PDA

View Full Version : Who's a racist?



Captain Obvious
04-21-2014, 08:13 PM
Public poll, pick as many or few as you want. Note that if you participate and pick someone, those you don't pick you don't consider racist.

Simple enough, eh?

Feel free to discuss.

Mister D
04-21-2014, 08:13 PM
Where is the poll?

Captain Obvious
04-21-2014, 08:16 PM
Give me a fucking minute, will ya?

Fucking spaz!

:grin:

Mister D
04-21-2014, 08:19 PM
Duke is the only serious contender. Sharpton and Malcolm Little were racialists. The rest don't qualify unless we use the expanded progressive definition in which case they are all racists. So are you all! lol

Captain Obvious
04-21-2014, 08:27 PM
Duke is the only serious contender. Sharpton and Malcolm Little were racialists. The rest don't qualify unless we use the expanded progressive definition in which case they are all racists. So are you all! lol

Sharpton's view of racial issues isn't detrimental to white people?

Mister D
04-21-2014, 08:30 PM
Sharpton's view of racial issues isn't detrimental to white people?

It's detrimental to everyone. He does blacks no favors that's for sure. I just don't think he believes in any sort of biological hierarchy or anything like that.

GrassrootsConservative
04-21-2014, 08:31 PM
Voted.

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:31 PM
Only one (1) was a Grand Wizard for The Klu Klux Klan :laugh:

Mister D
04-21-2014, 08:32 PM
As you can see from your poll, CO, the term just doesn't mean anything specific anymore. The abuse of language has consequences far beyond making the abuser look like an idiot.

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:34 PM
Malcolm X was a self admitted Racist until he travel out of the United States and saw the truth of the people he protected and the people he called Racist.

It's true, some people can change after seeing the Facts.

Others ... lot so true.

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:35 PM
Why would someone call George W. Bush a Racist? :huh:

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:37 PM
Al Sharpton is also a self admitted Racist who's own Book told how he missed judged many people.

Nothing wrong with admitting you made mistakes ...

Captain Obvious
04-21-2014, 08:38 PM
As you can see from your poll, CO, the term just doesn't mean anything specific anymore. The abuse of language has consequences far beyond making the abuser look like an idiot.

Would you elaborate?

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:39 PM
Rush Limbaugh - just taking money from people who can't think on their own



Howard Stern - anything for money ... and it worked ... big time.

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:40 PM
Would you elaborate?

That's as deep as shorty goes ... no substance ... all drama :laugh:

Captain Obvious
04-21-2014, 08:41 PM
Rush Limbaugh - just taking money from people who can't think on their own
Howard Stern - anything for money ... and it worked ... big time.



Clearly you don't listen to Stern.

Mister D
04-21-2014, 08:43 PM
Would you elaborate?

Sure. Racism has a clear, well defined meaning. It does not apply to any of these public figures with the likely exception of Duke. As you can plainly see, in common parlance anyone who thinks in racial terms is a racist ipso facto.

Mister D
04-21-2014, 08:44 PM
That's as deep as shorty goes ... no substance ... all drama :laugh:

You're trying too hard.

GrassrootsConservative
04-21-2014, 08:44 PM
Why would someone call George W. Bush a Racist? :huh:

Because he's a big-government RINO Libtard that supports the feds keeping poor blacks on food stamps and welfare and unemployment and in prisons for as long as they can.

GrassrootsConservative
04-21-2014, 08:45 PM
Rush Limbaugh - just taking money from people who can't think on their own
Howard Stern - anything for money ... and it worked ... big time.


And, incidentally, none of this has even a hint of racism to it.

Unlike your posts.

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:46 PM
Because he's a big-government RINO Libtard that supports the feds keeping poor blacks on food stamps and welfare and unemployment and in prisons for as long as they can.

Really ... I thought there were poor blacks on food stamps and welfare and unemployment and in prisons long before Bush took office. :laugh:

Captain Obvious
04-21-2014, 08:47 PM
Sure. Racism has a clear, well defined meaning. It does not apply to any of these public figures with the likely exception of Duke. As you can plainly see, in common parlance anyone who thinks in racial terms is a racist ipso facto.

So if what Cigar stated is accurate assumed, Malcolm X and Sharpton both admitted racists, that doesn't count?

What's the standard of racism then?

Captain Obvious
04-21-2014, 08:47 PM
Really ... I thought there were poor blacks on food stamps and welfare and unemployment and in prisons long before Bush took office. :laugh:

And long after.

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:48 PM
And, incidentally, none of this has even a hint of racism to it.

Unlike your posts.


I guess that explains why a lot of my friends are White ... I bet they will get big laugh when I show them this. :laugh:

GrassrootsConservative
04-21-2014, 08:49 PM
And Malcom X was a racist because of his butthurt towards the white race, which has been bound in documentation time and time again.

ANYBODY WHO ADVOCATES THE ADVANCEMENT OF ONE RACE OVER ANOTHER (or the idea that one race is more superior than another) IS A RACIST. This includes Liberals if they support bullshit like Affirmative Action (or "Positive" Discrimination).

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:52 PM
So if what @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) stated is accurate assumed, Malcolm X and Sharpton both admitted racists, that doesn't count?

What's the standard of racism then?

I bet even Jessie Jackson was kinda racist when he was getting his ass kicked, Dogs Bites and thrown in jails :grin:

Fuck'en Crackers ... didn't give him any Cheese Wizzz

Mister D
04-21-2014, 08:52 PM
So if what @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) stated is accurate assumed, Malcolm X and Sharpton both admitted racists, that doesn't count?

What's the standard of racism then?

I don't generally take Cigar seriously but if in fact they believed in the superiority of blacks and the right of blacks to dominate other peoples by virtue of that fact then, yes, they were/are racists.

GrassrootsConservative
04-21-2014, 08:52 PM
I guess that explains why a lot of my friends are White ... I bet they will get big laugh when I show them this. :laugh:

Can you please get them to read it to you? You're clearly not understanding, and you clearly have no idea what a "racist" is.

Refugee
04-21-2014, 08:52 PM
Something tells me this thread will soon go the way of the other that was closed. :smiley:

Germanicus
04-21-2014, 08:53 PM
I think that Malcolm X is the only one that is 'racist' by modern standards. He is the only person on the list in my opinion that genuinely had the best interests of his race driving him.

edit- I dont know who Davis Duke is.

Captain Obvious
04-21-2014, 08:53 PM
I guess that explains why a lot of my friends are White ... I bet they will get big laugh when I show them this. :laugh:

Some of your best friends are white, right?

Captain Obvious
04-21-2014, 08:53 PM
I think that Malcolm X is the only one that is 'racist' by modern standards. He is the only person on the list in my opinion that genuinely had the best interests of his race driving him.

How is that racist?

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:54 PM
And Malcom X was a racist because of his butthurt towards the white race, which has been bound in documentation time and time again.

ANYBODY WHO ADVOCATES THE ADVANCEMENT OF ONE RACE OVER ANOTHER (or the idea that one race is more superior than another) IS A RACIST. This includes Liberals if they support bullshit like Affirmative Action (or "Positive" Discrimination).

Maybe you should try reading the entire history of Malcom X ... you'll like how the story ends after you get to the final chapter. :grin:

Mister D
04-21-2014, 08:54 PM
Something tells me this thread will soon go the way of the other that was closed. :smiley:

It will be replaced within 24 hours I assure you.

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:55 PM
Some of your best friends are white, right?

... and my Business Partner is White. :wink:

Cigar
04-21-2014, 08:56 PM
Something tells me this thread will soon go the way of the other that was closed. :smiley:

Why ... not turning out the way you thought? :laugh:

Akula
04-21-2014, 08:59 PM
I bet even Jessie Jackson was kinda racist when he was getting his ass kicked, Dogs Bites and thrown in jails :grin:

Fuck'en Crackers ... didn't give him any Cheese Wizzz

Crackers?

Load up in the truck, boy.

GrassrootsConservative
04-21-2014, 08:59 PM
Maybe you should try reading the entire history of Malcom X ... you'll like how the story ends after you get to the final chapter. :grin:

As if you know anything about reading.

