Author |
Topic: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics (Read 85337 times) |
|
Gridiron Great
GBRFLer
Champ - '14, '23
# 5
Posts: 3340
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #525 on: Aug 17th, 2013, 6:40pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Aug 17th, 2013, 6:17pm, Travistotle wrote:
I guess I'll re-phrase my question: are we right to move in the direction we're moving as a society, in these 3 areas you listed (and I re-iterated)? I'm not asking if things are better now than they used to be, nor how far we've addressed racism, etc. I'm asking whether what we are trying to do is right, whether our goals/views on these 3 issues in question are correct, and, if they are, what is the argument for that. |
|
Are our views correct? The question is who is OUR? Society? I am not sure I can answer that to everyones satisfaction. Generally speaking, society is moving in the correct direction IN MY OPINION. Are we where we need to be? No.
The argument is that there are more civil liberties in America now then there was in the past. However, I would counter that inequities still exist - maybe not in law but in day to day life. I think that process will continue to evolve.
However, are there still injustices or inequities? Absolutely. Are they as widespread as they were in the past? Probably not. But do they exist, yes. Are we to the point where civil liberties for the LGBT group are achieved yet? Do I personally think that will change in the next 10 years or so? yes.
So are what society is doing RIGHT? Again, generally yes because civil liberties are expanding. Is it perfect? No.
And I am not expecting a Utopia or Socialist world. However, I would hope everyone TRULY is created equal as our Constitution equates itself.
|
|
 Logged |
"Every rule has an exception....the exception can't become the rule"
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
 
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #527 on: Aug 18th, 2013, 4:57am » |
Quote Modify
|
With all due respect, this is SO all-over-the-place...
You have to have organized thoughts before you can have profound thoughts...
I implore you to please not respond until taking pause, collecting your thoughts and reflecting!
At any rate, you tend to write "broad sweeping statements" about my posts.  I would appreciate thoughtful section-by-section analysis like I do yours.
Please understand, Steve, that my argument with you is not really on the details of this topic anymore. I am trying to point out the logical implications of your position and where they are causing contradictions in your position and that you are applying logic to my position that you are not applying to your own position (which is what relativism, because of its entailments, tends to cause people to do because the only way for relativists to win an argument, on THEIR OWN terms, is to force it -- this used to be called "moral realism", but I digress). This, indeed, was the wisdom of Socrates! 
That said, in your latest posts, you are really embracing your relativist self.  I would just suggest your boning up on relativism to see if this is really where you want to go. A great place to start is with the Socratic dialogues, which are not long but are sufficiently challenging to get you thinking and exemplify a historically robust anti-relativist position. But, anyways...
on Aug 17th, 2013, 11:12am, DirkDiggler wrote:| I am not sure I can have this discussion with you. It is like arguing with my wife. I make a statement and you take it to the extreme. |
|
I am (and perhaps your wife too is) not taking your statements to the "extreme". I am simply teasing out their logical implications. Don't get your back up! The logical implication of what you said was and, even though you seem to have no problem contradicting yourself (the mark of relativist thinking), below still is that slavery was right 200 years ago.
I understand that that is not what you WANT to say, but that is what you are saying. Mind you, there is a way to say what you want to say and be logically consistent, but you are not saying it. Thing is, to do so there are some things you have to give up. Logical consistency is not free. It has a price. That price is rigorous thought that awakens you to the implications of the positions you take and the according, possibly discomforting, modifications to those positions you should make. It means an abandonment of the loose and easy (ill-)logic of relativism that, moreover, says that you do not have to apply the logic you are using on others' positions back on your own because, after all, it is all relative, and you seek to win the argument with sophistry or brute force.
In other perhaps catchier words, say what you mean! Do not just mean what you say! Interestingly, the former is what people on the right strive for while the latter is the m.o. of leftist activism. Just keep shouting at and bullying people until they acquiesce. Liberals are the new puritans!
Quote:I think the biggest irony of your argument in my opinion is that you are so anti-CNN and MSNBC , however, you are spewing the rhetoric of there is only a right or wrong answer in which the right leaning media (either left or right) seems to be touting and you are giving the thinking the actions of words of the few are the words and actions of the majority.
If there was not 24 hour news coverage and 15 news channels, this issue probably would not even be discussed. They get ratings by spouting off BS....even calling them 'news' channels is a joke. It seems you want me to say MSNBC is full of shit. And I can not argue that point. But Fox is also full of shit. They are not reporting news, they are offering opinions.
...
