Nope. If you are a poor black you are screwed because of the history of racism in this country. You have no positive role models, the government wont help, the only way out will be drugs, and your life will be ruined.
There is a simple way to fix this. Force children to go to school, and make sure the schools are good enough for them to realize the value of education so they can get good jobs.
Black people are not genetically lazy, inferior, etc. They are just disadvantaged because of our history. We are closer than ever, and I believe maybe under this trump administration, schools will be improved in black neighborhoods and the next generation will finally emerge.
This is pathetic. That professor is an idiot. They are immigrant who came here illegally.
If he were telling people not to be disrespectful to them in their essays or not to call them derogatory terms, that would maybe be understandable considering it is his class. But this type of censoring is plain stupid.
Okay I can see both sides of the argument. I think you guys are using the wrong word. It isn't "intelligence" you should be measuring, but self consciousness and ability to empathize.
Whales, dolphins, elephants, gorillas, and dogs all grieve when their family members die. Rats, on the other hand, either can't tell or don't give a damn. They are not affected; or at least it is not as obvious as when, say, an elephant mother loses her son.
Whales also grieve, so I am questioning your decision to eat a whale. I don't think it is a big deal because in many cultures they have a different need and tradition, but that whale might have had a family who is missing them.
I know it sounds like it is out of a disney movie but it is true; many animals, especially large mammals, feel empathy and grieve the deaths of their families. They love just like we do. That's why I think it is immoral to eat them.
However, I don't think there should be a crack down because it would be very hypocritical to attack another culture's traditions before looking at what is wrong with our own.
Allow me to explain. The Founding Fathers made checks and balances to minimize the damage if we elected a tyrant. Over the course of our history, we elected a few really good presidents, and loosened up the checks on the executive branch, leaving the gate ajar for a tyrant with just the right know-how. Electing Donald Trump would be a wake-up call, and politicians who couldn’t give two shits about restraints on government power will suddenly scramble to figure out how to restore them.
A Trump presidency would be like a vaccine. A vaccine delivers a small dose of dead or disabled virus to the patient, so that the patient’s immune system knows how to counter the real deal. Some people have likened Trump to Hitler, but what they’re missing is that Trump is a weakened version of that virus that was Hitler. Hitler was brilliant, and Trump is fucking stupid. And I don’t think he’s playing dumb like Mrs. Clinton sometimes does. He’s genuinely idiotic. Trump is the harmless, disabled version of a tyrant that will boost our immunity to real tyrants.
In anticipation of a stupid president, Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) has introduced H. R. 6179, a bill that would take away the President’s ability to launch nuclear missiles without the approval of Congress, unless the US is attacked first. I think it goes without saying that this bill would be more likely to pass with a Trump presidency.
With a Trump presidency, we will be forced to have serious skepticism of executive orders. Congress didn’t like it when Obama abused his executive orders. Could you imagine what a shitstorm it would create if Trump acted the same way?
With a Trump presidency, Congress might reconsider the 1954 Bricker Amendment, which would have prohibited the President from signing international treaties that violate the Constitution, but failed by 1 vote.
With a Trump presidency, everyone, young and old, will be checking online daily about the latest happenings in our government. Grab a piece of paper and list all the things you know Obama has done or said in the last six months. Now do the same for Trump. Clearly, lunatics make us stay more up-to-date on current events, and if we had a lunatic president, people will be more involved in how they are governed than they have ever been.
With a Trump presidency, we might dramatically revisit the way we do democracy. The two candidates that came out on top this year are not there because people like them, but because the way our democracy is set up encourages voters to vote for their second least favorite candidate. Trump being in the White House might force us to replace our First-Past-the-Post voting system, in which whoever gets half-plus-one of the votes wins, with something like approval voting, where voters go down the list approving or disapproving of each candidate, and the candidate that the most people approve of wins, or STV, where voters rank the candidates in order of preference, where if your first choice doesn’t win, your second choice is counted, then your third choice, and so on, ensuring that your vote will matter no matter what.
Like Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton would like to be a absolute monarch if possible, except she’s actually smart enough and Machiavellian enough to do so. Sure, she might know a thing or two about running a country, but she’s the one presidential candidate that has been able to set up a shell company of the DNC to pay mentally ill people to incite violence at Trump rallies, secretly obtain townhall questions in advance, work with her party’s National Convention to rig the primary against Sanders, and illegally dictate to PACs. Given she has the audacity to do all that, what other powers will she claim for herself?
With a Trump presidency, people will flock to mend to holes in the wall that protects the American people from the wishes of powerful individuals. Mrs. Clinton will only widen those holes so she can squeeze her policies through, which might be good policies; still, she leaves the gaps open for smarter versions of Trump to gain power in the future.
Electing a President is like playing Russian roulette. A lot is left up to chance. But if we elect Donald Trump, we will suddenly decide that it would be more prudent to play with foam bullets than lead ones.
Unless the United States ceases to have a President, we will inevitably get a horrible president somewhere down the line. By electing a “good” president, we’re delaying that inevitability by another four years. If we elect Donald Trump, it might be a rough four years, but it would give us the knowledge and experience to shield ourselves from future, worse incidents. So would you rather take a papercut now or a stab wound in 50 years?