Spectre
04-21-2014, 09:00 PM
Maybe you should try reading the entire history of Malcom X ... you'll like how the story ends after you get to the final chapter. :grin:

If memory serves, he reviled Black Islam and became a true Muslim after a pilgrimage to Mecca, abandoning his racist ideas and as a result got whacked my Elijah Mohammad's thugs.

Dr. Who
04-21-2014, 09:03 PM
If memory serves, he reviled Black Islam and became a true Muslim after a pilgrimage to Mecca, abandoning his racist ideas and as a result got whacked my Elijah Mohammad's thugs.
Sounds about right.

Cigar
04-21-2014, 09:04 PM
If memory serves, he reviled Black Islam and became a true Muslim after a pilgrimage to Mecca, abandoning his racist ideas and as a result got whacked my Elijah Mohammad's thugs.

Correct ... never trust blind idealogs ... they can't see past what they are told is true.

Refugee
04-21-2014, 09:05 PM
Why ... not turning out the way you thought? :laugh:

Too much of this :stirthepot: and not enough of this :thinking: produces this :slap: But you know that, don't you (:laugh:).

Cigar
04-21-2014, 09:05 PM
If memory serves, he reviled Black Islam and became a true Muslim after a pilgrimage to Mecca, abandoning his racist ideas and as a result got whacked my Elijah Mohammad's thugs.

Part of what they did was good for the community ... then came Religion to Fuck-Up all the Free-Will and Thinking ... as usual.

Refugee
04-21-2014, 09:06 PM
... and my Business Partner is White. :wink:

Obama who provides welfare is white? :laugh:

Cigar
04-21-2014, 09:08 PM
Too much of this :stirthepot: and not enough of this :thinking: produces this :slap: But you know that, don't you (:laugh:).

It's all in Fun ... we're on Computers ... :grin: and no one gets a scratch :laugh:

Spectre
04-21-2014, 09:10 PM
Which means he was a racist for most of his life, but 'saw the light' near the end of it.

Cigar
04-21-2014, 09:10 PM
Obama who provides welfare is white? :laugh:

According to Michelle Obama, not the bottom half :laugh:

Refugee
04-21-2014, 09:10 PM
It's all in Fun ... we're on Computers ... :grin: and no one gets a scratch :laugh:

Yes, I agree, my apologies, just in one of my Cigar moods :wink:

Cigar
04-21-2014, 09:13 PM
Which means he was a racist for most of his life, but 'saw the light' near the end of it.

Actually he was criminal for most of his life and became a law abiding citizen near the end of it. :laugh:

Refugee
04-21-2014, 09:15 PM
According to Michelle Obama, not the bottom half :laugh:

Well yes, I suppose she must know. I suspect some boys might know too from what Ive heard :laugh:

Akula
04-21-2014, 09:16 PM
Actually he was criminal for most of his life
Typical. No surprise there.

Cigar
04-21-2014, 09:16 PM
Yes, I agree, my apologies, just in one of my Cigar moods :wink:

The next time you're in a Cigar Mood ... Smoke on of these ...

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608024488559248553&pid=1.7

Good night ... Mama's home

Refugee
04-21-2014, 09:21 PM
The next time you're in a Cigar Mood ... Smoke on of these ...

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608024488559248553&pid=1.7

Good night ... Mama's home

Now you're just making fun of me. You know I'm not on welfare so I can't afford them. :laugh:

Bob
04-21-2014, 09:23 PM
I no longer smoke anything. Cigars and my pipes were my favorites. Those smokes almost make me wish I still smoked cigars. I have no cravings at all, so no thanks.

Spectre
04-21-2014, 09:24 PM
The next time you're in a Cigar Mood ... Smoke on of these ...

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608024488559248553&pid=1.7

Good night ... Mama's home


My last cigar was a Cohiba Lancero. Not a regular smoker, but it was a surprisingly pleasant experience.

Especially with a snifter of good Armagnac or Calvados.

Bob
04-21-2014, 09:26 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Refugee http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=585574#post585574)
Obama who provides welfare is white?

According to Michelle Obama, not the bottom half :laugh:

Lord knows how many of those spread those legs.

Refugee
04-21-2014, 09:33 PM
I'm a tax payer so I'm still disadvantaged and discriminated against so I'm reduced to this.


6943


When we're all equal and on welfare I'm going to enjoy the good life. :smiley:

sky dancer
04-21-2014, 10:08 PM
Sheriff Arapaio

Libhater
04-22-2014, 05:12 AM
You people are still buying and drinking the kool aid. How many times do I have to tell and prove to you that David Duke loved his
black nanny and that he hasn't a racist bone in his WHITE body? Gets tedious dealing with nincompoops day after day.

Chris
04-22-2014, 05:21 AM
Agree with earlier statements the word "racism" is overused to the point of meaninglessness. I don't understand the obsession with it.

zelmo1234
04-22-2014, 05:23 AM
I guess that explains why a lot of my friends are White ... I bet they will get big laugh when I show them this. :laugh:

You do realize that you just pulled the I can't be racist because I have a Black friend in reverse right? :)

Refugee
04-22-2014, 06:03 AM
You do realize that you just pulled the I can't be racist because I have a Black friend in reverse right? :)

I think the subtlety might have been intentional? :smiley:

1751_Texan
04-22-2014, 06:22 AM
It's detrimental to everyone. He does blacks no favors that's for sure. I just don't think he believes in any sort of biological hierarchy or anything like that.

I think that is the new stance of once-considered "hate groups"... like the KKK. Now they are for "their race". Advocate for one's race is not racist, it is how that advocacy is carried out.

I do recall Al Sharton advocating for the His people and their rights, but really can't recall his advocating for limiting or refusing rights to other groups...whites included.

I dont have any problem with the KKK or any other group advocating for "their people" so long as they dont in any way advocate — and more importantly, dont try— to resrict the rights of others.

Libhater
04-22-2014, 06:45 AM
I dont have any problem with the KKK or any other group advocating for "their people" so long as they dont in any way advocate — and more importantly, dont try— to resrict the rights of others.

Its interesting that the current KKK doesn't restrict the rights of other people, yet their own rights of public speaking etc. have
been severely restricted. Double standard much? Go figure!

Cigar
04-22-2014, 07:11 AM
You people are still buying and drinking the kool aid. How many times do I have to tell and prove to you that David Duke loved his
black nanny and that he hasn't a racist bone in his WHITE body? Gets tedious dealing with nincompoops day after day.

.... then we're all to believe that President Obama couldn't stand his own White Mother because of his obvious racism :laugh:

Libhater
04-22-2014, 08:30 AM
.... then we're all to believe that President Obama couldn't stand his own White Mother because of his obvious racism :laugh:

From what I read about obummer's mother, there wasn't too many people (including barry) who could stand the bitch--be her black or WHITE.
But I do know that obummer threw his WHITE grandmother under the bus, and he's thrown his extra black brother under the camel's toes on
numerous occasions. Color means nothing to obummer--he's an equal opportunity racist, except perhaps when he's sitting in on one of the
Rev Wright's racist sermons.

Cigar
04-22-2014, 08:36 AM
:loco::facepalm: Oh good grief ... is this what politics is reduced to?

Libhater
04-22-2014, 08:38 AM
:loco::facepalm: Oh good grief ... is this what politics is reduced to?

Yup, this is what politics has been reduced to since this charlatan obummer first became potus.

Cigar
04-22-2014, 08:41 AM
Yup, this is what politics has been reduced to since this charlatan obummer first became potus.

Well all I can say is ... Good Luck with Jeb Bush :grin:

Spectre
04-22-2014, 09:08 AM
Jeb Bush, whom I am NOT a big fan of, would be the advent of King Arthur himself compared to Bammy, so yes, any president not Obama or the Hildebeest WOULD be VERY good luck indeed.

Ravi
04-22-2014, 11:28 AM
Its interesting that the current KKK doesn't restrict the rights of other people, yet their own rights of public speaking etc. have
been severely restricted. Double standard much? Go figure!How have the KKK's rights of public speaking been restricted, exactly?