You make broad statements about an entire race not recognizing discrimination. How the fuck can you say that? Because the media is covering 10 people protesting? Because they give the opinion of a few loud people. Those that shout the loudest are not usually a representation of THE people (hell, see what the tea-party has done to the republican party?) Are the 10 loud people a 'on the whole' opinion? The media was waiting for riots after the verdict. Did not happen. Protests were minor- but the media made it seem it was everywhere. (which it was not!) The media is looking for a story. To emphasize my point about your touting the media, at one point you wrote a post on why right wing radio is dominating on the air and thus must superior. |
|
What you say about the media is somewhat true, but still way overgeneralized. Fox News's reportage on the protests was actually very accurate. They were small, largely peaceful, though the rhetoric was very much so divisive and not inward-looking. It was the networks with vested interest in race baiting that exaggerated the magnitude and efficacy of the protests and justified the divisive rhetoric. That makes sense.
But, it is not about the protests. It is about the irresponsible, "uncourageous" rhetoric from the top.
Quote:| When it comes to racism, how can it not be relative? How can it not be a persons perspective? |
|
Think through to the hopelessness of that position! Moreover, it undermines your very rebuttal to my line of thinking! Yes, things are relative. That is the problem, though, to be overcome, not the solution. Indeed, it is a limitation! Relativists, however, take it as the solution, and so are you! Hope lies in trying to bridge our relative perspectives and overcome the limitation not give in or succumb to it. Indeed, giving in or succumbing to our relative perspectives, as relativism advises, does nothing but divide us (not just socio-politically, but ontologically, that is to say, in a much deeper way)! Relativism ultimately says that I cannot judge you and you cannot judge me. Where does that leave us? Well, for one, unable to judge Daniel Snyder's decision to keep the Redskins as his team name. But, that would be if the relativist were being intellectually honest. That is not the case, however. So, where we are left is at the same place the ancient Greeks were, "Might makes right," the mantra of the relativist moral realist, and "mob rule", modern instantiations of which are bully pulpits, media bias and the tactics of Al Sharpton.
Quote:| Anyway, There are whites who are really friggin scary in their opinions. You could cover some white supremecy meeting and get the same generalizations. If the media were to cover those, people would draw conclusions that whites hate everyone. |
|
But, the media does! Indeed, this is exactly what Rachel Maddow did just recently, and, no, I did not get this from a third party. I flicked on MSNBC one of the evenings the video of the three 15/16-year-old black drug dealers were beating the living daylights out of that 13-year-old white kid only to see  Maddow open her show with a TEN-minute montage on the neo-Nazi and white supremacy movements in America, the segue to which was the recent news in Wisconsin about a former white supremacist apologizing for the shootings that took place some years ago to and coming together in solidarity against such hate with the Sikh community. The story on which the montage was based was indeed great. All of about 30 seconds was devoted to it, though.
That said, are there not blacks who are really scary in their opinions? (Rhetorical question.) Point being, you almost always state your case in a middle-ground or anti-white way (and are noticeably silent when it does not fit the narrative like with the aforementioned school bus video), which just goes to show how successful the movement has been in inculcating white guilt.
Quote:| Finally, my point of what is 'right' to opinion is relative to time. 200 years ago, was slavery right? No. Was it accepted and viewed by the majority as being wrong, not really. It was accepted. Women did not get the right to vote until 100 years ago. Blacks were oppressed as little as 50 years ago. The LGBT community are just starting to get equal rights. 20 years ago, polls show LGBT community should not have 'rights'. Now, that is reversed. Clearly it is relative in time as to OPINION. What is right and wrong did not change, but OPINION has. |
|
It is not so much opinion as it is context, and the distinction is important because it sets you on the path of holding a more logically consistent position, but one that will require you to give a little bit.
Regarding LGTBQ rights, if you think that treating another person as an object is wrong or at least not right, and want to be logically consistent on the matter, then you have to rethink your position on sexual morality in such a way that would prompt you to modify your position on LGTBQ behavior and the LGTBQ rights issue as it is currently playing out. Mind you, at the end of the day, we probably hold the same position. The difference -- and it is huge -- lies in the reasoning and by extension the moral considerations. You, I am surmising, see the direction of LGTBQ rights as indicative of great social and moral progress. I do not. I think that the only reason it is a social problem is because government got into the marriage business (mainly by way of tax law). So, for me there is another solution: get the government out of the marriage business. That, however, requires a massive fundamental change to our system of taxation, which ain't going to happen anytime soon or at least soon enough. So, you and I hold the same positon, nominally, but morally we are worlds apart. Thing is, one of the positions is logically consistent and the other is not, at least insofar as the person who thinks that this is great social and moral progress thinks that treating another person as an object is not right.
