Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Does Whining About Political Correctness in a Racism Debate Correlate to Being a Racist? Does Whining About Political Correctness in a Racism Debate Correlate to Being a Racist?

10-10-2014 , 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
really no grounds to accept criticism for doing something popularly accepted such as doling out criticism, even of it is not optimal behavior.
But all criticism is not created equal. As outlined above, your criticism is, on balance, not reasonable. And if that's true, my criticism of your criticism is reasonable. Obviously this is just my perspective, and you're free to take it or leave it.
10-10-2014 , 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
Dids abusing the scary emotional appeal of racism to attack a person. The kind of behavior expected from a bigot.
I just want to point out that this "racism is just an emotional appeal" is about the stupidest bull**** you've come up with yet. Yes, in Letter From Birmingham Jail when MLK tells the story about his daughter seeing an ad for an amusement park and then asking if he would take her, that was an appeal to emotion. Because racism ****s actual human beings. And racist people like Bruce and Foldn actually interact with other human beings in real life, unlike, apparently, you.

So **** off.
10-10-2014 , 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDuker
But all criticism is not created equal. As outlined above, your criticism is, on balance, not reasonable. And if that's true, my criticism of your criticism is reasonable. Obviously this is just my perspective, and you're free to take it or leave it.
You have a little mistake here in declaring my criticism as unreasonable but not identifying something, anything specific to support the assumption.

Now I know my criticism is more accurate and as such has a better quality, I can point to MrWookie's emotional appeals. I can point out the information he scoffs at which is outside his narrow view. I can point to how Dids continues to behave the same, assuming he has cover to bully by both authority and the popular crowd. FlyWf was blatantly racist, totally acted bigoted.

It maybe unreasonable I am fighting below my weight class, but hey I think on balance being outnumbered and by people more mean than me can make it work out.
10-10-2014 , 03:32 PM
Maybe there's a lesson for BruceZ here to say "People thought X was good" instead of "X was good" so people don't confuse the thoughts of advocates for X with one's own thoughts on X
10-10-2014 , 03:42 PM
Or, you know, just calmly tell people that you're playing devil's advocate - especially when someone calls you out on what you've posted.
10-10-2014 , 03:47 PM
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoma...on_and_slavery

Quote:
In his writings on American grievances justifying the Revolution, he attacked the British for sponsoring the slave trade to the colonies. In 1778 with Jefferson's leadership Virginia banned importing slaves into Virginia. It was one of the first jurisdictions in the world to ban the slave trade. Jefferson was a lifelong advocate of ending the trade and as President led the effort to criminalize the international slave trade that passed Congress and he signed on March 2, 1807; it took effect in 1808. Britain independently made the same move on March 25, 1807.
Maybe you guys should go amend the Wikipedia entry to add bits making Jefferson look more like pond scum. As it stands, it looks like most of the world is giving him the same pass as I am, pointing out he worked pretty hard to end slavery.

Quote:
In 1779, as a practical solution to end slavery Jefferson supported gradual emancipation, training, and colonization of African-American slaves rather than unconditional manumission, believing that releasing unprepared slaves with no place to go and no means to support themselves would only bring them misfortune. In 1784 Jefferson proposed federal legislation banning slavery in the New Territories of the North and South after 1800, which failed to pass Congress by one vote.[6][7] In his 1785 published Notes, Jefferson expressed belief that slavery corrupted both masters and slaves alike, supported colonization of freed slaves, suspected that African-Americans were inferior in intelligence, and that releasing large numbers of such slaves made slave uprisings more likely.[8] In 1793 and 1794 Jefferson manumitted two of his male slaves by deed who had been trained and qualified to hold employment.

Last edited by FoldnDark; 10-10-2014 at 03:54 PM. Reason: Quotes
10-10-2014 , 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
It maybe unreasonable I am fighting below my weight class, but hey I think on balance being outnumbered and by people more mean than me can make it work out.
Is it mean to point out that you don't believe a word you say and you're full of ****? Maybe instead of playing stupid games to earn the admiration of internet racists you should cultivate an actual personality.
10-10-2014 , 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjshabado
Or, you know, just calmly tell people that you're playing devil's advocate - especially when someone calls you out on what you've posted.
Commander hindsight and his amazingly robotic expectations of human behavior.
10-10-2014 , 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
Well of course it would have been better to not practice slavery in the first place. That is futility of arguing a historic mindset against a person using narrow hindsight and a modern moral goal post.