Cigar
04-22-2014, 12:01 PM
You do realize that you just pulled the I can't be racist because I have a Black friend in reverse right? :)


I never wrote that, so go back and re-read it and try to comprehend what was actually written, not what you want to see. :laugh:

Cigar
04-22-2014, 12:03 PM
Jeb Bush, whom I am NOT a big fan of, would be the advent of King Arthur himself compared to Bammy, so yes, any president not Obama or the Hildebeest WOULD be VERY good luck indeed.

Only difference is ... one IS President (twice-Back-2-Back) and will always have that title.

The other will never ... ever ... have it.

See the difference sport. :grin:

Captain Obvious
04-22-2014, 12:53 PM
You do realize that you just pulled the I can't be racist because I have a Black friend in reverse right? :)

Right - that kinda was my point with my "some of your best friends are white" snark. I'm sure it sailed over Ciger's head.

Captain Obvious
04-23-2014, 08:32 AM
How have the KKK's rights of public speaking been restricted, exactly?

Can't publicly lynch anymore.

Captain Obvious
04-23-2014, 08:34 AM
So far we have David Duke in the lead, Sharpton and tied for second followed by Malcolm X and the O'bama. Couple white guys bringing up the rear.

Kind of an odd distribution.

Spectre
04-23-2014, 09:13 AM
Obama is not a racist, but he shamefully exploits racial tensions and conflicts for political advantage.

Cigar
04-23-2014, 10:52 AM
Bottom Line:

Most White People would like to forget Racism, it's History and move on ...

Most Black People will never forget Racism, it's History and will never move on ...

Just ask the Jewish, Japanese ... ect

Mister D
04-23-2014, 10:55 AM
Bottom Line:

Most White People would like to forget Racism, it's History and move on ...

Most Black People will never forget Racism, it's History and will never move on ...

Just ask the Jewish, Japanese ... ect


That is sadly part of the black community's problem.

Akula
04-23-2014, 10:58 AM
That is sadly part of the black community's problem.

If america lasted another thousand years, negroes would STILL use slavery/racism as an excuse for not advancing/succeeding.

Mister D
04-23-2014, 11:00 AM
If america lasted another thousand years, negroes would STILL use slavery/racism as an excuse for not advancing/succeeding.

Well, yes, that does appear to be the implication so I hazard to say Cigar agrees with you.

Spectre
04-23-2014, 11:04 AM
That is sadly part of the black community's problem.

Exactly, it's because that they are obsessed with this rubbish that they are such a dysfunctional and low-achieving community compared with so many immigrant communities that have overtaken them. They have been caught up in a mass delusion of entitlement and resentment for past wrongs that is preventing them from moving forward and living more fulfilling lives. Things like that can happen to individuals, and they can happen to entire groups of people. They need to get a grip and move on, because where they have been mentally stuck since the mid-60s is doing them not a whit of good. If they want to prove the racists wrong, they need to graduate MORE people through high-school and university, have LOWER rates of crime and drug and alcohol addiction, see to it that their neighborhoods are as safe and attractive as the safest and most attractive in the nation, otherwise all they're doing is proving the racists right.

Mister D
04-23-2014, 11:05 AM
Exactly, it's because that they are obsessed with this rubbish that they are such a dysfunctional and low-achieving community compared with so many immigrant communities that have overtaken them. They have been caught up in a mass delusion of entitlement and resentment for past wrongs that is preventing them from moving forward and living more fulfilling lives. Things like that can happen to individuals, and they can happen to entire groups of people. They need to get a grip and move on, because where they have been mentally stuck since the mid-60s is doing them not a whit of good. If they want to prove the racists wrong, they need to graduate MORE people through high-school and university, have LOWER rates of crime and drug and alcohol addiction, see to it that their neighborhoods are as safe and attractive as the safest and most attractive in the nation, otherwise all they're doing is proving the racist right.

Like the Jews and Japanese, for example.

Spectre
04-23-2014, 11:08 AM
Like the Jews and Japanese, for example.

'Zactly!!

Libhater
04-23-2014, 11:21 AM
Exactly, it's because that they are obsessed with this rubbish that they are such a dysfunctional and low-achieving community compared with so many immigrant communities that have overtaken them. They have been caught up in a mass delusion of entitlement and resentment for past wrongs that is preventing them from moving forward and living more fulfilling lives. Things like that can happen to individuals, and they can happen to entire groups of people. They need to get a grip and move on, because where they have been mentally stuck since the mid-60s is doing them not a whit of good. If they want to prove the racists wrong, they need to graduate MORE people through high-school and university, have LOWER rates of crime and drug and alcohol addiction, see to it that their neighborhoods are as safe and attractive as the safest and most attractive in the nation, otherwise all they're doing is proving the racists right.

You might also notice that any black realizing what you say is true, is undoubtedly a Conservative black. You will never get any
of those liberal black leaders from the congressional black congress, from the race baiters of the NAALCP (National Association
Advancement of Liberal Colored People) or from am al sharpton and or Jessie Jackson to agree with you.

Spectre
04-23-2014, 11:23 AM
You might also notice that any black realizing what you say is true, is undoubtedly a Conservative black. You will never get any
of those liberal black leaders from the congressional black congress, from the race baiters of the NAALCP (National Association
Advancement of Liberal Colored People) or from am al sharpton and or Jessie Jackson to agree with you.

All they're doing is hurting their own people while entrenching themselves as parasites battening down and getting rich off of their misery and befuddlement.

Refugee
04-23-2014, 05:36 PM
You might also notice that any black realizing what you say is true, is undoubtedly a Conservative black. You will never get any
of those liberal black leaders from the congressional black congress, from the race baiters of the NAALCP (National Association
Advancement of Liberal Colored People) or from am al sharpton and or Jessie Jackson to agree with you.

Perhaps because there's money to be made out of diversity. A spokesperson or representative was never a bad job and I'd rather be a 'community leader' than part of that community.

Mister D
04-23-2014, 08:13 PM
Captain Obvious Also indicative of the term's loss of precise meaning is the partisan breakdown of the results. Progressives are labeled racists by conservatives and vice versa.

Captain Obvious
04-23-2014, 09:06 PM
@Captain Obvious (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=3) Also indicative of the term's loss of precise meaning is the partisan breakdown of the results. Progressives are labeled racists by conservatives and vice versa.

That was kinda the exercise.

Mister D
04-23-2014, 09:21 PM
That was kinda the exercise.

Will they learn from this? Lets hope so.

Green Arrow
04-24-2014, 02:25 AM
Like the Jews and Japanese, for example.

Are we talking about Jewish/Japanese immigrants?

Green Arrow
04-24-2014, 02:26 AM
I actually messed up. I went knee-jerk and didn't stop to think about it. If I could go back and re-vote, I'd only select Duke.

Libhater
04-24-2014, 05:48 AM
I actually messed up. I went knee-jerk and didn't stop to think about it. If I could go back and re-vote, I'd only select Duke.

Oh how I get upset when uninformed people go and make a mistake like this one. I refer you back to post #59 in this
very thread for clarification on why David Duke is not nor has ever been a racist.
Sure Duke was the Grand Master of the KKK, but that was back when he was looking for people who shared his 'WHITE
Nationalist' views along with his views to save the WHITE race from extinction. Once his KKK laity became violent he
gave up his throne as master of the KKK. Like David, my beef is with the destructive Zionists who virtually control
the world's purse strings--among other such undesirable traits.

So this is the perfect time for you to make amends by taking Duke off your list.

Green Arrow
04-24-2014, 07:30 AM
Oh how I get upset when uninformed people go and make a mistake like this one. I refer you back to post #59 in this
very thread for clarification on why David Duke is not nor has ever been a racist.
Sure Duke was the Grand Master of the KKK, but that was back when he was looking for people who shared his 'WHITE
Nationalist' views along with his views to save the WHITE race from extinction. Once his KKK laity became violent he
gave up his throne as master of the KKK. Like David, my beef is with the destructive Zionists who virtually control
the world's purse strings--among other such undesirable traits.