Why do you think pro-choicers are so vested in people's believing that life does not begin at conception, that is to say, that the beginning of life is not the beginning of life? It is because that (commonsense) belief logically undermines the pro-choice position. A different way to the non-anti-abortion position is possible, but it is provisional and not as intellectually easy to get to.
Please understand that I am NOT wanting to debate abortion with you. (I KNOW where you stand. I can already hear the usual unsophisticated pro-choice claptrap. We are having a difficult enough time working through the usual claptrap of one issue. We do not need to introduce a second.) I am just giving it as an example of the (dubious) logical entailments of a position, what (questionable premises) you are forced to accept to adopt the position.
Quote:| Finally, it seems you do not think racism (or discrimination) exists or people do not act on their biases . Fact is, statistics and many case studies prove it exists. Also, you make broad sweeping statements that I just do not think are accurate or representing of the vast majority. |
|
Talk about taking your interlocutor's position to the extreme. I am just countering what I take to be a very dishonest and divisive position on race in America, moreover, one that I take to be purposefully so for political purposes.
There is nothing droller than a relativist's ad hoc appeal to facts, statistics and case studies as if they all of a sudden have objective appeal. That said, I am not saying that racism does not exist. We disagree with respect to degree. That has been obvious all along, so I do not know why you re-explicate it here other than that you did not do a good job collecting your thoughts.
What you tendentiously refer to here as my "broad sweeping statements" is, according to YOUR relativist logic, my PERSPECTIVE! And, based on YOUR own logic, who are you to judge it? This is what relativist "ill-logic" devolves into. Positions/Perspectives with which you agree are above judgment, but positions/perspectives with which you disagree are to be judged, moreover, wrong! Mob rule!
That said, in my last post the only supposedly "sweeping" statements I made were those I made in response to your "reverse question". As such, I think that my claims appeared sweeping only relative to my "unbelievably" disagreeing with, at least the absoluteness of, the answer you had in mind and my, in so doing, exposing that the answer to your question is not as absolutely agreeable as you thought it was and as my question is. In other words, I do not think my statements are as sweeping objectively speaking as they seem to be to you.
With that said, let me address your criticism more directly. My point is not about or, at least, does not depend on the numbers or percentages or what the majority is (although I do think the numbers are much higher than you seem to think) as if we can actually know any of that anyway. My point is that this is a concern at all is a serious issue for your position. But, anyway, since you have given your declarations based on what you feel, let me speak to the numbers in a general way and in situ which is the only way we can really get a feel for them. Speaking in terms of raw numbers, percentages, majorities or minorities is just utter speculation. Generally, I think there are more whites sensitive to racism against blacks than there are whites who are not, though I am willing to admit that the numbers could very well be close or slightly in reverse, but I think it is downright disingenuous to claim that there are not a heck of a lot of whites who are sensitive to racism against blacks. I know it is true for me, and it is also consistent with the reaction to the Zimmerman case from people like you, and I think we are pretty typical guys (moreover, respectively from the right and the left). Moreover, it is consistent with our country's current ever-softening sensibilities. Do you not agree? And, if not, how so? Now, on the other hand, I think there are way more blacks who see racism against themselves where it is not than there are blacks who do not see racism against themselves where it is. To think otherwise is counterintuitive to history and psychology. Do you not agree? And, if not, how so? And, more generally speaking, I think the vast majority of blacks are sensitive to racism against themselves (it is surely not a "minority of a minority" as you suggest in your last message), and any suggestion to the contrary is either tendentious bordering on evil or totally deluded. Mind you, though, I think that blacks' sensitivity to racism totally makes sense based on the history, and was that not precisely your critical point earlier in this discussion? This is where you are contradicting yourself by implication. The implication of your claim here contradicts the direct claim you were making earlier about the historically legitimate sensitivity to racism that blacks have, which was fairly crucial to your position. Do you not see that?
Case in point, you wrote this:
on Jul 14th, 2013, 10:52pm, DirkDiggler wrote:However, so many African Americans have been "guilty of being black" that they are more sensitive to it.
