quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

All of Idaho came out against the Aryan Nation. Skinheads live everywhere... and so do racists of every color. But keep attacking the state I call home if that makes you feel better. Do you think it makes you look intelligent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: giveeverything

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


In the end though, Idaho will still be the greatest place on earth to live for people of any color,
 
I'm sure the people living out in Idaho where the aryan nations used to have their head quarters (before the southern poverty law center bankrupted them) felt great!

I'm glad people came out against the skin heads.  I was, though, casting doubt on the idea that it might be the greatest place for all people to live.

edited to say:  and really, I come from the same region, I could say the same thing about Utah.  I understand this region and its idiosincricies.... we share a similar demographic and idiology.... whatever I say about Idaho I could say about Utah (and have said about Utah). 

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


How does a comparison between murder and a simple assault justify one or the other? (As an example.) The distinction is that one is a misdemeanor and the other is a felony. (Both are still crimes.)

In terms of societal and moral priorities, we'd best concern ourselves more with the murderer than the rude fellow who spit in your face and called you a name.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
Saying that assault is "less wrong" than murder is saying that it is ok to assualt so long as we do not kill.

In terms of moral priorities, we'd best concern ourselves with confronting and eliminating hatred wherever it exists

quote:

ORIGINAL: giveeverything

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
Saying that assault is "less wrong" than murder is saying that it is ok to assualt so long as we do not kill.

In terms of moral priorities, we'd best concern ourselves with confronting and eliminating hatred wherever it exists

I guess the only upside to assault over murder is that it's less deadly. Honestly now!

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: giveeverything

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
Saying that assault is "less wrong" than murder is saying that it is ok to assualt so long as we do not kill.

In terms of moral priorities, we'd best concern ourselves with confronting and eliminating hatred wherever it exists

I guess the only upside to assault over murder is that it's less deadly. Honestly now!

Honestly. If you want to end the hatred, you have to oppose both.

quote:

ORIGINAL: giveeverything

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Saying that assault is "less wrong" than murder is saying that it is ok to assualt so long as we do not kill.

Whoaaa there. Saying "less wrong" is clearly (and by definition) not saying "ok".

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: giveeverything

You're using straw-man arguments.

1. Person A has position X.
   
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
   
3. Person B attacks position Y.
   
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: giveeverything

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: giveeverything
You're using straw-man arguments.

I know you wish I were. Unfortunately for you, I am not.

Ahhhh... but you are and you have been in this entire thread:
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
   
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
   
3. Person B attacks position Y.
   
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

I am saying that both are unacceptable.

You have seemed to me to be insisting that there are no degrees of unacceptibility.

K.

1. Person A has position X.
   
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
   
3. Person B attacks position Y.
   
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: giveeverything
However, because I am feeling so earnest today, I'll point out your straw man argument in the beginning of this. I never said that insitutional racism absolved individual responsibility. You creeated that idea as a distortion of my discussion about insitutional racism (for which we disagree on). Then you went on to criticise your distortion of my discussion. That is a straw man argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

As a moral proposition, that is what I am saying. "Unacceptable" is categorical. "Unacceptable" should be categorical.

For equal unacceptability, justice requires equal punishment. You gonna go there?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Given that those same sermons accuse the government of selling drugs to black people, as well as creating the AIDS epidemic, I fail to see where the spirit is vastly different from the letter.


When Wright's other sermons spread vicious rumors and lies about the US government selling drugs to black people, and spreading AIDS, how exactly am I exaggerating? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

I've been around the world, cloudboy. Again - don't pretend that you know me, because you don't have a freaking clue who I am.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The flip side to that? White America this. White America that. I'm a criminal because I'm white. I deserve to get the shit beat out of me for breaking down in the wrong neighborhood for having money and being white - after all, the black preacher says so.
Just where did the black preacher say that you deserved to get the shit beat out of you for breaking down in the wrong neighborhood,for having money and being white?


I don't accept that. Why should I? Where is the healing. Why does the black pastor preach hate,
It looked to me like he was preaching accountability not hate.


and why do you keep asking for outrage. That's not me. I don't "get" outrage. It does no good. I'm calm, I'm cool, and I'm collected even under fire. What I do get is judging a man by his deeds as opposed to the color of his skin. The black pastor preaches that rich whites cause all the problems - besides being racist, he preaches that thou shalt covet thy neighbors wealth... and he seems to preach revenge.
Maybe that is what you want to hear.  Because that is clearly not what he said.


What kind of damn church is that anyway. You know, I'm not Christian, but I've read the bible many times and I've studied the bible with people of several different faiths, and I've never heard so much hatred before, from anyone as this pastor of Obama's. The only thing I can compare it with is the Ku Klux Klan. Seriously.
Did the pastor call for the beating,lynching or murder of white people as the KKK did and does?
What you seem to be doing is called "projecting".