So this is the perfect time for you to make amends by taking Duke off your list.

Not happening, sorry.

Oh, wait, who am I kidding? Of course I'm not sorry!

http://www.history.com/images/media/slideshow/teddy-roosevelt/theodore-roosevelt-laughing.jpg

Captain Obvious
04-24-2014, 07:56 AM
Let's see - something like 99.997% of the people think Duke is a racist, the 0.003% sympathizes with him.

Guess the 99.997% are wrong.

:biglaugh:

Chris
04-24-2014, 07:59 AM
Let's see - something like 99.997% of the people think Duke is a racist, the 0.003% sympathizes with him.

Guess the 99.997% are wrong.

:biglaugh:



Is truth determined by popular opinion, captain?

Green Arrow
04-24-2014, 08:00 AM
Is truth determined by popular opinion, captain?

To a certain extent, yes.

Captain Obvious
04-24-2014, 08:01 AM
Is truth determined by popular opinion, captain?

With subjective issues, yes - that's how it works.

Captain Obvious
04-24-2014, 08:02 AM
Chris is chumming the water here to launch this into the Chrisosphere.

I can see it coming a mile away.

Chris
04-24-2014, 08:03 AM
To a certain extent, yes.


Then truth is fallacious.

Chris
04-24-2014, 08:04 AM
With subjective issues, yes - that's how it works.

Truth is subjective to you?

Green Arrow
04-24-2014, 08:06 AM
Then truth is fallacious.

Not sure I get your meaning.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 08:07 AM
Is truth determined by popular opinion, captain?How do you determine if someone is racist?

Chris
04-24-2014, 08:19 AM
Not sure I get your meaning.

Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument. Slavery was once popular, did that make it moral? Obama won election, does that determine he was the best person for the job and there can be no disagreement with him? Everybody's doing it, should you? Democracy is mob rule, good?

All that can be said is, in popular opinion,on this forum, for those who took the poll, Duke is a racist. Doesn't say much.

Chris
04-24-2014, 08:21 AM
How do you determine if someone is racist?

By their words and actions. Certainly not by your and others' opinions.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 08:23 AM
By their words and actions. Certainly not by your and others' opinions.
I imagine those that voted he is a racist determined that by his words and actions.

Chris
04-24-2014, 08:30 AM
I imagine those that voted he is a racist determined that by his words and actions.

Right, I didn't question their subjective opinions, or the aggregation of them, just the ability to somehow generalize from that some sort of objective conclusion.

Libhater
04-24-2014, 08:30 AM
How do you determine if someone is racist?

Bravo Ravi-oli, for a racist is someone who says, thinks or feels his race is superior to that of another race.
Can you or any of the other race baiters here show or tell us how Duke became this racist? If you can't, then
one has to suspect that you people are nothing more than a group of talking point leftists who cannot
muster the facts to support your claim that the honorable David Duke is a racist.

Captain Obvious
04-24-2014, 08:40 AM
Truth is subjective to you?

And we have liftoff!

Subjective issues like racism are subjective to me.

"TO THE CHRISOSPHERE... AND BEYOND!"

Polecat
04-24-2014, 08:59 AM
Fostering hatred/fear and exclusion/persecution can be achieved with many different tools. Our apparent propensity to anger fast and forgive slow has made it rather easy for the most ambitious of our species to move us like pawns in the game of civilization.

Chris
04-24-2014, 09:01 AM
And we have liftoff!

Subjective issues like racism are subjective to me.

"TO THE CHRISOSPHERE... AND BEYOND!"



Yes, oversimplify the point made, cap. But I didn't question your subjectivity, I questioned your trying to make it objective.

Green Arrow
04-24-2014, 10:35 AM
Argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument. Slavery was once popular, did that make it moral? Obama won election, does that determine he was the best person for the job and there can be no disagreement with him? Everybody's doing it, should you? Democracy is mob rule, good?

All that can be said is, in popular opinion,on this forum, for those who took the poll, Duke is a racist. Doesn't say much.

Morality is inherently subjective. There is no concrete definition of "truth," so for all intents and purposes, truth is also subjective.

Chris
04-24-2014, 10:39 AM
Morality is inherently subjective. There is no concrete definition of "truth," so for all intents and purposes, truth is also subjective.

If it were then there's be no morality.

"There is no concrete definition of "truth," so for all intents and purposes, truth is also subjective."

Yet you assert that statement to be true. It's a self-annihilating statement.

Truth is possible only if it is objective. If it were subjective, then whatever you assert is false by anyone else simply saying so, and vice versa. Then there is no truth.

Green Arrow
04-24-2014, 10:40 AM
If it were then there's be no morality.

I disagree.


"There is no concrete definition of "truth," so for all intents and purposes, truth is also subjective."

Yet you assert that statement to be true. It's a self-annihilating statement.

Truth is possible only if it is objective. If it were subjective, then whatever you assert is false by anyone else simply saying so, and vice versa. Then there is no truth.

What is truth?

Akula
04-24-2014, 10:40 AM
If you jump off a 10 story building you will die.

That is "truth".

Cigar
04-24-2014, 10:42 AM
If you jump off a 10 story building you will die.

That is "truth".

I don't believe you ... prove it :grin:

Chris
04-24-2014, 10:44 AM
I disagree.



What is truth?


Assume there is no truth. Then by the logical law of non-contradiction that assumption is false. Ergo, there is truth.

Captain Obvious
04-24-2014, 11:28 AM
Green Arrow - lol! You're climbing into the rocket ship!

Ravi
04-24-2014, 11:30 AM
Morality is inherently subjective. There is no concrete definition of "truth," so for all intents and purposes, truth is also subjective.
I can agree that morality is subjective but truth? Not seeing it.

Chris
04-24-2014, 11:34 AM
I can agree that morality is subjective but truth? Not seeing it.

If you can see that far then how can morality be true if not objective, universal, etc.


Not saying anyone knows truth or morality completely, we all live by our own view of it.

Chris
04-24-2014, 11:35 AM
Green Arrow - lol! You're climbing into the rocket ship!

You just hate open discussion, don't you. I mean that's OK, some don't, but why not leave others to it?

Captain Obvious
04-24-2014, 11:37 AM
You just hate open discussion, don't you. I mean that's OK, some don't, but why not leave others to it?

I like productive discussions.

You bicker, over-complicate and generally clusterfuck the shit out of topics.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 11:48 AM
If you can see that far then how can morality be true if not objective, universal, etc.


Not saying anyone knows truth or morality completely, we all live by our own view of it.Morality isn't always true. Sometimes it is just convenient.

Chris
04-24-2014, 12:13 PM
Morality isn't always true. Sometimes it is just convenient.


Yes, indeed, our own personal understanding of morality is necessarily flawed and so we act on convenience and then backtrack over it to try and rationalize it as moral. But just the facts we recognize, judge and cannot really justify convenience as a replacement for morality implies we do have a sense of objective, universal morality.

Chris
04-24-2014, 12:15 PM
I like productive discussions.

You bicker, over-complicate and generally clusterfuck the shit out of topics.



My criticism of your earlier point was quite simple, you can't generalize from an opinion poll on a forum with a dozen voters anything much of value regarding the truth. Your bluster doesn't deny that point.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 12:26 PM
Yes, indeed, our own personal understanding of morality is necessarily flawed and so we act on convenience and then backtrack over it to try and rationalize it as moral. But just the facts we recognize, judge and cannot really justify convenience as a replacement for morality implies we do have a sense of objective, universal morality.No, it's subjective. For instance some cultures think suicide is immoral and some think it is a moral answer to wrong doing.

Common Sense
04-24-2014, 12:28 PM
Of course morality is subjective. Who could possibly argue otherwise?

Libhater
04-24-2014, 12:41 PM
I like productive discussions

LMFAO! Take that sentence to the 'hole' where we can all get a chuckle out of Mr. one-liner

Chris
04-24-2014, 12:46 PM
No, it's subjective. For instance some cultures think suicide is immoral and some think it is a moral answer to wrong doing.