And since I am not black, I can never truly put myself in their shoes. But I understand the sensitivity around it. |
|
And, then, you wrote this:
on Aug 17th, 2013, 5:04pm, DirkDiggler wrote:| I just do not think it is correct to make sweeping statements about how an entire demographic feels by using the exception, or literally minority of a minority. |
|
To deny that there are significantly more blacks who see racism against themselves where it is not than there are blacks who do not see racism against themselves where it is or simply that a great majority of blacks are hypersensitive to racism generally serves to undermine the historical impact upon which your position depends and which, in any event, is true. That is more so how I was trying to make this point in my prior message...
on Aug 16th, 2013, 11:55pm, StegRock wrote:| Yet, your presentation is subtly tendentious. In a very subtle way, like with your aforementioned qualification in response to my question, you make your point by pointing to something (a "someone" out of a "whole race") as if it were a rarity when in fact, if it were a rarity, it would be a rarity which would be the very opposite of what the case arguably is even according to you but, MOREOVER, which would fly in the face of what the history with respect to African-Americans that your (broader) position is based upon suggests (you are all in knots here, man). In so doing, you continue to place the burden of black liberation on whites. |
|
Moreover, there is a very real-world qualitative difference in our questions. For blacks to be in denial about their seeing racism against themselves where it is not and for whites to affirm that denial acts as a very intractable impediment to our ability to continue to progress on the issue, So, there is a lot at stake with the question I pose. To dismiss or minimize it as you have comes with grave consequences. As for the reverse question you pose, I think there is much less at stake, assuming we have made great progress. But, I did not dismiss your question. Indeed, I took it very seriously.
on Aug 17th, 2013, 11:12am, DirkDiggler wrote:| The media is fucked up on both sides and is just looking for a story. Everything is relative to the individual (whether right or wrong). A few people do not represent the majority even though they are the loudest. And everything is relative. |
|
Anyway, walk off like Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar did on Bill O'Reilly. Relativism, given its logical inconsistency and moral hopelessness, cannot help but make for fundamentally angry people who get their backs up easily when discussing issues with those with whom they do not agree. Think it through! I am NOT just trash-talking. I am trying to point out the logical implications of the relativist thinking you are embracing.
Was Barack Hussein Obama's being black overall a boon or a bane to his run for office? I believe it was obviously the former! In fact, it is not unreasonable to assert that he would probably not be President otherwise. Nevertheless, there is still racism. I do not need statistics and case studies (done by who knows who and with what agenda) to tell me that. But, that appeals are being made to statistics and case studies to prove the point strongly suggests that the experience of it has dramatically decreased. We have made great progress despite what the statistics and case studies say, which brings me back to a former question I posed that you noticeably did not answer...
on Aug 4th, 2013, 9:29pm, Stegrates wrote:| Are we trying to abolish the "n-word", or are we trying to abolish all insensitive language that divides along group lines? |
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #528 on: Aug 19th, 2013, 3:48pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 18th, 2013, 4:57am, StegRock wrote:| Generally, I think there are more whites sensitive to racism against blacks than there are whites who are not, though I am willing to admit that the numbers could very well be close or slightly in reverse, but I think it is downright disingenuous to claim that there are not a heck of a lot of whites who are sensitive to racism against blacks. I know it is true for me... |
|
Case in point, with regard to this case about a white/hispanic 13-month-old getting shot and killed by two teenage black boys during a botched robbery, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I5PvR_sNRE, honestly, I hate to say it, but I smell something fishy, and, whether I am right or wrong, you get my point in relation to the discussion. I mean, the boys did it, and that is horrific in and of itself, but that they did it sheerly in cold blood, which does make a difference, is not at all definitive as it seems at this point.
...
Anyway, here are some real heroes with respect to that school bus beat-down...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ZyLAGumDo;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mibi3lBsjBg!
I strive to sound like them, NOT Al Sharpton!
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #530 on: Aug 24th, 2013, 11:53pm » |
Quote Modify
|
There is an important distinction in the background of this discussion that must always be borne in mind. That is the distinction between "involving race" and "involving racism". It is easy to loosely hover between the two.
My question at the moment is the following. Does this cold-blooded murder in Oklahoma of this Australian kid involve racism?
Mind you, I ask understanding that the driver was a white kid. But, the two other participants were black, and, most notably, the gunman was a black kid who had made explicitly (no interpretation necessary) hateful comments about whites on his Facebook page.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 24th, 2013, 11:53pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #534 on: Dec 21st, 2013, 2:12pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 21st, 2013, 11:12am, sk wrote:He also said (Paraphrase) that African Americans were better off under Jim Crow laws. What we got there were  |
|
Well, here are his exact words on that...
"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people'--not a word! ... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."
