CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
....but Jewish, if I remember right. That makes you "not so good" to some of those "really good people on [the other] side."
Then again, you're a liberal (like me), sooooo .... this isn't really your lucky day, but, one outa' three ain't bad. To the "really good people on [the other, other] side" ... you STILL got good privilege!
Look.. Telling a Jew what Jewish law is, is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.. Let's start with this.. Jews aren't Christians. Your rules are NOT our rules.. In order to BE a Christian, you are REQUIRED to believe.. That is just so. Jews don't have silly rules like that.. All you gotta do to be a good Jew is LIVE like one..
Now, stick your Christian arrogance up your Christian ass..
Christianity teaches that we are justified by our faith, not our works. Works come from the faith. Christianity teaches that we are not justified by our works alone.
It's not that Christians are required to believe, it's that if they don't have faith they are toiling in vain. The faith is God.
Sincerity of faith and charity. Without sincere faith, charity will make one bitter. Without charity, sincere faith will harden one and make them unteachable. You have to have both. This is how we love God.
What is the entire law based off of? Loving God with all your heart soul and mind, and loving your neighbor as yourself. Your entire law is based off of loving God, so if you do not love God you are not really living like a Jew in spirit.
Or are you saying that this is not what it means to live like a good Jew? What is a Jew?
I'm sure plenty of Jews would disagree with me, and that is fine, but I think that an integral part of the Jewish identity has to do with loving God. A nation of priests that doesn't love God? Sounds sinister to me.
I mean, it's pretty hard for me to read through the law and the prophets in particular and not think in the back of my mind that a Jew who doesn't believe in God is somehow really messing it up as far as being "good" Jew is concerned.
I listen to a lot of Rabbis talk too, so I'm not saying this from being completely uninformed or out of hate.
This is in no way strictly definitive, but it really helps to understand what is meant by 'privilege' - it's all about what advantages and disadvantages you have in life. In no way do I like the concept of legislating to simply give advantages to the disadvantaged - that's way too much of a minefield - but I do believe in working toward equal rights, and as egalitarian a society as is reasonable. This video makes it easier to grasp the concept, and hopefully engenders a little empathy.
I wouldn’t deny that some people will have more opportunities in life than other people due to a host of environmental and genetic variable. Neither will I deny that, depending on where you are and who you’re dealing with, race and socio-economic factors can affect the interactions you have with others or even the opportunities others are willing to grant. But the statement “check your privilege” is thrown out by people who arrogantly assume the life experience of another so as to discount their current point of view or argument. Most often, someone uses that term when making broad assumptions about an individual based on their race and itself a racially prejudiced comment. Not only is it presumptuous and prejudiced to assume what someone else’s privileges may have been in life, but it’s also fallacious as it is used to shut down arguments when it’s user has no counterpoint.
Currently people are told to "check their privilege" based on skin color, gender and sexual preference among others. Even if we assume that these "privileges" exist with no disadvantages (which they don't), we still haven't achieved a holistic view of the relative advantages and disadvantages that the person has. The person should also check their height, weight, age, attractiveness, intelligence, personality/temperament, health, family, financial and other privileges. Otherwise, for no apparent reason, we are categorizing people as advantaged and disadvantaged relative to each other strictly on arbitrary criteria, rather than viewing their situation as a whole.
People will claim to be viewing the situation as a whole when they find combinations of multiple perceived disadvantaged classes in one person. It becomes a contest of “whose more oppressed” wherein oppression equals virtue
The person should also check their height, weight, age, attractiveness, intelligence, personality/temperament, health, family, financial and other privileges
This is a good point here WinstonC. How attractive a person is a clear privilege in a superficial society as people will have very different views of the world based on this single criteria. Also, height is another good example because relatively tall men have a natural advantage over short men in many areas of life, including likeliness to be or not be bullied, finding a mate (female), levels of respect ones commands of others, ect.
There are an incredible number of factors that would go into "who has led/leads a more 'privileged' life than another person" that cannot accurately be distilled down into a few categories and then generalized. If a person points a finger at a white man and claims that they have a more "privileged" life than most, it really depends on that persons particular circumstances. For instance, consider the cases of two heterosexual white men:
(A). Is tall, big/muscular (strong Mesomorph), handsome, middle-upper/middle class, loving parents that did not abuse him and properly prepared him for life, healthy (no major medical issues), inherited higher base IQ than average, ect. ect.
(B). Is short, naturally physically weak/frail (strong Ectomorph), unattractive/ugly, from lower-working class background, had abusive parents, divorced parents, lived in a trailer or otherwise poor community, range of medical issues, inherited lower base IQ than average, ect. ect.