Morality isn't, imo, found in rules, or even rules of thumb, but in how we justify and condemn interactions with others. So far as I know and have read there is not a society that does not condemn murder or praise helping others. Social psychologists have pretty well established that the basics of this sense of morality is fairly innate. Though no doubt we learn specifics from the society and culture around us, and even those that basic innate sense, some argue, is likely socially selected for in an evolutionary sense as it contributes to survival.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 12:48 PM
Morality isn't, imo, found in rules, or even rules of thumb, but in how we justify and condemn interactions with others. So far as I know and have read there is not a society that does not condemn murder or praise helping others. Social psychologists have pretty well established that the basics of this sense of morality is fairly innate. Though no doubt we learn specifics from the society and culture around us, and even those that basic innate sense, some argue, is likely socially selected for in an evolutionary sense as it contributes to survival.
Right, it's subjective. If it contributes to survival any given person is going to subjectively choose what is the best moral action.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 12:53 PM
Right, it's subjective. If it contributes to survival any given person is going to subjectively choose what is the best moral action.

Wait a minute...earlier you were condemning Hitler's absolute evil. Now this? I must ask on what grounds you condemn Hitler's "evil" policies"?

Ravi
04-24-2014, 12:58 PM
Wait a minute...earlier you were condemning Hitler's absolute evil. Now this? I must ask on what grounds you condemn Hitler's "evil" policies"?Morality is subjective. Did I stutter?

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:01 PM
Morality is subjective. Did I stutter?

You're stuttering now. Again, I must ask on what grounds you condemn Hitler's "evil" policies"? It's just your opinion that they were evil?

Chris
04-24-2014, 01:02 PM
Right, it's subjective. If it contributes to survival any given person is going to subjectively choose what is the best moral action.


Evolutionary survival is about survival of the species not individuals. More precisely, it's about survival of a gene pool. Ever since Dawkins' The Selfish Gene no one has argued genes are moral. So what you think you're choosing subjectively has likely been inherited and that arrived at through social selection.

Chris
04-24-2014, 01:07 PM
Wait a minute...earlier you were condemning Hitler's absolute evil. Now this? I must ask on what grounds you condemn Hitler's "evil" policies"?


What D's saying, ravi, has to do with what I said about morality being found in justification or condemnation, which explanations, even if rationalizations, are shared among the community, society, culture. Mere subjective morality, emotion, intuition, that cannot be explained, but only voted on in polls, doesn't reach that level.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 01:13 PM
Evolutionary survival is about survival of the species not individuals. More precisely, it's about survival of a gene pool. Ever since Dawkins' The Selfish Gene no one has argued genes are moral. So what you think you're choosing subjectively has likely been inherited and that arrived at through social selection.
And the species is made up of individuals that subjectively decide what is moral and what isn't to ensure survival of both the individual and the species the individual belongs to.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:15 PM
And the species is made up of individuals that subjectively decide what is moral and what isn't to ensure survival of both the individual and the species the individual belongs to.

So Hitler's judgments are really no more good or evil than your own, right?

Ravi
04-24-2014, 01:16 PM
You're stuttering now. Again, I must ask on what grounds you condemn Hitler's "evil" policies"? It's just your opinion that they were evil?
Of course it is my opinion, shared with most of the world. Not just evil, but inhumane. Killing off a large part of your population is evil, stupid, and pretty much ensures your destruction.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 01:18 PM
What D's saying, ravi, has to do with what I said about morality being found in justification or condemnation, which explanations, even if rationalizations, are shared among the community, society, culture. Mere subjective morality, emotion, intuition, that cannot be explained, but only voted on in polls, doesn't reach that level.Well, at least you admit morality can be subjective. This is why it is good that the country is ruled by the constitution and not some morality book like the Bible.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:20 PM
Of course it is my opinion, shared with most of the world. Not just evil, but inhumane. Killing off a large part of your population is evil, stupid, and pretty much ensures your destruction.

Hitler didn't kill off a large part of his population. In any case, so as long as a large number of people agree it's OK. Is that what you are saying?

Chris
04-24-2014, 01:25 PM
Well, at least you admit morality can be subjective. This is why it is good that the country is ruled by the constitution and not some morality book like the Bible.


Not what I said, ravi. Nor has anyone mentioned the Bible till you did.

What I'm getting at is the basis for your morality, especially that "shared with most of the world". Where's that come from?

Ravi
04-24-2014, 01:27 PM
Hitler didn't kill off a large part of his population. In any case, so as long as a large number of people agree it's OK. Is that what you are saying?

What?

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:27 PM
Not what I said, ravi. Nor has anyone mentioned the Bible till you did.

What I'm getting at is the basis for your morality, especially that "shared with most of the world". Where's that come from?

Obviously, much of the world has at one time or another supported mass murder, mayhem etc. I guess it was OK. after all, so many were able to agree.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:27 PM
What?

You do realize Jews comprised a tiny fraction of the German population, right?

Ravi
04-24-2014, 01:28 PM
Not what I said, ravi. Nor has anyone mentioned the Bible till you did.

What I'm getting at is the basis for your morality, especially that "shared with most of the world". Where's that come from?
Life. Did you not figure out the difference between right and wrong from your own experiences?

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:28 PM
So Ravi as long as a large number of people agree it's OK. Is that what you are saying?

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:29 PM
Life. Did you not figure out the difference between right and wrong from your own experiences?

What's to figure out? I mean, it's just your opinion.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 01:31 PM
So @Ravi (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=698) as long as a large number of people agree it's OK. Is that what you are saying?If most people believe something is evil then it is evil for most people.

This goes back and forth all the time. How else would we create a country where all men are created equal and yet allow a certain population to be enslaved? How else would we have the death penalty? Enough people think or thought those things were morally justified.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:31 PM
Yeah, I'm being a dick but I do enjoy watching the "I don't want a theocracy!" crowd struggle with real philosophical and ethical questions. It demonstrates what mindless cretins they are.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 01:32 PM
Yeah, I'm being a dick but I do enjoy watching the "I don't want a theocracy!" crowd struggle with real philosophical and ethical questions. It demonstrates what mindless cretins they are.The founders didn't want a theocracy either. Prolly because they realized that morality is subjective.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:33 PM
If most people believe something is evil then it is evil for most people.

This goes back and forth all the time. How else would we create a country where all men are created equal and yet allow a certain population to be enslaved? How else would we have the death penalty? Enough people think or thought those things were morally justified.

But it's not evil per se it's just not popular. IOW, Auschwitz wasn't really so bad it's just that it offended a lot of people. Gotcha.

And when they change their minds it will be right to have blacks slaves again. Awesome!

Common Sense
04-24-2014, 01:34 PM
If most people believe something is evil then it is evil for most people.

This goes back and forth all the time. How else would we create a country where all men are created equal and yet allow a certain population to be enslaved? How else would we have the death penalty? Enough people think or thought those things were morally justified.

He needs a black and white answer for a question full of grey areas.

There is no universal definition of morality. It's ambiguous to a point and it's in flux. It's also circumstantial. What's moral in war may not be moral in times of peace. Certainly morality has changed throughout the
ages. It has even changed in the relatively short existence of the United States.

It's an interesting yet kind of futile debate.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:35 PM
The founders didn't want a theocracy either. Prolly because they realized that morality is subjective.

The US has never been in any danger of becoming a theocracy, Ravi. Anyway, it's interesting to note that you ground your sense of right and wrong in essentially nothing.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:36 PM
He needs a black and white answer for a question full of grey areas.

There is no universal definition of morality. It's ambiguous to a point and it's in flux. It's also circumstantial. What's moral in war may not be moral in times of peace. Certainly morality has changed throughout the
ages. It has even changed in the relatively short existence of the United States.

It's an interesting yet kind of futile debate.

If the debate is futile so is the subject matter of said debate. I guess we can end this here.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 01:36 PM
But it's not evil per se it's just not popular. IOW, Auschwitz wasn't really so bad it's just that it offended a lot of people. Gotcha.

