An inconvenient truth

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2014.

  1. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Okay, the majority of the things you posted ("The guy has no credibility, Conservatives support terrorism, Conservatives reject science", etc.), in my opinion, are tainted by your own bias and ill feelings...why you have them is your own business. I'm not a fan of Huckabee--not by a long shot, I simply thought that the points he made have merit; in particular, how the policies of this country have undermined and fostered dependency among vulnerable my opinion, this was done intentionally, just like the current immigration crisis i.e. to cement the positions of those in power who can be seen as benefactors by an artificially created permanent underclass. I also agreed with him that the country needs to hear more about such stories. It is those kind of positive stories/examples that serve to bring people together.

    As far as Bush goes, I detest him--and Karl Rove more so.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Surely you know there are many just like him.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Ah, the classic argument of one who is too frightened of history to deal with it honestly.

    That requires a conspiracy theory of vast proportions. Mostly, the phenomenon you refer to is the result of compromising between principle and greed. Consider the "cromnibus" discussion going on this week. Sen. Warren (D-MA) is denouncing a Wall Street bonanza in the bill; conservation groups are wondering why it gives Rio Tinto access to destroy protected land; and given the amount people are complaining about money in politics, it is hard to comprehend why campaign finance is part of the Continuing Resolution.

    But we need to fund the government; the bill will likely pass and will likely be signed. And those are examples of the compromises necessary to pass the bill. Certes, there are smaller conspiracies here and there, but the vast conspiring required to support your tinfoil theory is virtually impossible.

    Historically, the working classes have become more and more dependent on outside assistance because the business models are contrived in a way that includes that symptom. Very few of the business owners are actually looking for ways to oppress the working classes; rather, they just think the lives and livelihoods of their workers aren't as important as another beach house or fancy car. It's like the time Reebok laid off a bunch of workers citing financial necessity, and then took the funds that would have been paid to those workers labor as bonuses for the board.

    And if we ignore history in order to believe the sort of excrement you're promoting, we will only repeat that history and dig ourselves a deeper hole.

    Think of it this way: There are statistics reflecting that one in three black males born during the drug war would die before their eighteenth birthday, and one in three of those who survived would be in the penal system by their thirtieth. We also invented a bizarre sentencing schedule specifically for crack cocaine. And while the majority of crack users were white, the vast majority of those arrested, tried, and convicted under the standard were black. Nor were the numbers close. At a time when sixty-five percent of crack users were white, approximately one-eighth of one percent of those prosecuted and convicted under the standard were white. How did this happen? We still see it today: Dark skin is cause for suspicion.

    This has been going on for generations. We need not wonder why those who support such outcomes have nothing left in their arsenal but tinfoil conspiracy theories and bullets.

    I will say this of rhetorical form: You delivered a delicate punch line wrongly, waited too long to explain the joke, and have since undergone a spam-fit. At this point, you're only digging yourself a deeper hole and further denigrating your own reputation.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Agreed. But I'm not afraid to face the harsh reality of the possibility/likelihood of such a conspiracy, nor of the predictable reactions of cowards seeking to belittle, squelch, and silence by ridicule. You admit human nature has a dark side, but again, you are too afraid to confront it in its magnitude which makes a conspiracy of vast proportions quite plausible. Why is that? I think it's because you want to evade the inevitable: The inconvenient truth about yourself. Not very courageous in my opinion.

    Ha. On the contrary, I am perfectly honest about my [reasonable] views; As a result of such virtue, I'm the recipient of all manner of accusations, innuendo and overall verbal abuse. I'm told what I think, who I am, what I'm like etc. I bear no ill will toward any of you, but evidently the same cannot be said of you. I say I'm the courageous one and you're the coward.

    I'm against the bill you mentioned, and the point you made regarding the discrepancies in dealing with cocaine is valid, however, I'm not familiar enough with it to address it.
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Well, at least you admit that you are in the vast minority. Which is a good thing for the US overall. We are slowly moving away from bigotry and prejudice, although we still have a ways to go (as this thread demonstrates.)

    BTW you have no idea who my heroes are.
  9. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Whites as a whole moved on long ago... the likes of Jackson, Sharpton, Obama, Holder and countless others like them (both black and white) continually fan those flames among the black community and always at the expense of whites. I suspect it they who have not moved on...still harboring grudges against whites in general and the US as conceived long ago in particular. Finding themselves in positions of power, now the government (them--which by the way is antithetical to the founders ideas/understandings i.e. unconstitutional) is pitting its own citizens against one another...shamelessly pushing the good will of whites to the breaking point...the politics and policies of division appear to be defies reason with respect to honest solutions based honest, colorblind, assessments of the problems in the first place. At this point in time, it would seem blacks not whites have the lions share of soul searching to do by virtue of the fact it is their communities that repeatedly serve as the tinderboxes igniting these conflagrations.
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2014
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    To: Photizo
    re: Comparative application
    American-born, Russian-descended actor Dmitri Diatchenko was charged earlier this week↱ in a bizarre case alleging that he killed his (ex-)girlfriend's rabbit and ate it, sending her photographs of every step of the process.