It is anecdotal, and, moreover, NOT condemnatory. It is at least dubious whether your paraphrasing is accurate or tendentious and whether there really is any "there" there.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 21st, 2013, 2:18pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Assistant Coach
# 657
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 56
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #535 on: Dec 21st, 2013, 3:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 21st, 2013, 2:12pm, StegRock wrote:
It is anecdotal, and, moreover, NOT condemnatory. It is at least dubious whether your paraphrasing is accurate or tendentious and whether there really is any "there" there. |
|
Come on! That would have been approximately 1959. Black people were always happy around white people in the south. I'm sure they were quite pleased using the out house rather than use the restroom with running water. Oh yeah running water. If African Americans voiced their displeasure they were shot with the fire hose.
It speaks to his stupidity. Just what we need on TV. Just what we need. A 65 year old version of Honey Boo Boo.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 21st, 2013, 3:13pm by sk » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #536 on: Dec 21st, 2013, 5:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
(And, so, the pendulum swings - from the pollyannaish recollection of everyday farm life, which we virtually never hear about because it does not fit the popular narrative, to the selective memory of the politically-correct left, mainly in the mainstream media and academia, and their constant reminders of the horrors of the day - bashing the well-reasoned in the head yet again...)
on Dec 21st, 2013, 3:13pm, sk wrote:Come on! That would have been approximately 1959. Black people were always happy around white people in the south. I'm sure they were quite pleased using the out house rather than use the restroom with running water. Oh yeah running water. If African Americans voiced their displeasure they were shot with the fire hose.
It speaks to his stupidity. Just what we need on TV. Just what we need. A 65 year old version of Honey Boo Boo. |
|
Okay, the guy is a stupid total liar! I do not know how I missed that.  (Oh, yea, my debt to Socrates. But, anyway...) You win...  for the wisdom of your words is undeniable!  You speak with the self-assuredness of a sage, indeed. You have got the world all figured out. ... Now, go back and live in it, and please do not make me have to... for I am evidently ill-prepared to comprehend your understanding, appreciate your insights and receive your wisdom.
(All the while, the truth almost assuredly lies somewhere in between, but I digress...)
on May 20th, 2008, 6:02pm, StegRock wrote: | I DIGRESS...
There is almost never a post of yours that I enjoy. |
|
|  |
|
|
I was right back then, but more generous. I am still right now, but less so.
Let's just be glad we figured this out fast this time and avoided wasting years of our lives trying to. 
I wish you and yours the merriest of Christmases. I wish you no ill will. I just request that you bestow no ill will upon me.  
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 21st, 2013, 5:42pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #538 on: Dec 21st, 2013, 7:10pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 21st, 2013, 6:36pm, sk wrote:| Every now and again I appreciate coming here for a reminder of how much I should enjoy my true friends. So thanks for the "slap in the face" reminder. |
|
Reasoning seems ex post facto! But, hey, I am only returning the favor, man...
Quote:| Oh and keep my donation. I made a list of thing I wanted to donate to at the end of 2013 and Oddly your site was one of them. Dont return it. No need to acknowledge it. Just take it. Im trying hard not to feel bad about my donations this year. Good bye Steg. |
|
Have not checked the donations e-mailbox in a couple months (since the last GBRFLer gave). Thank you for the kind gesture, nevertheless! Duly acknowledged!
'Tis been an interesting decade-or-so-long ride... All the best, Todd.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #539 on: Dec 21st, 2013, 8:21pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Just to be clear about what transpired here for the record... My interlocutor began by going off-point by entering here without at all addressing the substance of my very recent, immediately prior post. That said, whatever, moving right along, I presented, in specific response to his post, what Robertson actually said, which on its face puts into question the accuracy of (and perhaps motive behind) my interlocutor's paraphrasing. My interlocutor responds, not by addressing the quote and my (legitimate) concern with any specificity, but rather with a lecture about the "facts" of life for blacks in 1950's America, the direct implication of which is that I am clueless about or, at least, have not factored in that part of our history and needed that reminder. My interlocutor is, of course, oblivious to the condescension inherent in such a reply and that it is off-putting. He is also unaware that it is off-point, that is, that such a reply is fated to be off-point, and, as such, we are just going to end up going in circles because we just keep doing this same dance over and over. My interlocutor even adds in an ad hominem attack on Robertson along the lines of his lack of intelligence as if that is not contestable, either, which makes his response even further off-point. Making things worse is a great irony: my interlocutor is probably thinking that I, in my pushing for specificity, am being condescending to him. So, I, seeing where this is headed, decide to cut it off, and, yes, in a way in which I employ sarcasm in response to his condescension.