And when they change their minds it will be right to have blacks slaves again. Awesome!No, it really was bad. And stupid. And anti-evolution. But Hitler and his supporters thought it was moral.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 01:38 PM
He needs a black and white answer for a question full of grey areas.

There is no universal definition of morality. It's ambiguous to a point and it's in flux. It's also circumstantial. What's moral in war may not be moral in times of peace. Certainly morality has changed throughout the
ages. It has even changed in the relatively short existence of the United States.

It's an interesting yet kind of futile debate.
True enough. I think Murdee just wants to trash talk the Jews. I will bow out.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:38 PM
Now how much you wanna bet the same folks will continue making moral judgments as if they meant anything.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:40 PM
True enough. I think Murdee just wants to trash talk the Jews. I will bow out.

And what if I do!? You just got done telling us it's not wrong. :laugh:

Common Sense
04-24-2014, 01:40 PM
Oh...so profound.:rollseyes:

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:40 PM
No, it really was bad. And stupid. And anti-evolution. But Hitler and his supporters thought it was moral.

Ergo it was. That's your logic.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:41 PM
Oh...so profound.:rollseyes:

Not really. Profundity would be lost on you.

Common Sense
04-24-2014, 01:42 PM
Not really. Profundity would be lost on you.

...as sarcasm is lost on you.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 01:43 PM
...as sarcasm is lost on you.

Please tell me this was all just a joke and you guys were kidding. It will restore some of my faith in humanity.

Chris
04-24-2014, 01:48 PM
Obviously, much of the world has at one time or another supported mass murder, mayhem etc. I guess it was OK. after all, so many were able to agree.

Yep, those have been popular.

Chris
04-24-2014, 01:50 PM
He needs a black and white answer for a question full of grey areas.

There is no universal definition of morality. It's ambiguous to a point and it's in flux. It's also circumstantial. What's moral in war may not be moral in times of peace. Certainly morality has changed throughout the
ages. It has even changed in the relatively short existence of the United States.

It's an interesting yet kind of futile debate.



By your rules it is futile. Yet most people do seek to be moral, or at least to appear to be.

Chris
04-24-2014, 01:54 PM
Life. Did you not figure out the difference between right and wrong from your own experiences?

As I said earlier we're born with the basis for morality. One experiment I just read about with toddlers consisted of a good puppet help another puppet and an evil puppet harming the other. The toddlers gravitated naturally toward to good puppet.

Still, I think this sense of morality has been socially selected for. It pays to recognize good and evil instantaneously without much thought.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 02:40 PM
As I said earlier we're born with the basis for morality. One experiment I just read about with toddlers consisted of a good puppet help another puppet and an evil puppet harming the other. The toddlers gravitated naturally toward to good puppet.

Still, I think this sense of morality has been socially selected for. It pays to recognize good and evil instantaneously without much thought.
^self preservation. Nothing to do with morality.

Chris
04-24-2014, 02:54 PM
^self preservation. Nothing to do with morality.


Morality doesn't have to do with the self. It has to do with our interactions with others. It is therefore social and not personal or individual. Biologically is has to do with survival of the species, more specifically, with gene pools.

That bit about the toddlers came out of Haidt's The Righteous Mind on morality. It has everything to do with morality, with the biological basis for it--though I think that biology is socially selected for.


I suppose we disagree, ravi, on our views. I doubt D and I agree on everything, if anything! But I appreciate your joining in and participating in discussion of it.

Bob
04-24-2014, 03:07 PM
By your rules it is futile. Yet most people do seek to be moral, or at least to appear to be.

A slight spin off from your discussion with another, so bear with me. (Common sense and U)

Early in the life of this country, Slavery was illegal, and Democrats fought for slavery to remain.
Democrats try to act so moral today, yet they still support the taking of property from others. One way they do this is using income taxes.

Were I or anybody to drive down a country road, spy some excellent fruit on trees, that belongs to others and the law protects the owner, not the thief.

This is correct. This country was founded believing in private property. The 2nd amendment is a right to keep property in the form of guns.

When any in government proposes laws, one must follow the constitution. Prior to 1913, the law and courts supported the public to keep earnings from the Feds. While I understand the constitution was changed, over time the idea of taxing citizens grew and grew until it is not a bit like the first law once the amendment was made.

Then can a wrong be converted to being right. Such as prohibition. This was always wrong, just as slavery was, though at a point, the public would agree both were right.

My point is clear. A thing is right or it is wrong.

Colonists fought the King. A hanging offense. Later the South fought the government. Actually over economics. Economics is why Abe the outlaw waged war. He wanted to tax those of the south. Later the outlaw shifted gears and suddenly he used slavery. He broke his promise to not use slavery as an issue.

Wrapping up.
The Sun and Moon are always what they are. Right is not wrong in disguise.
Taxes are the removal using force, of property from one or more that earned it. Property stolen is not the property of the thief. We may see a day when the thief's in DC willingly change the law providing cover to those in DC that steal our earnings.

Bob
04-24-2014, 03:09 PM
Morality doesn't have to do with the self. It has to do with our interactions with others. It is therefore social and not personal or individual. Biologically is has to do with survival of the species, more specifically, with gene pools.

That bit about the toddlers came out of Haidt's The Righteous Mind on morality. It has everything to do with morality, with the biological basis for it--though I think that biology is socially selected for.


I suppose we disagree, ravi, on our views. I doubt D and I agree on everything, if anything! But I appreciate your joining in and participating in discussion of it.

It is not clear to me that toddlers as you speak of them understand preservation. However your study may explain why they do as they do. Toddlers understand pain. Not having studied this, not sure why Ravi argues it.

Chris
04-24-2014, 03:13 PM
It is not clear to me that toddlers as you speak of them understand preservation. However your study may explain why they do as they do. Toddlers understand pain. Not having studied this, not sure why Ravi argues it.

It had to do with simple observation of helping or harming, and wanting to associate with the helper not the harmer. Simple basis for right and wrong. As we age we rationalize it with all sorts of grand reasons--I'm beginning to think.

Bob
04-24-2014, 03:15 PM
A question such as who is a racist is asked of the forum.

First, the term racist gets used by many, not as a scientific question, but as a tool to badger others.

Obama uses it as his tool.

I voted. I assumed that those I voted for as racist actually are. This is more subjective, i admit, than factual. A person voted for Bush. My view is this is using him as a tool. I have never seen any person call him a racist till this poll. Can they correct that mistake? My votes went to those who use Race as their tool all the time. They are well known for speaking against one race yet pro for the blacks.

Chris
04-24-2014, 03:15 PM
A slight spin off from your discussion with another, so bear with me. (Common sense and U)

Early in the life of this country, Slavery was illegal, and Democrats fought for slavery to remain.
Democrats try to act so moral today, yet they still support the taking of property from others. One way they do this is using income taxes.

Were I or anybody to drive down a country road, spy some excellent fruit on trees, that belongs to others and the law protects the owner, not the thief.

This is correct. This country was founded believing in private property. The 2nd amendment is a right to keep property in the form of guns.

When any in government proposes laws, one must follow the constitution. Prior to 1913, the law and courts supported the public to keep earnings from the Feds. While I understand the constitution was changed, over time the idea of taxing citizens grew and grew until it is not a bit like the first law once the amendment was made.

Then can a wrong be converted to being right. Such as prohibition. This was always wrong, just as slavery was, though at a point, the public would agree both were right.

My point is clear. A thing is right or it is wrong.

Colonists fought the King. A hanging offense. Later the South fought the government. Actually over economics. Economics is why Abe the outlaw waged war. He wanted to tax those of the south. Later the outlaw shifted gears and suddenly he used slavery. He broke his promise to not use slavery as an issue.

Wrapping up.
The Sun and Moon are always what they are. Right is not wrong in disguise.
Taxes are the removal using force, of property from one or more that earned it. Property stolen is not the property of the thief. We may see a day when the thief's in DC willingly change the law providing cover to those in DC that steal our earnings.


Agree, and I think we all pretty much sense what's right and wrong, from intuitive reactions to reasoned justification or condemnation.

