3RU7AL

I just don't think we should be talking to 10 year olds about how america is structurally racist.

Why am I not panic stricken ?

Because you don't see the Marxist foundations of the ideology. Or you don't see the problems with Marxism.

But at its core, it is the same oppressor/oppressed mindset of Marxism.

But CRT advocates are arguing to use those historical events to justify current discrimination against whites.

You included "the Law and the Prophets," which is a specific reference to the Old Testament. The Old Testament predates early Confucianism, particularly Leviticus where the first reference to the Golden Rule is found.

Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

So you want a biblical Christian ethic to be the foundation of our society?

And you don't ?

I do. But if you support abortion, you do not.

Although I think we can agree that skin-tone should be deleted from POLICY, I don't believe skin-tone should be deleted from HISTORY.

But history does not justify current discrimination. That is what is happening today explicitly against white people.

Critical Race Theory

I do feel that humans are happier with goals. I do not think those goals need necessarily be tied up in traditional employment 

I believe any policy that has an EXPLICIT and specific reference to skin-tone, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion and or creed should be deleted.

And since Affirmative Action gives preference to non-white people in terms of race, that would be an example of systemic racism against white people, correct?

Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

So you want a biblical Christian ethic to be the foundation of our society?

being murdered at the rate of over 600,000 per year in America.

that pro-lifers essentially don't care about people

WHO MADE THE MALFUNCTIONING HUMAN ?

God. Did God make humans to be inanimate objects or automatons? Or did He create humans as moral agents who are culpable for their moral decisions?

I do not generally support "Affirmative Action" policies.

Why not?

The argument is essentially that because the U.S. engaged in slavery in the distant past,

Nope, that is NOT "the argument".

It is a generalized form of the argument. Though it not generalized by much.

Using that same logic, policies that lower standards for black people

Please be slightly more specific.

Affirmative Action is a great example.

there is absolutely no way that a "vaccine" is going to make you MORE immune than experiencing the actual contagain first hand.

True to whatever degree, however, the vaccine may save life of human ---of any age--- and may keep other more detrimental effects at bay/away.

Oh I don't agree at all. You said that the government doesn't need our tax dollars because they can essentially just print more money. I find that to be a ridiculous statement that can stand on its own.

Now could you please clearly explain what you think is the most efficient mechanism to reduce crime?

you accept that there are pro-lifers involved in different charitable organizations

Yes, for the third time.

Yet, you made this argument:

• "The main 'problem' is that after the child is born, women are kicked out of the 'we want to help you' circle."
  

So can you admit this is a fallacious argument against these same pro-lifers who are involved in other charities?

If you were flying in a brand new plane and the plane's wings suddenly fell off and you somehow survived the crash, would you perhaps blame the manufacturer ?

That a bad analogy. The wings are not moral agents, the people inside are. A better one would be that while flying in the brand new plane, I tied up the pilot, pressed random buttons, smashed all the controls, and then tried to blame the manufacturer because the plane crashed. Would I be right to blame the manufacturer for my actions?

The argument is essentially that because the U.S. engaged in slavery in the distant past,

You inserted yourself into an argument that already had a context,

No I have only said that societies systematic oppression has the net consequence of limiting opportunities and promoting social ills. A poor person is not inferior to a rich person. 

Using that same logic, policies that lower standards for black people

Yes. It is inevitable that oppressed people will be oppressed in the ways they are oppressed. Is this even a question?

lol ok i find it funny how ant vaxxers say the same thing like "i got coVid before i have antibodies" or "im immune" you may be immune but others arent its super selfish and could cause deaths.

More specifically, the treasury prints bonds and they trade the bonds for dollars (cartel notes) in a private auction.

Perfect. I'll just leave that one there.

The question is not what punishment would be effective to reduce crime. The question is whether we should even punish crime. I say yes, criminals should be punished under the law. That is justice. You seem to be saying no, criminals should not be punished. But please explain if I am jumping to conclusions.

you accept that there are pro-lifers involved in different charitable organizations

I have an opinion but that is irrelevant.

I don’t know why. As far as I can tell you believe God is the all powerful all knowing supreme ruler of the universe and yet isn’t responsible for what happens within it. Tell me how that works.

God is not culpable for my bad decisions. Do you blame others for your bad decisions?

A law need mention no specific ethnicity in order to target that ethnicity. Traditionally legal precedents and business practices have systematically oppressed many groups and continue to do so but even if all such policies ended right now the long term effects of such laws would remain. That is what makes it systematic. 

You made the point that a policy which is supposedly equally applied to all races, but intentionally created to disproportionately affect one particular race, is systemic racism - even if the letter of the law does not show it. I said that such an assertion requires stereotyping. "Hippies like weed." Whether it is true or not, that is a stereotype of hippies. To assume that a tax on weed was intentionally made to the detriment of hippies requires you to believe that stereotype, correct?

pretty much but i do get why he would make that distinction

hes pivoting; but for context what hes saying is that we are the real racists for thinking thy arent intelligent (no one said that) but his logic is that bad schools=unintelligent

Black people are poorer than white people.

Black people are less intelligent than white people.

Lower the standards and give more money to the poor unintelligent black people.

The whole "problem" is solved.

That is racism - both in its view of black people and its discrimination of white people.

I'm suggesting you're projecting your perfectly rational understanding of how a working-class person handles their finances onto the government, and that's only a fair comparison if that working-class person has a 100% legal money printing machine at their disposal.

So the government doesn't need tax dollars because they can just print money? That's your argument?

The current system of "punishment" is demonstrably counter productive.

Sure, some of them probably are involved with other charity work, 

This was your original statement:

• "The main 'problem' is that after the child is born, women are kicked out of the 'we want to help you' circle."
  

However, you have agreed that pro-lifers are also involved in charitable services to people in all walks of life, not just trying to save the unborn.

What exactly is your point in post #296? Are you saying the government doesn't need tax dollars because they can just print money?

There is a great deal MORE assistance available to pregnant women than there is for not-pregnant women.

You showed a few priorities that pregnant women get, but you also failed to answer the question: Do you believe pro-lifers are completely uninvolved in these other charitable activities?

What are you proposing as "punishment" ??

I never proposed a punishment. I simply stated murder should be criminalized and punishable. But you failed to answer the question: Is criminalizing and punishing murder a way to help people or not?

The moral theory of incarcerating murderers presumes the individual is a "danger to society at large" AND incarceration will make them "less dangerous".

I never argued for incarceration.

There is a great deal MORE assistance available to pregnant women than there is for not-pregnant women.

Citation please.

The government does not NEED your tax money.

Yes. Yes they do. As long as governments spend money, they will require tax dollars.

The (mostly religious) crisis-pregnancy-centers are a step in the right direction.

The main "problem" is that after the child is born, women are kicked out of the "we want to help you" circle.

Don't forget adoption agencies, homeless shelters, food banks, and other private donations meant to help people in all walks of life. Do you believe pro-lifers are completely uninvolved in these other charitable activities?

Are you trying to help people or punish them ?

Is criminalizing and punishing murder a way to help people or not?

I fail to see how I'm strawmaning.  So many GOP commentators have advocated against vaccines which is why a majority of republicans aren't vaccinated.  I don't agree with vaccine mandates for any age group, but you'd figure if you want childbirth to be mandatory you'd also push for vaccienes to be mandatory and if you were pro choice, you wouldn't care if others get the vacciene.