With that said, back to where this was left off...
on Dec 21st, 2013, 6:29am, StegRock wrote:| I have got to chime in on this situation with Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty. There is no equivalence (he did not say that there is), but there is a connection between homosexuality, bestiality, and promiscuity, namely sexual objectification insofar as the intercourse is done merely for the orgasm or physical pleasure. |
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #540 on: Dec 29th, 2013, 6:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
Now, alas, speaking to sk's original post, this is exactly what the gay community wants. That is, they want to gain legitimacy by having us draw an equivalence between their movement and the legitimate black civil rights movement while obfuscating the profound differences. Point being, there is a deeper, implicit modus operandi in play. Mind you, if that is the position you want to take, fine. I somewhat disagree (although probably not on what the ultimate determination regarding gay marriage should be), but fine. Just do not be manipulated into it.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '06
# 414
Semper Philosophans
Posts: 610
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #541 on: Dec 30th, 2013, 5:53pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 29th, 2013, 6:25am, StegRock wrote:| Now, alas, speaking to sk's original post, this is exactly what the gay community wants. That is, they want to gain legitimacy by having us draw an equivalence between their movement and the legitimate black civil rights movement while obfuscating the profound differences. Point being, there is a deeper, implicit modus operandi in play. Mind you, if that is the position you want to take, fine. I somewhat disagree (although probably not on what the ultimate determination regarding gay marriage should be), but fine. Just do not be manipulated into it. |
|
To wade into political water . . .
The position taken by the "gay marriage" movement, when examined, falls to pieces. It is true that the movement thinks of itself in comparison to the civil rights movement. But this comparison is so inappropriate that saying there is a deep confusion in the comparison is to give the comparison too much credence and legitimacy. As far as I can tell, the civil rights movement was about recognizing the equality of human dignity that belongs to blacks as much as to whites, and, consequently, recognizing that, in a democracy, this personal equality entailed political equality. The "gay marriage" movement, however, demands recognition NOT (merely) of human dignity as such but rather recognition of the legitimacy of "gay marriage" as EQUAL TO (heterosexual) marriage: equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals = equality of gay marriage and marriage. The problem/deception/subterfuge is obvious: no one disputes the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals as far as human dignity (humanity) is concerned -- to portray opponents of "gay marriage" as opponents of equality is disingenuous. The issue is marriage, not the equality of humans. I am equal in dignity to a 3 year-old child; but the child cannot, on that basis alone, legitimately argue that he should have the right to vote, or the right to drive a car, etc. Protestants are equal in dignity to car lovers. But that doesn't mean that the car lovers can, on the basis of equality alone, legitimately argue that they should have the right just like the Protestants to organize themselves as a church (for the sake of financial benefits, say). Facts are facts. Car lovers do not constitute a church. 3-year olds are unable to drive cars safely or vote reasonably. Marriage is a union of man and woman for the sake of children. Car-lovers, 3 year olds, Protestants, homosexuals, and heterosexuals are equal in human dignity; but they cannot demand the same things. (Really, the problem is ultimately a complete misunderstanding of "rights," but that's a topic for a whole 'nother post.)
Aside from the subterfuge, the immediate logical implications of the position are such as to constitute a reductio ad absurdum against the entire movement/position. The claim is that marriage of two men or of two women must be looked upon as equal to marriage (of one man and one woman). The basis of this claim, we are told, is that any person can choose his/her spouse -- homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals. But note also that those who are sexually attracted to their mother, father, sister, brother, cousin, uncle, etc., as well as all polygamists and polyandrists, are likewise equal to homosexuals and heterosexuals -- they all have equal "rights" as free human beings. Therefore, among the immediate implications are the following: I can choose to marry my uncle, my niece, my mother, my grandfather, etc.; and I can choose to marry 6 women or 8 men. What's good for the goose (equality for homosexuals) is good for the gander (equality for all sexual inclinations). The only standard for marriage here is my own sexual preferences. In fact, it seems legitimate on this basis to argue that I can choose to marry my dog, my cat, etc.: if the cat or dog are willing, and I have a sexual inclination towards them, then voila.
|
| « Last Edit: Dec 30th, 2013, 10:53pm by Travistotle » |
Logged |
|
|
|
UFF Primetime Prophet
# 29
Pay, I said pay attention, son.
Posts: 5675
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #542 on: Feb 24th, 2014, 2:09pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Dec 30th, 2013, 5:53pm, Travistotle wrote:
Marriage is a union of man and woman for the sake of children. |
|
That's the definition and purpose of marriage, period? I'd thank you for clearing that up for me, but I'm still confused on a few things.
