- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Are you really justifying hitting Nazis just because they are Nazis?
It does.. But, WHO was killing the Jews?? It was Nazis. And, WHY isn't that violent?
Which particular Nazis killed Jews?
Do you really think that one of them was some 25 year-old marching peacefully and yelling stupid, racist things in Charlottesville in 2017?
Doing violence to one person because of something someone else (who believes the same thing) has done justifies beating any Muslim for terrorist violence committed by Jihadis.
There are only about a billion Musims. How many are you planning to hit?
And, what does TIME matter anyway???
This justifies hitting any Jew for the genocide committed by their ancestors against the Amelekites, among other Canaanite tribes.
If your fellow conservatives had such a realistic viewpoint, everything would be hunky dory..
For that matter, if your fellow liberals had such a realistic viewpoint, everything would be hunky dory.
Actually, most conservatives DO have that viewpoint. It is just that the crazies on the fringe make the news. As for the "conservatives" on "these very pages," many of them are the crazies I am talking about. I have met very few people of any political stamp who would agree with some of them about anything.
Like you, I am here to counter THEM, and their analogs on the left.
Basic conservative thinking boils down to
-Law and order
-In general, government only doing things that individuals cannot do for ourselves (e.g., borders, military, disaster response, law enforcement, infrastructure)
You said, I don't think all groups want power for the same reasons.
So why don't you apply the same principle to individuals within a racial group/category?
There is a word for ascribing motivations differently based on race, and for assuming people in the same race have the same intentions for power as each other. That word is...
Wait for it...
Come over to the right (both meanings) side of the aisle where, unlike the left, the vast majority of us insist on dealing with people as individuals not identity groups.
Come over here where we don't make people drink any identity politics Kool-Aid.
We judge people by their characters and by their deeds, and we believe in the protections afforded by the rule of law.
You don't even have to like Trump. There are plenty of us on the right who don't.
C'mon, you are too smart to stay on the left. Otherwise you wouldn't agree with me so much. :)
I think you are conflating race (White) with culture (Western/Euro-American).
The achievements of White people in all the major areas of industry, commerce and finance had nothing to do with being White, but rather with aspects of Western culture.
Given the same sets of ethics, values, and philosophies, and methods in both the European and American cultural and economic environments, people of all races have achieved meaningfully. I think we can safely say race is irrelevant, but environment and culture, and the behavior that grows out of it, is the basis of achievement.
It is the depths of folly to think any categorization based on an incidental surface characteristic like race has any bearing on which individuals have or should have power.
In terms of logical fallacies:
- Race is a red herring, an irrelevant distraction from relevant factors.
- Assuming people in a category based solely on incidental characteristics share other characteristics is an overgeneralization.
Knowing people's race tells us nothing about intentions, actions, beliefs, values, education, socioeconomic circumstances, or even family history.
It does not tell us how hard they work, how others treat them, what jobs they do, or how they treat people.
It does not even tell us whether they can dance, like fried chicken, or listen to country music.
Certainly associating race, whether White or Black, with power is the sort of illogic termed racism.
Having a different standard for one race than for another is based on this racist concept, and it goes further. It is not merely the folly of racist thinking, but extends toward the injustice of applying different standards to people based on the racial category to which they are assigned or assign themselves.
Absolutely we should judge and be judged not on the color of our skin, but on the content of our characters.
Moreover, true power stems from our characters, and the actions that grow from our characters.
You are killing me! I swear you intentionally led me down one path just to pull a logical and ideological U-turn at the end.
You start off, and I am right with you, agreeing with sensible statements worthy of any person who hopes for peace and justice and sound logic:
In and of themselves, WORDS are not racist.
It's people who are racist, or not.
Sure, I set myself up by assuming you meant individual people. I carried this assumption with me into your next statement.
Therefore, in order to determine if the people who say those words are racist, we need to know what they intend to DO with "power" once they GET it.
Because only individuals say things, I took this to mean we need to know if the individuals who say "xx-power" intend to categorize people by race and treat people differently based on the racial category. I also took this to be you saying that it is actions and the intentions that precede them that matter.
I buy that. We agreed twice! (Or so I thought) But there was more, and I was predicting a hat trick.
Then you made an about face into double standards based on race.
In MY view, the people behind "white power" want to ELIMINATE people who aren't white from the country.. And, the people behind "black power" want to live PEACEFULLY in a country that PROMISES peace, but has yet to deliver..
Under that definition, people who chant white power are racist, and people who chant black power aren't.
OH THE HUMANITY!!!
Here you plainly say that WHICH WORDS are used indicates the race-based category that implies good or bad intentions. This indicates an underlying assumption some words automatically imply racism, REGARDLESS of any actual demonstration of what the individuals actually intend.
This sounds like a contradiction of your earlier statements.
Moreover, it grants one racial category the assumption of having one set of intentions, yet imposes a completely different assumption on a different racial category for making essentially the same statement ("my category has power.")
If I misunderstood what you mean, I apologize.
Truthfully, I am disappointed any time people commit the logical fallacies that conflate racial category with individual intention, privilege, or entitlement.
I am also disgusted when people assume rights, intentions, actions, or experiences are the province of any but individuals, and that the incidental and innate category of one individual has any reasonable bearing on expectations of belief, behavior, circumstance, or entitlement of another individual of that category.
After all, the environmental movement was started by a conservative..
I am always amazed that anyone associates environmental protection with either conservatives or liberals. It never makes sense, nor is it ever supported by the views and actions of either category. I have NEVER met anyone (left or right) who did not want clean air and water, and who did not want beautiful natural places.
Certainly most of the values that underlie American conservatism (accountability, personal responsibility, independence, rugged individualism) innately support environmental stewardship.
Conservatives also recognize that a particular level of societal and individual prosperity is required to have the ability to protect natural lands from individual predations. Poor people pollute more. Poor individual farmers burn more rainforest than companies do. Even poor neighborhoods have more garbage just thrown on the ground.
The individuals I know who are most disgusted and alarmed by threats to water quality, and the loss of natural spaces are my (conservative) friends who hunt and fish.
We conservatives want people to clean up their own mess (or not make a mess to begin with) whether that applies to irresponsible companies dumping waste in a river, or welfare programs for people who had more kids than they could support.
Frankly, I have been amazed that the public debate about removing the illegal immigrants and limiting immigration has not included discussions about the US population size and how that impacts water and air quality, and drives habitat loss. (We have twice as many people here as when I was in high school, and even then there was concern about how to keep our natural areas from being paved over.)
I think that consideration could unite both sides around a common approach to immigration.
Now that you say it, I cannot believe I missed it. I guess the abundance of hypocrisy (on all sides) has inured me to it, somewhat.
It seems to me that most common hypocrisy is when people insist we are not hypocrites. In reality we all are inconsistent in our attitudes (often unconsciously) and adjust our interpretations and conclusions to support our own interests and biases.
Somehow we all manage to look past those logs in our own eyes.