Now, does this mean that the level of ones "privilege" should not be considered at all (because it can be a complex issue), is more or less irrelevant since everyone has advantages and disadvantages, or that it can be considered but on a much more "case-by-case" basis in order to evaluate more credibly?
How attractive a person is a clear privilege in a superficial society as people will have very different views of the world based on this single criteria.
As I and others have pointed out, you are in no position to be highly critical of other peoples use of English considering how improper and limited your English is..
Also, read brontoraptor's article on "Grammar Bullies" as it may change your life..
"Now, does this mean that the level of ones "privilege" should not be considered at all"
Not at all, though I do find it hard to think of a useful reason to need to measure one individual's "privilege" relative to another, if such a thing were even feasible.
Not at all, though I do find it hard to think of a useful reason to need to measure one individual's "privilege" relative to another, if such a thing were even feasible.
I don't think it is very hard depending on the situation being compared. For instance, a very "hot" young adult white woman from an upper-class background, inherited wealth, did not have abusive parents is clearly coming from a more "privileged" position/perspective on life/the world than an ugly/unattractive lower class young adult man, that had abusive parents that were divorced when young, mostly raise by single parent, grew up in a dangerous area (hostile urban environment), had to work when young to help provide for the family, no money for college, ect. ect.
I just don't think that it is helpful to paint with a broad brush because White people, for instance, inhabit many very different positions/perspectives in the world and to say that as a group white people are de facto privileged over many others is not necessarily correct and needs to be examined further based on many other factors
The situation you give is one where all the advantages are on one side of the equation, which is unrealistic and beside my main point. My main point was that even if it's possible to quantify that one individual is more privileged than another, this knowledge isn't particularly useful.
My main point was that even if it's possible to quantify that one individual is more privileged than another, this knowledge isn't particularly useful.
I disagree with this.
Our University system is structured in a clear hierarchy based on performance. Now, even if one performs to a sufficient degree to be accepted, they require the finances in order to attend. Now, one can pay for a small State-System Colleges where tuition is about $7,000 a year and some bigger Public State School programs such as the University of Florida (depending on what state you are in). However, it is not possible for a young adult to attend a school that is even near $20,000 tuition a year plus additional expenses for housing, food, ect. if they do not have parents/guardians/adults in their life that are willing to co-sign the loan or provide tuition funds let alone the elite schools that are $40,000-50,000+ tuition a year. This clearly slants the table in favor of some people over others as more elite University education opens the door to more elite jobs, status, wealth, ect.
This has nothing to do with the relative privilege of individuals.
Yes it does and it is trivial to demonstrate. An individual with the finances to attend an Elite School can potentially attend while an individual without such high finances cannot potentially attend..
OK so we compare the relative privilege of an individual "A" that attends an elite high school to an individual "B" that doesn't (for some unrealistic reason everything else about them is the same). For what do we use this information that individual A is more privileged than individual B? The only use I can think of is to discriminate against individual A.
No. It doesn't tell you nearly everything about the person's life or other difficulties/hardships they may face (such as in the book The Outsiders). However, that is a very clear and highly relevant privilege that can potentially set a person up for further status, wealth, career, ect. that many or most don't have available to them
How would a young adult possibly pay for a $50,000 a year tuition plus additional expenses for housing, food, ect (so >$60,000 a year; or even a $20,000 a year tuition plus additional expenses) if they are not receiving "help" from other family/guardian/adults in their life? This is a clear huge benefit over others that cannot follow this path due to lack of resources (that a young adult independently has effectively no means of acquiring at that age)
I really have no idea what point you are arguing against, it has nothing to do with the utility of data on the relative privilege of individuals. I've never argued that having money isn't an advantage and it is in fact included in my initial list of advantages.
This is the entirety of what I said to your initial reply, and as you can see we started talking past each other immediately:
"Not at all, though I do find it hard to think of a useful reason to need to measure one individual's "privilege" relative to another, if such a thing were even feasible.
"Not at all, though I do find it hard to think of a useful reason to need to measure one individual's "privilege" relative to another, if such a thing were even feasible.
I know that this has been your point all along. I have been arguing that there are clearly ways to quantify advantages in some respects and is useful to measure in some areas. A prime example of this is the Higher Education System. As in, Higher Education oppurtunities vary greatly from individual to individual based on their economic background, presence of willing/responsible guardians/adults in their life, ect. ect.
I object to the typical "Check your White/Male/Gender/Sexual Orientation/ect. ect. Privilege" as it is typically conceived and applied. However, there are still legitimate measures that should be taken into account
What do you mean by 'considered', here? Legally, I'd side with no, but I do have issues with the failing to understand that we don't all start on an equal footing, and issues with actually fighting any real attempts at working toward a more egalitarian society.