What about those who choose not to have children? If that decision is made between a man and woman prior to wedding should the marriage then be prohibited? Or worse, if a married man-woman couple is unable to have children for medical reasons, should their marriage be ended since the marriage is no longer just for the "sake of children"?
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '06
# 414
Semper Philosophans
Posts: 610
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #543 on: Feb 28th, 2014, 4:47pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 24th, 2014, 2:09pm, Philly wrote:
That's the definition and purpose of marriage, period? I'd thank you for clearing that up for me, but I'm still confused on a few things.
What about those who choose not to have children? If that decision is made between a man and woman prior to wedding should the marriage then be prohibited? Or worse, if a married man-woman couple is unable to have children for medical reasons, should their marriage be ended since the marriage is no longer just for the "sake of children"? |
|
I would say the following in response. Those who, from the time they decided to get married, have chosen not to have children, will not be entering into marriage, properly so-called. It would be a partnership, and perhaps a commitment (depending on whether vows were taken), but not a marriage. This is to say nothing about prohibiting the marriage -- I'm not making any claims about what the government should do. However, I think it is true that IF the couple who intend not to have children are Catholic and they wish to be married in the Catholic Church, they would be denied this, since the marriage will not be an actual marriage.
The second question is more tricky. The inability to have children does not mean, ipso facto, the end of the marriage: I didn't define marriage as "having children" but rather as "being for the sake of children," and sometimes nature/sickness/medical situations interfere. Such a situation is something that some couples suffer (some of my family members have suffered from this), and it is highly unfortunate and, sometimes, a source of great sorrow. Also, it's much different than the first case. In this (second) case the couple enters the marriage intending to have children and find themselves unable to do so. However, in the first case the couple rejects the purpose of the marriage by directly intending to frustrate its natural end. The inability to fulfill the end (second case) is not the same as a direct intention opposed to that end (first case): in the one case you will in accordance with the nature of marriage but do not get the usual fruit of marriage -- children -- but in the second case you reject it, and so are not entering into marriage in the first place.
Also, I should add that there are other ends/goals of marriage -- the good of the spouses, for example. The point in my previous post was not that marriage existed ONLY for the sake of children but that marriage was AT LEAST for the sake (end) of children. In other words, there may be and in fact are other ends, but at the very least there must be the end of children (among other ends).
|
| « Last Edit: Feb 28th, 2014, 4:50pm by Travistotle » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #544 on: Apr 8th, 2014, 1:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Feb 28th, 2014, 4:47pm, Travistotle wrote:I would say the following in response. Those who, from the time they decided to get married, have chosen not to have children, will not be entering into marriage, properly so-called. It would be a partnership, and perhaps a commitment (depending on whether vows were taken), but not a marriage. This is to say nothing about prohibiting the marriage -- I'm not making any claims about what the government should do. However, I think it is true that IF the couple who intend not to have children are Catholic and they wish to be married in the Catholic Church, they would be denied this, since the marriage will not be an actual marriage.
The second question is more tricky. The inability to have children does not mean, ipso facto, the end of the marriage: I didn't define marriage as "having children" but rather as "being for the sake of children," and sometimes nature/sickness/medical situations interfere. Such a situation is something that some couples suffer (some of my family members have suffered from this), and it is highly unfortunate and, sometimes, a source of great sorrow. Also, it's much different than the first case. In this (second) case the couple enters the marriage intending to have children and find themselves unable to do so. However, in the first case the couple rejects the purpose of the marriage by directly intending to frustrate its natural end. The inability to fulfill the end (second case) is not the same as a direct intention opposed to that end (first case): in the one case you will in accordance with the nature of marriage but do not get the usual fruit of marriage -- children -- but in the second case you reject it, and so are not entering into marriage in the first place.
Also, I should add that there are other ends/goals of marriage -- the good of the spouses, for example. The point in my previous post was not that marriage existed ONLY for the sake of children but that marriage was AT LEAST for the sake (end) of children. In other words, there may be and in fact are other ends, but at the very least there must be the end of children (among other ends). |
|
T, what about a couple entering into a union with the intent of adopting? Do you think it can be said that they are entering into a marriage?
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #545 on: Apr 19th, 2014, 5:46am » |
Quote Modify
|
I hate to change topics on us here, but I got to document this one...