But, to explain the subjective part, we don't always act morally, even as a society, it takes time not to invent but to discover right and wring,

Bob
04-24-2014, 03:17 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=588789#post588789)
It is not clear to me that toddlers as you speak of them understand preservation. However your study may explain why they do as they do. Toddlers understand pain. Not having studied this, not sure why Ravi argues it.


It had to do with simple observation of helping or harming, and wanting to associate with the helper not the harmer. Simple basis for right and wrong. As we age we rationalize it with all sorts of grand reasons--I'm beginning to think.

I hope you understand that my commentary went to supporting yours rather than Ravi's????

She is pretty young so I forgive her her mistakes.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 03:18 PM
Morality doesn't have to do with the self. It has to do with our interactions with others. It is therefore social and not personal or individual. Biologically is has to do with survival of the species, more specifically, with gene pools.

That bit about the toddlers came out of Haidt's The Righteous Mind on morality. It has everything to do with morality, with the biological basis for it--though I think that biology is socially selected for.


I suppose we disagree, ravi, on our views. I doubt D and I agree on everything, if anything! But I appreciate your joining in and participating in discussion of it.

Just because it is in a book doesn't make it correct. The vast majority of toddlers would avoid someone that might hurt them. Simple preservation.

Chris
04-24-2014, 03:25 PM
Just because it is in a book doesn't make it correct. The vast majority of toddlers would avoid someone that might hurt them. Simple preservation.


Just a reference to the fact larger than me that it was an experiment on sociopsychology about morality.

Social preservation: It makes sense to cooperate and to help others.

The experiment was also taken to be a rebuttal of the notion morality is tribal.

Bob
04-24-2014, 03:28 PM
Agree, and I think we all pretty much sense what's right and wrong, from intuitive reactions to reasoned justification or condemnation.

But, to explain the subjective part, we don't always act morally, even as a society, it takes time not to invent but to discover right and wring,

You spoke of toddlers. They are born with no preconceived notions, You created the case or re-presented the case where a thing was learned. I and you do not believe a child is born understanding self preservation. Ravi probably never took psychology. I took one course in college. However, do not ask me what I recall. That was around 1974.

My concepts are learned. I credit forums for forcing me to think about things I once did not think about before. I see Ravi in the primitive stages of learning human behavior.

Children are not adults and operate on different waves than adults do for the most part.

I side with your arguments when it comes to this topic rather than what Ravi says.

When it comes to the taking of property, toddlers do not change laws.

Adults should at all times understand that taking from others without their consent, is called stealing. They try to change a wrong to a right, but in my view it did not work.

In the first place, the public at large does not anticipate the representatives trying to seek office expecting to make an illegal thing, be legal.

Chris
04-24-2014, 03:34 PM
You spoke of toddlers. They are born with no preconceived notions, You created the case or re-presented the case where a thing was learned. I and you do not believe a child is born understanding self preservation. Ravi probably never took psychology. I took one course in college. However, do not ask me what I recall. That was around 1974.

My concepts are learned. I credit forums for forcing me to think about things I once did not think about before. I see Ravi in the primitive stages of learning human behavior.

Children are not adults and operate on different waves than adults do for the most part.

I side with your arguments when it comes to this topic rather than what Ravi says.

When it comes to the taking of property, toddlers do not change laws.

Adults should at all times understand that taking from others without their consent, is called stealing. They try to change a wrong to a right, but in my view it did not work.

In the first place, the public at large does not anticipate the representatives trying to seek office expecting to make an illegal thing, be legal.



Self-preservation is a rationalization. The choice of puppets was not based on how it treated the toddler but on how it treated another puppet.


"Adults should at all times understand that taking from others without their consent, is called stealing."

That is another area I think toddlers have an innate understanding of right and wrong about property and property rights. Exepriments here also involve judgments about how others behave toward each other, so again, not self-preservation.


Adults are sure mixed up! We're so much smarter than toddlers.

Bob
04-24-2014, 03:37 PM
Just because it is in a book doesn't make it correct. The vast majority of toddlers would avoid someone that might hurt them. Simple preservation.

We know that. A very good case to prove you are correct is the income tax laws. They are in the book. They are wrong. A toddler must FIRST learn a thing or person might hurt them. Self preservation is also learned.

Chris is not speaking of self preservation but morality.

A toddler has no clue to begin with that by hitting other toddlers, harm arises.

I maintain that adults approving income tax laws are in that respect, social toddlers. They do not take the harm caused into account. They make excuses for it.

It is in the book, goes one argument. So was slavery and prohibition in the book.

And Ravi says being in the book does not mean it is right.

This is not remotely a thing I feel very good about trying to opine on. I believe in this matter, Chris is on the right track.

Bob
04-24-2014, 03:49 PM
Self-preservation is a rationalization. The choice of puppets was not based on how it treated the toddler but on how it treated another puppet.


"Adults should at all times understand that taking from others without their consent, is called stealing."

That is another area I think toddlers have an innate understanding of right and wrong about property and property rights. Exepriments here also involve judgments about how others behave toward each other, so again, not self-preservation.


Adults are sure mixed up! We're so much smarter than toddlers.

In thinking about your points, I believe this was shown on TV at a point, some years back.

I agree with you and not Ravi since I simply do not believe that toddlers have learned self preservation.

I was very advanced for a child. Still, I at age 5-6 picked up a stick and broke a garage window in a home. Dad taught me that breaking windows is wrong. We can guess how he did that. LOL I was on the path to learning self preservation.

During that era of just prior to starting the 1st grade, I had to experiences that boost your argument over hers.

1. A 55 gallon steel drum was in the back yard. Dad had picked it up to use to burn trash.

It heated up and at the time I was much shorter than the height of the barrel. I was curious to find out what something looks like when burning. I grasped the hot edge of the barrel to pull myself up to peek. It burned very bad. Talk about not worrying what burning looks like. That sure hurt very badly.

2. In the one car garage, shown here, the white house that was brand new at the time my parents purchased it during WW2.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.733682,-122.188395,3a,75y,286.3h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUHj_SNtdA2-rB7ttkeda4w!2e0

The electrical supply was fused in the garage. A ladder was in the garage and some sockets were not fused. I found a metal rod (copper as I recall) and put the ladder up so I could climb up it. When I inserted the copper rod, I got the shock of my life. It flung me to the garage floor.

That day I learned about self preservation from electricity.

Chris
04-24-2014, 03:59 PM
In thinking about your points, I believe this was shown on TV at a point, some years back.

I agree with you and not Ravi since I simply do not believe that toddlers have learned self preservation.

I was very advanced for a child. Still, I at age 5-6 picked up a stick and broke a garage window in a home. Dad taught me that breaking windows is wrong. We can guess how he did that. LOL I was on the path to learning self preservation.

During that era of just prior to starting the 1st grade, I had to experiences that boost your argument over hers.

1. A 55 gallon steel drum was in the back yard. Dad had picked it up to use to burn trash.

It heated up and at the time I was much shorter than the height of the barrel. I was curious to find out what something looks like when burning. I grasped the hot edge of the barrel to pull myself up to peek. It burned very bad. Talk about not worrying what burning looks like. That sure hurt very badly.

2. In the one car garage, shown here ..https://www.google.com/maps/@37.733682,-122.188395,3a,75y,286.3h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sUHj_SNtdA2-rB7ttkeda4w!2e0

the electrical supply was fused in the garage. A ladder was in the garage and some sockets were not fused. I found a metal rod (copper as I recall) and put the ladder up so I could climb up it. When I inserted the copper rod, I got the shock of my life. It flung me to the garage floor.

That day I learned about self preservation from electricity.



Looked it up in Haidt's book. The study he refers to was done with 6- and 10-month olds. As he concludes: "...these findings suggest that by six months of age, infants are watching how people behave toward other people, and they are developing a preference for those who are nicer rather than those who are mean." He adds this happens before language and reasoning arrive.

Bob
04-24-2014, 04:13 PM
Looked it up in Haidt's book. The study he refers to was done with 6- and 10-month olds. As he concludes: "...these findings suggest that by six months of age, infants are watching how people behave toward other people, and they are developing a preference for those who are nicer rather than those who are mean." He adds this happens before language and reasoning arrive.

