"White Man's Burden"

[DixonHur 11171]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, and here's the thing.  I think we have to pass judgment on the past.  It was wrong, it was immoral.  The more interesting question, posed and answered for himself, by Aphelion, is if you could change it, would you?

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I understand the point of view, I just don't agree with it.

I believe the past is best viewed in terms of the common understanding of morality at the time.  For example, if the Bible were written today it probably wouldn't include rules for slavery...unless, of course, it were written in the Deep South...but the fact that the actual Bible does isn't an indication that its authors were morally bankrupt.  

[TwiceHorn 31264]

10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I understand the point of view, I just don't agree with it.

I believe the past is best viewed in terms of the common understanding of morality at the time.  For example, if the Bible were written today it probably wouldn't include rules for slavery...unless, of course, it were written in the Deep South...but the fact that the actual Bible does isn't an indication that its authors were morally bankrupt.  

Fair point, I too, am not 100% on board with Aphelion, but I also think that relativism, in any context, can be very dangerous.

Edited July 5, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[DixonHur 11171]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fair point, I too, am not 100% on board with Aphelion, but I also think that relativism, in any context, can be very dangerous.

Agreed.  I'm not talking about relativism, I'm just saying we need to look at the social, political, and moral dynamics of the day if we want to judge a past event, not the current ones.

[TwiceHorn 31264]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I feel like you didn't read my entire post. I agree with you in substance, just not approach. "White supremacist" is obviously a derogatory term to most people and is a subset of those with ethnocentric beliefs--mainly those who have made a conscious decision that not only is the white "race" superior, but that it should subjugate the other races. I don't think it typically includes those hidden biases that we all tend to have. TwiceHorn has been pretty receptive to constructive feedback on this issue, so I don't see the need to berate him with insults. 

Again thanks.  And yes, I know that racist and white supremacist can be taken as merely descriptive terms rather than pejorative, but taking a page from b_t, the overall tone of his posts, viz. "without tattoos" makes it pretty clear that he's calling me Tom Metzger in coded language.  I will accept many descriptions, but that one I will not.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Again thanks.  And yes, I know that racist and white supremacist can be taken as merely descriptive terms rather than pejorative, but taking a page from b_t, the overall tone of his posts, viz. "without tattoos" makes it pretty clear that he's calling me Tom Metzger in coded language.  I will accept many descriptions, but that one I will not.

Your desire to be insulted and feel oppressed stretches credulity.

I don't think you're a Klan member or a skinhead (which is what Tom Metzger is). I have said this repeatedly and am happy to say it again.

Your brand of white supremacy is far more banal.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

33 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 TwiceHorn has been pretty receptive to constructive feedback on this issue, so I don't see the need or benefit of berating him with insults. 

Also, read the thread. Between TwiceHorn and I, who has berated whom with insults? Go to Page 1 and look.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

19 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Your desire to be insulted and feel oppressed stretches credulity.

I don't think you're a Klan member or a skinhead (which is what Tom Metzger is). I have said this repeatedly and am happy to say it again.

Your brand of white supremacy is far more banal.

 

Hey a shock, BT calls yet another poster a racist.  You as usual, have no idea what you're saying, when it comes to judging people.

[Dahobbs 17437]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hey a shock, BT calls yet another poster a racist.  You as usual, have no idea what you're saying, when it comes to judging people.

To be fair, a lot of posters in the CR are definitely racist. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

It's happening right now. That's what "animals" is all about.

It’s also how abortion is justified.  

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

It’s also how abortion is justified.  

No, it isn't.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

To be fair, a lot of posters in the CR are definitely racist. 

To be fair just about everyone on the planet has racist tendencies of some kind or degree. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, David Dennison said:

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. That unborn baby with a heartbeat and brain activity is okay to kill because it isn’t really a human.  You don’t like it because it’s the logic you have to use to justify it.  But that’s exactly what you are doing. 

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes it is. That unborn baby with a heartbeat and brain activity is okay to kill because it isn’t really a human.  You don’t like it because it’s the logic you have to use to justify it.  But that’s exactly what you are doing. 