    By the standard you've been pushing, is the appropriate question, "What's wrong with white people?" or, "What's wrong with Russians?"

    See, because for the rest of us, if this story is true, the only real question is, "What the fuck is wrong with Dmitri Diatchenko?"​
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    When was that? Back in 1964, when white judges ruled that a black woman could not marry a white man because God didn't mean for that to happen? In 1967, when Klan members bombed black churches? In 1980, when Klan members shot four black women? The lynching in 1981?

    All those things had something in common - a belief that blacks were inferior to whites, that they were the problem, that they were "shamelessly pushing the good will of whites to the breaking point," that blacks have to do some "soul-searching" since their communities "ignite these conflagrations."

    You sure you want to sign up to their philosophy?
    Photizo likes this.
  12. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Us? All of you vs me, huh?
    No, that's "the standard" you wit: "Conservatives support terrorism, Conservatives reject science, etc" by citing isolated 'examples' while clearly your broad brush assertions about the whole are patently false/nonsense. You are being deliberately dishonest, not to mention hypocritical. What I'm saying and what you say I'm saying could not be further apart. This is plain on the face of it. Is this an example of you "exploiting people psychologically by being deliberately confusing"?

    P.S. How's this for a conspiracy theory: You don't think they're using similar tactics to foster hatred of cops and manufacturing this whole current crisis? Consider how all their poster children are anything but legitimate examples of a real problem. Precisely the opposite. How you can't see this is beyond me.

    And there's the whole arab spring thing...and all that's evolved out of that. This country is asking for a punch in the nose--and that's putting it mildly. It will catch up to them sooner or later.
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2014
  13. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Apparently, you're stuck in the past just like the others mentioned earlier.
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Well, who the hell is coming to your rescue in this thread? Anyone?

    Look, you're pushing this generalization for whatever stupid reasons. I'm asking you to answer in a relative application. And it turns out you're afraid to do so.

    So what you're saying is that pointing to the observable is somehow problematic? Where are the conservatives protesting the Christian terrorism in Wichita? What's that? They're celebrating the terrorist victory? Some are even claiming credit for it?

    And when conservatives argue that they are representing conservatives when they reject science, where are you to complain? It's the same thing we just saw in Iowa. Sure, the candidate is as stupid and irresponsible as they come, but she has an (R) after her name, so we'll vote for her anyway.

    You know, of all the bizarre conspiracy theories we've heard in recent decades, you know which one is proving true? The one about the CIA pushing crack cocaine onto blacks.

    The idea of stupid covert operations against Latin America and the Caribbean? Jeez, dude, that's nothing new. We even tried the exploding cigar bit with Castro.

    Well, the second sentence, at least, we can agree on. The first does not yet make any sense.

    But we know how it goes. You're losing the pro-police argument on the merits, both in terms of due process and litigation in the court of public opinion. We don't wonder why you're trying to change the subject.
  15. Bells Staff Member

    The proposition of going backwards, to the point of racial segregation.. Well we can either laugh or cry at you. I don't think, at least I hope, you do not understand the horrors of it. Racial supremacism is an ugly part of history, one that we look back on with shame and horror. The desire to back to that, based solely on a belief system that still harks back to those days, with its false and offensive stereotypes, can only be laughed at. I am sorry this offends you, but from the viewpoint of the majority of thinking individuals, what kind of future are we setting up for our future generations if we are wanting to go back to one of the ugliest parts of our human history?

    The dark side of human nature was what drove the horrors of segregation and racist ideology in the first place.

    What? Do you honestly think you will live in some sort of white utopia if you had your own State based solely on the colour of your skin? Do you not see just how ugly it is to even contemplate such a thing? To contemplate going back to the days where even talking to a white person or looking at them would result in a lynching? You actually want to contemplate going to a system whereby if a white person wants to marry a non-white person, then they must leave their whole family and community behind because to do so would result in their being banned from entering or living in with their spouse and their mixed race children?

    That isn't an ideal, Photizo. That is as ugly and as evil as it comes. You have spent pages now, advocating for separating people into different groups, based solely off the colour of their skin. It simply does not get worse than that.

    I beg to differ. I think having a system where you are grading people based on the colour of their skin and separating people based on that, is not courageous. It is despicable and evil and harks back to days when people were graded like cattle, enslaved and those who didn't meet a certain standard, were slaughtered on mass. Why anyone would want to go back to that is beyond comprehension.
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2014
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    No, I am glad I am living in a time when such prejudices are disappearing. (Based on your example, though, that's not happening everywhere.)