I definitely agree with you. There are so many things wrong with the current system, and there is nothing that anyone is doing about it. How can a candidate get away with rigging elections in the primaries? How can someone become president without winning majority vote? Why is it so hard to vote? Why is there money in politics?
Yes, those are white men's creations. However, what mathematical and scientific principles gave them the means to invent those things? Africans, arabs, Chinese, and Indians.
If you can agree with the above statement then I will continue debating you. However if you don't you are being ignorant without an excuse and are a white supremacist
Okay, thanks for telling me before I waste anymore time.
I was thinking about how sad it must be to be him, and it made me happy. He has to suffer while the rest of the world rejoices the inevitable, a society in which members of all races can make meaningful contributions to the community and be valued based on their actions rather than things they can not control like skin color.
The culture of Africa, India, and China, was VERY different than the West. When the ego-filled Westerners came, they saw a different culture and decided theirs was more superior. Therefore, they enslaved the native people, and stole all of their wealth.
Then, once they had this wealth, the minority of super-rich people that had nothing to do but were not lazy asses became wonderful inventors and scientists. Muslims, Africans, Indians, and the Chinese also had their own brilliant thinkers, probably more than in the West, but that changed when the West used their ideology of conquest to rob all the other civilizations that believed in peace and focused on science instead of weaponry.
Then, the other civilizations had no money and were forced to focus on working to make money for their western rulers. They ran out of resources and time to study science. And now they are poor.
Knowing this history, how can you say the West has superior intellect? If you go to somewhere like India or Africa, you will notice many of the schoolchildren, even though they are surrounded by poverty, are dedicated to learning so they can grow up to be scientists, politicians, businessmen, doctors, etc.
However, I see kids in America that are just trying to find out ways to do drugs and have sex without getting caught by their parents. Not just black kids, many white kids as well.
They simply haven't the brains.
Hmmm... He will probably buy a PTD (personal teleportation device) on his iphone 49+ and teleport to the nearest planet which has a wormhole in the vicinity so he can time travel back to the fateful election and run as an alt-right, racist, misogynist, xenophobic, bad-tempered, politically incorrect republican instead of a secretive, sketchy, loud, liar woman on the left.
Oh wait
We do the same. What part did we make up? By the way, I'm not trying to convert you or anything like Saintnow tries every time he posts. People of all religions can be dharmic and Hindu. I bet you already are. I just want to understand what your views of my religion are and debate them based on what I know.
Those sources are interpretations. Find me the vedic verse that says I will be born as a literal plant if I do bad, and I should do good karma so I don't end up a plant or animal or untouchable.
And before I get sidetracked, let me address your single argument by simply quoting a verse from the Bhagvad Gita which proves that in true Hinduism, you are not worrying about how much Dharma points you have, but that your actions are dharmic.
Karmanye Vadhikaraste, Ma phaleshou kada chana,
You have the right to perform your actions,but you are not entitled to the fruits of the actions.
Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani
Do not let the fruit be the purpose of your actions, and therefore you won’t be attached to not doing your duty.
But then a natural question comes up, "Won't this detachment from desired result kill the motivation of Karma?" That is where these myths about becoming a flower or a pig in your next life pop up. They are created to provide motivation. However, as you said, they make people selfish and get caught up in their results instead of in their actions.
That is not true Hinduism.
Now you may think that even though I'm saying all this stuff, it must be some offshoot of mainstream Hinduism. You are very wrong and a victim of ignorance. the textbooks that teach about Hinduism are written by a Western, British perspective. Our rituals and mythology are too complicated and symbolic for the Westerners, who used to think of us as savages, to understand. Therefore, they tried to simplify them and dismiss them as idol worship and believing in ghosts/spirits.
I am in close contact with the President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (world hindu council) of America. He comes over every month to have a discussion with my friends. I was wondering about stuff like reincarnation which I had trouble believing. He, along with the late president of the worldwide VHP, taught me about real Hinduism. If you have any questions, I will try to answer them.
Well I can't speak for any other religion, but our example of Hinduism is wrong. Hinduism does not say in any book that "you will be punished for sinning, so don't sin" or "you will be rewarded for doing good, so do good". It simply says you shall sow what you reap and then lists 10 attributes of a person that makes them better.
Unlike Christianity, Hinduism never says to be selfless and unlike Islam, nowhere does it say to donate money to the poor. This is not because we are selfish, it is because we understand that if everyone looks out for themselves and their families and is independent, there will be less problems. We are not trying to please a God, we are trying to partake in actions that benefit us and make us happy.
Why shouldn't we steal and lie then? Well, there is nothing that says thou shall not steal in HInduism. However, it does stay that stealing and lying hurt you in the long run because you will have to carry the emotional weight of each lie and theft, which may seem to be intangible and nonexistent but will eventually ruin your life.
Also where does it say that Humans will become animals or be reborn as victims of the abuse they dealt out in their past life? I can explain this if you find an example.
