3RU7AL

that doesn't seem like a very good (and definitely NOT "objective") measure of "morality"

I’m not going to argue your mentality but I would say nobody’s perfect and if God were to punish simply based on imperfection, then every last one of us would be doomed including you.

because you know what is moral and what is immoral because you know what is objectively moral

And how do you know this copyright protection subject is an issue of morality?

how do we tell which one is "moral" and which one is "immoral" ?

Why are you asking me?

America has always held some accused criminals without bail to await trial.

Never before (excluding the civil war) without bail, without charges, without trial dates, on misdemeanors, for over a year, for political reasons.

Jesus did not think he would need a 20 year patent or copyright protections because he was already granted eternity.

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

After you learn the book, you will never again use the term "Black Culture" or "White culture"

you can NOT monolithically create a universal term like "Black Culture" and have it apply to all dark skinned Americans.

No need for profanity sir. You are proving my point though.

This is a culture problem, not a color problem.

I'm sure many would be shocked to learn that black folks in fact meteorically improved their standard of living, generation after generation until a certain series of events in the 1960s when LBJ was elected.

I answered that

How the fuck can you represent DART if you're only a member since August 11th 2022? You aren't even DART enough.

immoral people still have regrets and can feel sorry and remorseful

Well if God forgave them then what separates them from anyone you call moral? Nobody’s perfect.

Then don't bitch about fucking copyright, hypocrite.

 We have 7 years of BLM activism to show us exactly what reparations would look like.

How can both standards be moral if they conflict?

First off, the standard is the very thing you are using to judge actions against, so claiming a standard is itself moral is incoherent. If it’s being judged against anything else then it is not your standard.

Second, I never said conflicting standards could both be moral. I’m pointing out that each system is moral to the individual using it, which is what a disagreement is. This is why morality will always be subjective, because no matter what your standard is you still had to choose that standard and anyone else can simply choose a different one. There is no resolution to this. 

There really is no need to speculate or ask any of the users here what a reparation plan would be for perceived racism. We have 7 years of BLM activism to show us exactly what reparations would look like. Money funneled directly into the banks of professional race grifters and zero money funneled to people who are in and out of prison.

Says the guy who doesn't believe in copyright infringement.

Isn't the purpose of a debate to have more convincing arguments and be more persuasive?

Assume a reasonably intelligent, impartial observer who is undecided accepts everything you have said at face value, and everything else you might say or that even could be said in support of your points.  You have made the most compelling case that can be made and none stand able or willing to refute you.

What do you do next?  

How exactly are you going to solve whatever set of problems you think you're talking about here? 

What even are the problem(s) you're trying to solve, at a concrete (read: not abstract) level? 

If we're talking about so-called "white privilege," what exactly are you trying to change in the society? And why? 

If we're talking about supposed historical wrongs, what exactly are you proposing to do about it?  And why? 

all they have to do is ask forgiveness and believe the jesus will save them

Asking for forgiveness means nothing if you’re not remorseful.

Right and wrong is actually quite consistent across the board.

what does jesus teach us about copyright law ?

Jesus demanded his name be mentioned.

Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

You're a determinist Michael. Determinists will forever limit their potential.

do you think the same thing about "indeterminists" ?

They are both opposite sides of the same coin.

You're a determinist Michael. Determinists will forever limit their potential.

and provide an alternative explanation of why exactly

everyone thinks general acceptance of "white privilege AS-A-MATTER-OF-FACT" is worth considering at all

It's worth considering so it can be addressed at all. Pretending it isn't there isn't going to help. Acknowledging it earnestly is the way to healthy honest debate (NOT FEAR MONGERING), the path to fixing a lot of problems. 

I'm not a racist,

Impossible. There are no conditions that make anyone not a racist today. Even claiming such a thing makes you a racist.

but you pretend that isn't the same as "being a racist"

Is it, if I find out after the fact? I don't think so. Doesn't make me thrilled, but what can I do, I signed a legal document with no "promise you're not a racist" opt out clause.  Also in my example, it might not even be a conscious thing by the building owner...it might be that some realtor who isn't mine wouldn't show a black person my building. 

ok, but don't you maybe think that some people might believe the only reason you're where you are now is because you had the "advantage" of "being white" ?