It takes mental and emotional flexibility to speculate on a person's thinking when it involves something considered very morally reprehensible. Not everyone is practiced or naturally able to do it.
LET'S SPANKIFY THIS POST:

Quote:
when it involves something considered very morally reprehensible Not everyone is practiced or naturally able to do it against a person using narrow hindsight It takes mental and emotional flexibility

Well of course it would have been better That is futility of arguing a historic mindset to not practice slavery in the first place and a modern moral goal post to speculate on a person's thinking
10-10-2014 , 03:58 PM
Seriously, spank, The Internet You is now arguing against appeals to emotion and "don't be mean to racists because it hurts their feelings" in the same breath. It's time to Kevorkian yourself by posting a bunch of horsepron and then start again from scratch.
10-10-2014 , 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
You have a little mistake here in declaring my criticism as unreasonable but not identifying something, anything specific to support the assumption.

Now I know my criticism is more accurate and as such has a better quality, I can point to MrWookie's emotional appeals. I can point out the information he scoffs at which is outside his narrow view. I can point to how Dids continues to behave the same, assuming he has cover to bully by both authority and the popular crowd. FlyWf was blatantly racist, totally acted bigoted.

It maybe unreasonable I am fighting below my weight class, but hey I think on balance being outnumbered and by people more mean than me can make it work out.
ONE MORE TIME

Quote:
in declaring my criticism I can point out the information You have a little mistake here Now I know my criticism is more accurate and as such has a better quality, as unreasonable

I can point to MrWookie's emotional appeals. he scoffs at which is outside his narrow view. but hey I think on balance being outnumbered totally acted bigoted. assuming he has cover to bully

FlyWf was blatantly racist, and by people more mean than me I can point to how Dids continues to behave the same, It maybe unreasonable I am fighting below my weight class but not identifying something, by both authority and the popular crowd. anything specific to support the assumption can make it work out.
10-10-2014 , 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
Is it mean to point out that you don't believe a word you say and you're full of ****? Maybe instead of playing stupid games to earn the admiration of internet racists you should cultivate an actual personality.
You must mean I reserve my passion to fight racism and prejudice for it to be based in the present and when real people are targeted, rather than shooting tombstones in the graveyards of history for political and/or solely selfish reasons.

Racists actually tend to really hate me, more than you and Dids do.
10-10-2014 , 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13ball
Seriously, spank, The Internet You is now arguing against appeals to emotion and "don't be mean to racists because it hurts their feelings" in the same breath. It's time to Kevorkian yourself by posting a bunch of horsepron and then start again from scratch.
You have mischaracterized my position, again. It's okay I have no trouble correcting the record if need be.
10-10-2014 , 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaname2
FWIW, it is pretty well known that Jefferson was thought slavery was wrong and should be abolished. Also that he thought blacks were inferior and childlike. This is all, like, really well documented and not in dispute? I don't even know what you guys are talking about really.
They’re arguing that say a few hundred years hence if the common view is killing and eating animals is akin to murder, then MLK was a murder and pond scum since veganism was not a foreign concept to him.
10-10-2014 , 04:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoma...on_and_slavery



Maybe you guys should go amend the Wikipedia entry to add bits making Jefferson look more like pond scum. As it stands, it looks like most of the world is giving him the same pass as I am, pointing out he worked pretty hard to end slavery.
Yeah, we know all that, bro. It supports my position.
10-10-2014 , 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by duffee
They’re arguing that say a few hundred years hence if the common view is killing and eating animals is akin to murder, then MLK was a murder and pond scum since veganism was not a foreign concept to him.
Even if eating meat is eventually considered wrong it won't be because animals will be considered in the same general category as humans. Pro slavery people on the other hand were fully aware that black people were at worst only a bit dumber than white people and most were aware that there were at least a few black people, outside the south who were smarter and more respectable than most whites.