So, I flicked on MSNBC tonight to see how long it would take for them to get ridiculous and asinine. It was some moron sitting in for Chris Matthews (king idiot) on Soft Pitch, oh,... eh-hem,... I mean, "Hardball". This ditz cites a pole, that she makes sure to mention is the best (some Henry J. Kaiser Foundation, which a quick Google search yielded as leftist leaning), that states that 59% of people want to keep OR improve Obamacare (What the hell does that mean? That is a BIG "OR", a dysfunctional disjunctive indeed. The range in possible meaning is HUGE!), 11% want a total repeal of Obamacare (a very narrow range of meaning, of course), and 18% want the GOP alternative (which they tell us does not exist, right, but I guess "conveniently" does for this nincompoop pole, and, in any case, what would be the difference between total repeal and GOP alternative???). Of course, a hidden 12%, that is, TWELVE PERCENT, are unaccounted for. I guess they chose something like "I don't know," which might very well be me given these vague, tendentiously-worded choices. Oh, and by the way, this demonstration took place in less than about three minutes from my tuning in to the channel.
To those who get their "news" from MSNBC,  you have got to know they really do think YOU are stupid!!! 
|
| « Last Edit: Apr 19th, 2014, 6:54am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #547 on: Jun 10th, 2014, 6:27pm » |
Quote Modify
|
The new face of "poverty" in America...
... or so she claims. 
If you "really" were "dead broke" and $12,000,000 in debt back in the early 2000's, you should not be anywhere near the White House. (Either that, or the debt is not "real", and you need to shut up with rhetoric like this because you cannot have it both ways. Either you were "functionally" rich because you were part of the elite privileged class which allowed you to live beyond your means OR you were poor and could not live within your means and should not be holding public office, no less the Presidency. Of course, you can get away with this kind of nonsense with leftist ideologues and 10-watt low-information voters, which, by the way, are not mutually exclusive categories. In fact, the most intractable people of our times lie at the intersection of the two because, as is the usual story, they think they know something because they have a college degree... when in reality all they have received is a leftist baptism. Worse yet, that precise pathology dominates the media and is why the press tries their best to avoid pressing you or any democrat on ANYthing.)
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 10th, 2014, 6:30pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #548 on: Jun 12th, 2014, 9:03pm » |
Quote Modify
|
So, this recently published Brookings/PRRI poll found, among TV news sources, Fox News to be the "most trusted" (by a good amount over its cable news competitors) and MSNBC to be the "least trusted" (PERIOD). However, there is one statistic in the survey that is not being played up at all in any of the spin-off articles that is VERY telling. The "news source" that came in tied for 2nd/3rd place among people who self-identify as "liberal" was...  The Daily Show with Jon Stewart!  Are you friggin' kidding me? Is there ANY question as to who the low-information crowd is?  Jon Stewart himself, a liberal, has said that his show is NOT a news show and that anyone who gets their news from it is an idiot! Well, I guess that means that, based on your own logic, Jon, you are surrounded by idiots!
Here is a link to an article on the study: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-the-least-trusted-tv-news-source-among- all-americans/.
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 12th, 2014, 10:42pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #549 on: Jun 28th, 2014, 12:53am » |
Quote Modify
|
Latest LEFT-leaning, mind you, PEW Poll declares: "Only 40% of 'solid liberals' say they often feel proud to be American". Here is a link: http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/26/poll-only-40-of-solid-liberals-say -they-often-feel-proud-to-be-american/.
This prompts my recollection of the following idiot-level video titled "How Conservatives Argue", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WCxz0fzHm8, on which about two years ago I commented as follows:
"[Notice] the pins on their lapels. The liberal creator of this video has the conservative 'dolt' wearing an American flag while the 'enlightened' liberal is wearing the symbol of the Democrat Party, the donkey. Liberals really do have disdain for America and so for them party comes first. It makes sense, and it is scary!"
Now, if you want to laugh your ass off... and cry your eyes out at one and the same time, enjoy these; at least they will make up for that display of irrationality, misinformation and artistic butchery above...
"Meet the Liberal Elite!" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZrqdZFFb5c
I also want to include the following two that are dear to my heart...
"Liberal Universities explained" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EffEaMXQAbc
"How Liberal Journalists Think" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF3hbPtCttc
HOWEVER, relative to this post this one may be the most on-point...
"Are Liberals Patriotic?" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgHGmB4kqOg
This guy actually has done a ton of these. They are all quite clever, somewhat insightful, funny as hell and worth checking out!
Bottom line, there really IS something to be said for when conservatives say that liberals/leftists are anti-American or un-American.  It is what it is... ... 
|
| « Last Edit: Jun 28th, 2014, 1:05am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
