUOTE
And yeah for a little pragmatism. It doesn't matter. Bottom line while debate is fun and I can get caught up in it like the next person. I wish everyone of you the best, truly, because the world keeps spinning. I don't think you are evil. Just unconcerned, unaware, or clueless that the power to create any reality, including one of peace is within our capabilities. But if someone can simple say... "threat" and you go "destroy" its unachievable. But we could nuke this world 15 times over and it would continue to spin and a few thousand years later life would start anew.


To address both of these together, I first want to say that I appreciate that you would say this.... "I wish everyone of you the best, truly, because the world keeps spinning" I'll say the same
for you, it is easy to get caught up in these debates but as you say the world keeps spinning. It the heat of the moment, it can be easy to forget there are people behind these political
labels but we've had a lot of talented writers at ad.gif and a lot of thought has gone into many of the postings here so I try to go back to that. I'll sometimes grill a position if I find it to
be appropriate, (generally positions which I consider to be unfair or could lead to injustice, especially if those positions are accompanied by actions). Sometimes I've directed some of that
grilling at some of your postings but I will say this much, you're willing to engage with those you feel don't view the world the way you do. That's a step beyond those who blurt out something outrageous then leave because they know they cant justify or substantiate their positions. I also don't know you personally, when you explained some about yourself in a casual context earlier in this thread, I thought that offered a different perspective of you. We really don't understand what other members here are like with certainty, the political debates can give a glimpse but it's a small window with a limited view in the scheme of things.

As far as conservatives being selfish, self-centered, unconcerned, or clueless, (rather than evil). I suppose that's a step up from how some view conservatives but I don't think that those traits
are unique to conservatives, first off, I don't believe in evil. This might surprise you, but I'm not religious and I think that when people do immoral things, that there's always a reason for it.
A combination of genetics and our environment is what I believe shapes us. Having said that, I don't go as far as to suggest that this should be used as an excuse for those who are hurting
others, the reasons why people do things can offer perspective but we all have the power to overcome selfish impulses which may not be in the best interest of others. If someone is doing something
seriously damaging to others there should be a point where action is taken especially for repeat offenders. I like the idea of rehabilitation, taking a life should be the very last option, only
in the case that there's no other way, like shooting someone who has a gun and is committing a murder.

The issue I have is that you're focusing on the faults of the right but don't seem to quite realize how many of those same character flaws exist on the left. That story that you were told, if the
manager was indeed acting out of racism, then that was wrong. I'm sure that hearing something like that has an impact on your views, just as an Antifa member beating down a conservative
with a blunt object, or some lunatic opening fire on Republicans during a baseball game, has an impact on my views. Having said that, these cases shouldn't be presented as representative
of other groups. The best I figure that we can do is pick up on trends, I believe that violence is getting worse on the left because there's a lot of supporting evidence, but trends change and
rarely, if ever, do they say something about a group as a whole.

Tackling the issue of selfishness, you view conservatives as selfish but I can easily point at a number of policies and events which demonstrate that there's a lot of selfishness on the left,
especially today. Policies which give benefits to select groups at the expense of other groups could be considered selfish. I'm on government assistance, SSI to be exact, and I think programs
like that are necessary but there are people who take advantage of the benefits they get. I can tell you first hand that I've known several people who are capable of working and use their SSI
money for things like drugs, alcohol, and video games. A former "so called friend" <<<(air quotes), literally does nothing but play video games until 6AM while sleeping all day. He's smart,
has had a job before, he's not physically impaired, but managed to get on disability due to rough times he had as a teenager. The government is supposed to check to see that you're doing things
to treat your disability and confirm that you still need the help but somehow he's slipping through the system, A LOT of people do. I left that friendship because he was also selfish with those he called friends, that's the kind of person he is. Perhaps having everything done for him has, to a degree, encouraged that kind of a lifestyle. Having said that, there are a lot of people
who genuinely need the assistance that they get and use it responsibly, so again each demographic and political group has faults as well as strengths. The protesters on the left who are protesting violently are without question committing selfish acts. It's a mindset of (my beliefs are more important that yours, they're so much more important that I'm allowed to put your safety at
risk or try to make you regret that you hold the beliefs that you do.) That's inconsiderate of others and selfish to put it mildly.

To wrap this up, I have no hard feelings about some of the things you believe or, at times, have directed at others. I just hope that you're able to see that some of what you're saying applies to the left, and that there's a little grey in most situations. So I wish you the best as well but will still be very critical of many of the things you're saying because some of that's not cool man, tongue.gif (I'm sure you'd disagree so it is what it is, I agree with some of your other points). This is about the longest my replies can be for a while longer, this was really pushing it given I have no internet access and went to the library to post this. I consider these debates important enough to do that from time to time if necessary, I just have to space it out some.

This post has been edited by net2007: Aug 24 2018, 07:59 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: December 17th, 2018 - 10:53 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.