And it isn't born. That's kind of important.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Just now, David Dennison said:

And it isn't born. That's kind of important.

So not human, right?

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

So not human, right?

Not a person.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Not a person.

Untermenschen, right?

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Untermenschen, right?

No. They have to be born first.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

And it isn't born. That's kind of important.

when you're trying to play semantics with the definition of life yeah. So a full term baby in the birth canal isn't a human ?

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

when you're trying to play semantics with the definition of life yeah. So a full term baby in the birth canal isn't a human ?

Of course it is. It hasn't been born, though.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

Legally, you're not a person until you're born. We can argue what our fee fees are about the issue until we're blue in the face but that's the current legal reality.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Of course it is. It hasn't been born, though.

Again a way to make yourself feel better about the murder of a human being.

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Again a way to make yourself feel better about the murder of a human being.

I don't consider an unborn human a human being. Being comes after birth.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Legally, you're not a person until you're born. We can argue what our fee fees are about the issue until we're blue in the face but that's the current legal reality.

So you agree every law we have, and don't question it's morality or ethics. Are you fine with the law that separates children from adults at the border ?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, David Dennison said:

I don't consider an unborn human a human being. Being comes after birth.

That's because you're inhuman, and think infanticide is ok, but hey you be you

[Chrispy 132]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Legally, you're not a person until you're born. We can argue what our fee fees are about the issue until we're blue in the face but that's the current legal reality.

Unless you’re Scott Peterson. He was convicted of second degree murder for killing his unborn son.

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

That's because you're inhuman, and think infanticide is ok, but hey you be you

It's not infanticide. Infants are born. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, David Dennison said:

It's not infanticide. Infants are born. 

Again semantics, but you're ok with murder.  It suits you well.

[David Dennison 18652]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Again semantics, but you're ok with murder.  It suits you well.

I don't consider it murder. You can if you want.

[pepper brooks 579]

On 7/3/2018 at 9:28 AM, bad_teammate said:

What does "advanced" even mean? What determines the "highest" point of civilization?

Is it this moment?

I don't mean that to be snarkily political, but take a few steps back from it, analyze the characters involved in a larger historical context, and contrast the supposed social holiness and wonder of the grand institutions involved with those characters.

And then try to argue something about the highest, most advanced civilization with a straight face.

The choice on the other side was Hillary. Make whatever case you want, but that choice wasn’t exactly a signature moment either. Fact is we aren’t very good at alerting leaders these days. The last 50 years our two best presidents include a b list actor and a sexual deviant who was Impeached(but not removed from office). Not sure picking the last election is an indication of anything other than again, we aren’t very good at picking candidates nor electing leaders. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

26 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hey a shock, BT calls yet another poster a racist.  You as usual, have no idea what you're saying, when it comes to judging people.

Who did I call a racist, lying bitch?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who did I call a racist, lying bitch?

You've called many posters here racist so own it, and stop lying. Not getting my hopes up on that last part.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't consider it murder. You can if you want.

Of course you don't because you have no morals or ethics, but I figured that out  about you a while ago.

[Brian Fantana 6667]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

So you agree every law we have, and don't question it's morality or ethics. Are you fine with the law that separates children from adults at the border ?

Of course not, but this argument is A) a thread derail, and B) pointless.

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Unless you’re Scott Peterson. He was convicted of second degree murder for killing his unborn son.

Correct, however Connor Peterson was well past the point of viability and any attempt to terminate the pregnancy in any way would have been considered murder.

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Of course you don't because you have no morals or ethics, but I figured that out  about you a while ago.

You support Donald Trump and you want to talk about morals and ethics.

OK.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Of course not, but this argument is A) a thread derail, and B) pointless.

Correct, however Connor Peterson was well past the point of viability and any attempt to terminate the pregnancy in any way would have been considered murder.

Not according to D. Dennison....

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You support Donald Trump and you want to talk about morals and ethics.

OK.

I don't support him. I voted for him to save the world from a Hillary presidency.  I won, you won, we all won,

[Brian Fantana 6667]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I don't support him. I voted for him to save the world from a Hillary presidency.  I won, you won, we all won,

I hope some day you realize how retarded this line of logic is.