    BTW thanks for liking my post.
  17. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    No. Color of skin is merely incidental. Hostile behaviors are whats being 'graded' and separation on account of those same hostile behaviors. Change the behaviors and I'm fine. At this point, they have a long way to go to earn my respect or trust.
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2014
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    "Whites as a whole moved on long ago... "
    "blacks not whites have the lions share of soul searching to do . . ."

    Apparently the poster known as Photizo doesn't get that yet.
  19. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Whites have moved on--and soul searched to a fault...they are well meaning toward blacks...blacks are kept from moving forward by the likes of this clown:

  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    You can flipflop faster than a politician in a tight election.
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member


    Look, the thing about being a hero in your own eyes is that it is virtually inevitable under certain circumstancs. The only real question is how deeply one's sense of injury runs.

    In history there are people who have fought against convention, suffered ridicule and worse in order to silence them, and actually had a valid point.

    You are not, at this time, among their number.

    Terrorism: I've already told you to consider the case of what happened to Dr. Mila Means. Do you intend to answer? Do you intend to explain how it isn't terrorism to threaten to murder someone for offending your politics? Or perhaps you might want to argue that actually claiming credit for the threats preventing her clinic from opening because you harassed the facility owners with threats of inflated insurance rates because of all the terror threats isn't claiming credit for the success of terrorism? Maybe you want to say that the open celebration at the political victory of Dr. Means not opening the clinic at that location and time isn't celebrating terrorism? Maybe you will argue that refusing to denounce terrorism while celebrating its gains isn't what conservatives are doing?

    Maybe in your opinion the idea that conservatives support terrorism is just an opinion, but that's your own problem when the evidence is right there in front of us.

    It's a problem that has to do with the definitions of words, Photizo. In the case of conservatives and terrorism, this happened. Operation Rescue went on the record claiming credit. No conservatives are denouncing them; rather, conservative celebrated the win. Objective reality. We have the record.

    If conservatives want to set their reputation straight, they are welcome to picket Operation Rescue and march in Wichita until Dr. Means can run her clinic free of terrorist threats.

    Conservatives oppose science? Well, think of it this way—at some point it becomes a bit like, "I'm not a racist, but ...", or, "I'm not a misogynist, but ...." Okay, so he's not anti-science, but he'll vote for an anti-evolution candidate because he wants to stop the liberals from their conspiracy to indoctrinate children with science. Or maybe she's not anti-science, but she will vote for the candidate who argues that raped women can't get pregnant because, well, he has an (R) after his name. In the end, "I'm not anti-science, but I support anti-scientific candidates because I hate Democrats," just isn't a functional argument.

    Conservatives can set their reputation straight by electing better candidates in the primaries and rejecting bad candidates in the general even when they have an (R) after their name.

    Huckabee has no credibility? He's a known bigot. He has problems with gays, women, and anyone who isn't Christian. He blamed the Newtown massacre on contraception and homosexuals; you're welcome to try to explain the credibility of that one. Every time he complains about liberals being unconstitutional, remember that he wants to change the Constitution.

    You're welcome to try to argue that the record is different than it is, but you seem to be having some trouble with the definition of the word opinion. And just like the idea of a square circle, there is a functional problem with inconsistency and inaccuracy defining credibility.

    Where you are having success in this thread is in changing the subject. And we're aware that people do this. Look at what's happened in this thread. As the due process and equal protection questions settled, supporters of these police homicides changed the subject. As their attempt to litigate the case in the court of public opinion fell apart, well, they changed the subject. You are succeeding largely on the merit of your persistence.

    What is happening between police departments and the black community is not a new thing; it is part of a continuous arc from before this country was a country. There is nothing new about prosecutors throwing the case like McCulloch and his team did. And this method of protecting homicidal police is straight out of American white supremacism. You might hope to mock my characterization of the situation, but all you've really managed to do is put on a spectacle of stupidity that reminds just how desperately some people want to change the subject.

    So start yourself a thread on whatever the hell it is you're on about. Or explaining how aiding and abetting terrorism and claiming credit for its victory isn't supporting terrorism. Or how ignorance and inconsistency amount to credibility. Or how the Newtown massacre is the fault of birth control pills and homosexuals.

    But at least put some effort into something other than—

    —your own damn, foolish egocentrism.
  22. Nutter Shake it loose, baby! Registered Senior Member

    Perhaps the savage criminals and their sympathizers who bemoan the consequences of their aggressive criminal choices would find their time better spent on developing and honing civilized human behavior and, most importantly, better self-awareness vis a vis all aspects of the jungle culture which they glorify than spending so much time weeping and "keyboard-warrioring" over those receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was they have earned.
  23. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    I still dont' understand why race/religion/creed matters... we're all Terrans for fucks sake...

Share This Page