Okay, this brought it back to me that I did see this on TV.

It makes perfect sense to me. However as complex as humans are, they verified it with actual experiments.

BTW, if you looked at the white house, when my parents owned it, it was brand new. The window I broke was in a not occupied home. I think it was the home to the right in the photo. My cousin who was about my age urged me to break the window.

KC
04-24-2014, 06:10 PM
Malcolm X was a Black Nationalist.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 06:20 PM
Malcolm X was a Black Nationalist.

I don't begrudge him or any black man the right to be a racialist.

KC
04-24-2014, 06:30 PM
I don't begrudge him or any black man the right to be a racialist.

Of course not. And if I were a black man in the 1960's without the vantage point of history I would likely sooner follow Malcolm X than I would Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King appeared too idealistic. Malcolm X's rhetoric at least offered blacks the chance to put their fate into their own hands.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 06:35 PM
Morality doesn't have to do with the self. It has to do with our interactions with others. It is therefore social and not personal or individual. Biologically is has to do with survival of the species, more specifically, with gene pools.

That bit about the toddlers came out of Haidt's The Righteous Mind on morality. It has everything to do with morality, with the biological basis for it--though I think that biology is socially selected for.


I suppose we disagree, ravi, on our views. I doubt D and I agree on everything, if anything! But I appreciate your joining in and participating in discussion of it.

We've discussed morality quite a bit and disagree on its potential basis but I think both of us try to apply our positions to the rest of our thinking. I interjected here because I see too many people take positions like Ravi's because they happen to be convenient. When they aren't they forget they have them. For example, the argument Ravi made is without a doubt one she first adopted in discussions with Christians about the role of religion in law and in public life but the way Ravi condemns racism, sexism, etc. you would never guess she had such a relativist outlook. The truth is, she doesn't or, better still, only has such an outlook when it's helpful. I was being a dick but hopefully Ravi will be more honest with herself in the future.

Mister D
04-24-2014, 06:41 PM
Of course not. And if I were a black man in the 1960's without the vantage point of history I would likely sooner follow Malcolm X than I would Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King appeared too idealistic. Malcolm X's rhetoric at least offered blacks the chance to put their fate into their own hands.

I really don't understand why MLK is claimed by virtually everyone. Everyone sounds so pious when they invoke him. I sometimes chuckle.

Ravi
04-24-2014, 07:25 PM
You said toddlers but from what I've read it was infants. I will look into this and comment tomorrow.

KC
04-24-2014, 07:26 PM
I really don't understand why MLK is claimed by virtually everyone. Everyone sounds so pious when they invoke him. I sometimes chuckle.

Because in general we agree with his rhetoric. Also it makes white people feel better about America's racial history.

Chris
04-24-2014, 07:32 PM
You said toddlers but from what I've read it was infants. I will look into this and comment tomorrow.

Yes, I corrected that here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24887-Who-s-a-racist?p=588840&viewfull=1#post588840. It was infants 6 to 10 months old.

Green Arrow
04-24-2014, 07:56 PM
If you can see that far then how can morality be true if not objective, universal, etc.


Not saying anyone knows truth or morality completely, we all live by our own view of it.

Therefore, subjective.

Captain Obvious
04-24-2014, 08:19 PM
Therefore, subjective.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SSJa71xRz7g/T8gnOit7TDI/AAAAAAAAMAA/1X4pVQsQSTU/s400/petard.jpg

Chris
04-24-2014, 09:41 PM
Therefore, subjective.

Yes, we each have a subjective view of morality, even truth, but that doesn't detract from objective morality and truth.

Green Arrow
04-24-2014, 10:38 PM
Yes, we each have a subjective view of morality, even truth, but that doesn't detract from objective morality and truth.

But if nobody knows what this objective morality and truth is, how do we know it even IS objective?

Libhater
04-25-2014, 05:43 AM
But if nobody knows what this objective morality and truth is, how do we know it even IS objective?

Knock it off with the philosophy already, a racist is a racist is a racist, and a race baiter is a race baiter is a race baiter, period!
I just happen to be a good loving charitable Christian that finds no problem in calling a spade a spade.

Refugee
04-25-2014, 05:46 AM
But if nobody knows what this objective morality and truth is, how do we know it even IS objective?

Both subjectivity and objectivity are based on moral relativism and time periods. Subjectivity is one’s own view influenced by knowledge and ideology, but can be in direct opposition to that of others within that era. It becomes an objective consensus to those that agree.


Hitler was right according to many subjective views in that era, which then became an objective truth. Today, a subjective view is that he wasn’t, (using current knowledge and ideology), which then becomes the objective consensus, (truth) of this generation. If you know what I mean.

CAPUSAFcadet23
04-25-2014, 06:10 AM
I don't like any of these people.

Chris
04-25-2014, 06:28 AM
But if nobody knows what this objective morality and truth is, how do we know it even IS objective?

Because it is shared--though this addresses more universality. That was the question of the toddlers (6 to 10 month olds) showing moral capacity prior to any cognitive capacity to formulate subjective ideas.

But also logically. Simple argument. Assume morality/truth is subjective. You subjectively say T is true. I subjectively say T is false. The assumption leads to a contradiction and is therefore false.

All said and done, if there's no objective truth, only subjective, then as I initially commented, there is no way that anyone, from the subjective opinions of a few people in a poll on such an overused near meaningless notion as racist, can draw any meaningful objective conclusions.

Chris
04-25-2014, 06:39 AM
Both subjectivity and objectivity are based on moral relativism and time periods. Subjectivity is one’s own view influenced by knowledge and ideology, but can be in direct opposition to that of others within that era. It becomes an objective consensus to those that agree.


Hitler was right according to many subjective views in that era, which then became an objective truth. Today, a subjective view is that he wasn’t, (using current knowledge and ideology), which then becomes the objective consensus, (truth) of this generation. If you know what I mean.



I don't see how subjective opinions can add up to an objective one. Consensus is not objective. The knowledge of science, for instance, isn't determined by consensus. You even conclude consensus merely arrives at the relative truth of this generation. Truth is absolute, unchanging.

An example: That all men are created equal, before the law, is an absolute, universal, objective moral truth--that despite the fact some of those who acknowledged this necessary (apodeictic) truth owned slaves and the nation arrived at such a consensus.

Ravi
04-25-2014, 09:14 AM
So the "toddler" experiment. Apparently some women "proved" that 3 month old babies can pick the kind puppet over the mean puppet. But an Australian group tried to replicate the experiment and found that the kind puppet jumped for joy when it reached its goal. A three month old is going to go for the more interesting puppet. I seriously doubt a three month old "knew" that one puppet was helping and one puppet was hindering.

This experiment proved nothing about morality.

Chris
04-25-2014, 09:37 AM
So the "toddler" experiment. Apparently some women "proved" that 3 month old babies can pick the kind puppet over the mean puppet. But an Australian group tried to replicate the experiment and found that the kind puppet jumped for joy when it reached its goal. A three month old is going to go for the more interesting puppet. I seriously doubt a three month old "knew" that one puppet was helping and one puppet was hindering.

This experiment proved nothing about morality.

The point of the experiment was to show conscious knowledge and reasoning play a small part in moral judgements, that those are largely intuitive and shared. Remember these are chldren 6 to 10 months old prior to development of language let alone reasoning capabilities. Conscious reasoning about morality may well consist of rationalization of moral intuitions.

Ravi
04-25-2014, 09:57 AM
The point of the experiment was to show conscious knowledge and reasoning play a small part in moral judgements, that those are largely intuitive and shared. Remember these are chldren 6 to 10 months old prior to development of language let alone reasoning capabilities. Conscious reasoning about morality may well consist of rationalization of moral intuitions.Methinks you've not interacted much with infants and I'm beginning to wonder if the woman that did the study has either (in real life, I mean).

Chris
04-25-2014, 11:32 AM
Methinks you've not interacted much with infants and I'm beginning to wonder if the woman that did the study has either (in real life, I mean).

Has nothing to do with me, ravi, but with the facts of child development and the basis of morality.