So what? What difference does what one person thinks about what one other person has accomplished make to anyone but those two people (and very likely only ONE of those people even cares)?

I guess if someone said "You're a racist" and I said "Why do you say that?" and their answer is "You rented this apartment easier than someone of color could have," I would point out that those are two VERY different things. Me having an easier time of renting an apartment might be the result of white privilege, but the person who rented it to me is the one you have a problem with (assuming the person has a problem with racism and isn't trying to get me to join their cool white hood club). Make sense?

ETA: "you're a racist" is not of a kind with "white privilege is real."

I'm not proposing any policy ('cognizance' isn't exactly a policy).

what does GDP have to do with how many individual humans are ruled by "white people" ?

I don't know, I didn't bring up GDP, I just pointed out comparing "Africa" to "USA" is not like to like. Continents =/= countries. 

and how are people who are NOT descendants of slave-owners

supposed to "not feel attacked" when they keep hearing about "white privilege"

I don't feel attacked at all when I hear about it. Why would I? I don't propagate it even if I recognize that I might have had some advantages because of it, unwittingly...like when I applied for a mortgage.  Seems to me pretending something doesn't exist isn't an expeditious path to resolving it. We have to recognize it as a problem that maybe NONE of us had anything personally to do with, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem. 

but what specific policy are you proposing

I'm not proposing any policy ('cognizance' isn't exactly a policy). I'm just saying I've seen white privilege in action...like every time the shoplifter alarm goes off and a white person just keeps walking, while a POC has their bag checked prior to being waved through. That's a small example, not something to do with, say, the ability to borrow money or the 400 year head start on building of wealth and making of laws. 

Not to mention that information invites bias. 

SO, IF A RANDOM WHITE PERSON'S ANCESTORS WERE RAISED IN IDAHO, OR NEW YORK, OR WISCONSIN, HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO FEEL GUILTY ABOUT ANY OF THIS ?

They should feel guilty for going to war over slavery and killing slave states and putting it into history books that the non-slave owners have to accept collectively as American history of slavery.

Hi! Random white person whose ancestors didn't get here until about 1935, I'm second generation born in America. Bringing historic data about slave ownership into a white privilege debate is folly and likely to just muddy the waters.

I don't feel GUILTY about SLAVE OWNERSHIP, but that isn't the same thing as understanding what white privilege is, the forms it can take, how slavery and other legal subjugations helped create and support it, and recognizing that if there's something sensible to do about it in the short term, it should be examined for feasibility. We are bound by the Constitution to "form a more perfect union," in my book, and just because America's imperfect doesn't mean it isn't great. Just that it can be better. 

 as pertains to GDP? 

If theists can believe in god without 100% proof, then atheists can not believe in god without 100% proof.

80% of black Americans are well above the poverty line with many of them doing far better than their white counterparts. 

That 3% of white Americans who owned slaves did not include the number of people the slaves had to serve which included the owners family, relatives, friends and neighbours.

More than half the souther states were Slave states. So the 3% is misleading.

Most of the world is Asian and African, so no. Whites do not rule most of the world. That's basic demographics.

Asia alone has double the GDP of the USA. Africa is expected to surpass the USA GDP in a few decades.

Right and wrong is actually quite consistent across the board.

That makes no sense, in order for morality to make sense and we grasp the concept of right and wrong it must be consistent across the board otherwise it refutes itself

White privilege is a fact.

And once you’ve done that, explain how getting into heaven is an objective basis for morality.

Because only moral people can get into it

There is nothing about that answer which justifies the assertion that getting into heaven is an objective basis for morality. That is simply the basis which you chose because it makes sense to you, just as I choose well being because it makes sense to me. 

But one can sincerely believe in a lie.

maybe, sometimes, but you can't see anyone's level of sincerity

There is no sincerity regarding a lie.