In other words even if vegetarianism eventually becomes law, intelligent people of the future will never consider meat eaters of their past nearly as evil as we should consider slaveholders of our past.
10-10-2014 , 04:51 PM
I actually think the environmental point is a not horrible comparison. And I think we'll be rightfully judged for not doing more to stop environmental damage for purely selfish economic reasons.
10-10-2014 , 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
Even if eating meat is eventually considered wrong it won't be because animals will be considered in the same general category as humans. Pro slavery people on the other hand were fully aware that black people were at worst only a bit dumber than white people and most were aware that there were at least a few black people, outside the south who were smarter and more respectable than most whites.

In other words even if vegetarianism eventually becomes law, intelligent people of the future will never consider meat eaters of their past nearly as evil as we should consider slaveholders of our past.
That's true but the its still the case that in the future we might well be considered scum for the way we treat animals now. The point being whether the future judgement on us will be justified just because we are aware of the issues now.

I agree that an equally harsh judgement on meat eaters as on slave owners would be very unreasonable but is that the point?

ever present disclaimers: I've no idea if this was the original point being discussed.

Last edited by chezlaw; 10-10-2014 at 05:01 PM.
10-10-2014 , 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
That's true but the its still the case that in the future we might well be considered scum for the way we treat animals now. The point being whether the future judgement on us will be justified just because we are aware of the issues now.

I agree that an equally harsh judgement on meat eaters as on slave owners would be very unreasonable but is that the point?
The point is that it is wrong to invoke the possibility that animals will be considered uneatable as some kind of excuse for pro slavers. Its not in the same ballpark.
10-10-2014 , 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
The point is that it is wrong to invoke the possibility that animals will be considered uneatable as some kind of excuse for pro slavers. Its not in the same ballpark.
I agree

But trying to find analogies that are in the ballpark is a bit of a problem
10-10-2014 , 05:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chezlaw
I agree

But trying to find analogies that are in the ballpark is a bit of a problem
How about the observation that the evils of today have more practical weight than the evils of history.
10-10-2014 , 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
Cue the mocking bird soundtrack.
Racism killed the mockingbird, yo.
10-10-2014 , 05:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
The point is that it is wrong to invoke the possibility that animals will be considered uneatable as some kind of excuse for pro slavers. Its not in the same ballpark.
I would urge you to think outside the box a bit here. There are people today who think just this. That killing animals is as bad as killing humans. Animals have feelings, feel pain and sorrow, they have families, they aren't much different than humans. What do we have, intelligence? Hmm, someday it might even be proven we are just animals ourselves, though I'm not certain if they'll ever prove we're more intelligent.

I remember a radio show where they had this animal rights activist on who claimed she'd toss a human off the boat before a chicken, oh how we all laughed. If someday a purely vegan society who treats animals with exactly the same respect as humans looks back at us, I hope they think of us better than slave owners, but I don't know why they would.
10-10-2014 , 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
I would urge you to think outside the box a bit here. There are people today who think just this. That killing animals is as bad as killing humans. Animals have feelings, feel pain and sorrow, they have families, they aren't much different than humans. What do we have, intelligence? Hmm, someday it might even be proven we are just animals ourselves, though I'm not certain if they'll ever prove we're more intelligent.

I remember a radio show where they had this animal rights activist on who claimed she'd toss a human off the boat before a chicken, oh how we all laughed. If someday a purely vegan society who treats animals with exactly the same respect as humans looks back at us, I hope they think of us better than slave owners, but I don't know why they would.
Comparing killing animals with killing humans is different to comparing killing animals with slavery.
10-10-2014 , 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanktehbadwookie
How about the observation that the evils of today have more practical weight than the evils of history.
I don't think anyone would argue with that though some of the problems of today are linked to past evils.

Its also about considering the practical matters of today. Its hard to see what we do sometimes so its useful to relate it to things we see more clearly from the past even if the analogies are weak in some ways.

      
m