[Chrispy 132]

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Of course not, but this argument is A) a thread derail, and B) pointless.

Correct, however Connor Peterson was well past the point of viability and any attempt to terminate the pregnancy in any way would have been considered murder.

Right, but Connor wasn’t born yet, that was my only point. 

[JBJ 3648]

Between this thread and the 88 ICE one, it's about time for Groverat to rebrand himself again.

Also, I'm struggling to think of a pre-Medieval civilization that didn't have slavery whether externally (conquered peoples) or internally (serfs).  Agrarian servitude is a strong catalyst for advancement, but it is harder to say that it was a requirement.  The Achaemenid Empire stands out as one that wasn't necessarily built on slave labor.

There's a strong argument that the WWEM hegemony that we have today probably has the least slavery-contributed cultural dominance ever.

[zork 629]

What cemented my view on abortion was the viewing of a short ~4 second video clip of my 5 month old fetus, now son, moving his tiny hand to his alien head and mouth to suck on his thumb in the womb.  Sonograms are magical.  And this was not the 3D kind they are using today.

As I said earlier in the thread:  live your life according to what is right and wrong and not necessarily by what is the law of the land.

[David Dennison 18652]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I don't support him. I voted for him to save the world from a Hillary presidency.  I won, you won, we all won,

The Democratic Party certainly won. You aren't going to like the blowback to your vote to save the world. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

I hope some day you realize how retarded this line of logic is.

Nope, she was the worst crook in our political system in decades.  Nixon was a Boy Scout in comparison to the shit she was pulling and trying to pull. 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I've seen the groverat theory and am not sure I buy it.  Groverat was so far left he could barely get out of bed, but he wasn't a strident dickhead like BT and actually voiced opinions and made substantive comments other than personal assaults.

You are correct.  They are different posters.

 

4 hours ago, DixonHur said:

The problem with this type of thinking is that morality is fluid, and you're applying today's standard of morality on historical events. 

I believe that morality is absolute and affected by neither culture nor the passage of time.  I realize that this idea is not as common these days, but I think this is largely a function of definitions and terms and not of base concepts.  In fact, I think most everyone believes in objective morality & justice (i.e. natural law) and it is hardwired into who we are and thus we instinctively appeal to it in the face of injustice.  

 

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And a subset of that is how it is that a couple of millenia's worth of depredation became finally unacceptable.  I think a part of it has to do with science in that Darwin, among others, finally gave a scientific basis for human equality, which, of course, certain folks quibble with to this day.  

Actually, Darwin's theory does the opposite.  It directly leads to the idea that men have evolved differently over time in various regions and so naturally some are superior to others in the fundamental distinctive human tasks (namely, general academic intelligence).  This idea led to disastrous effects and conclusions throughout the 20th century.  The idea that all men are equal came from the idea that all men are created by the same God and created in His own image and therefore it follows that we are all created equal.  

 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Your brand of white supremacy is far more banal.

The point of the OP was a question on the ethical evaluation of the summed actions, both positive and negative, of a group.   Why is it important to you to get acknowledgement that the OP falls into your trivial created category of "banal white supremacy"?  Insisting on trivialities and avoiding the subject of discussion is blatant pedantry.  

Edited July 5, 2018 by Guest

[Brian Fantana 6667]

4 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Right, but Connor wasn’t born yet, that was my only point. 

Both what I said and the point you're making can be and are true.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I hope some day you realize how retarded this line of logic is.

I'm just glad I don't have to utter the phrase, President Hillary Clinton........

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Both what I said and the point you're making can be and are true.

Not according to D. Dennison. It's not murder if the child hasn't been born.

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Not according to D. Dennison. It's not murder if the child hasn't been born.

That is my position, yes. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That is my position, yes. 

Well your position shows you to be an immoral animal..

[Brian Fantana 6667]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That is my position, yes. 

In this, the legal system disagrees, but we're talking specifically late term/past the point of viability. There's plenty of time to legally and safely get an abortion before that point.

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

Well your position shows you to be an immoral animal..

You aren't?