Total posts: 855
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so why not let each individual answer for themselves ?
Each person can decide for themselves. Just like any person can decide for themselves what the answer to 2+2 is. Opinions can be wrong.
So, like, what if I prayed really really hard and god told me it was ok ?
No amount of prayer will change what the Bible says. You're free to try though.
Both would apply to someone intending to join the military.
That did not answer the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is where consistent principles of interpretation are critical. What does the phrase "those stumbling to the slaughter" mean? There seems to be two main options:
- Those stumbling to slaughter others
- Those stumbling to be slaughtered
Which do you think is the best grammatical interpretation for that verse and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Who exactly do you have to "justify" or "excuse" your action to ?And what qualifies in your opinion as a proper "justification" or "excuse" ?Would it be murder to kill someone who attacked you ?Would it be murder to kill someone who broke into your house but didn't specifically attack you ?
- God.
- If it can be justified by the Bible.
- That would depend on the situation. I think use of force guidelines are generally helpful.
- See above answer.
Which faction has the most correct interpretation ?
I would argue Reformed Baptists, but that is a general term.
So, for example, if a woman gets severe and persistent blood-clots while pregnant and her doctor warns that she is at risk of having a stroke, would that be a situation that might qualify ?
If the stroke is only a potential risk and there is no danger to the baby, I would say the mother should assume the risk. It would be no different than if a parent had to assume life-threatening risk to save the life of their newborn. But every situation is different and requires the full context.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Why does the mother bear a responsibility to carry the baby until it's born? What creates this responsibility?
If we deal with fundamental principles first, I think we can say that a normal pregnancy occurs as the result of consensual sex. If two people are having sex, they bear the responsibility if conception occurs as a result. And if you determine where rights come from, you probably know where responsibilities come from. I would say from God.
I disagree. Is there a just reason to intentionally kill?
Yes, if someone is shooting up a Walmart, that person has immediately forfeited their life.
Our dispute however is whether "intentionally letting it die" constitutes murder. So let me cite a scenario: if a man knocks on my door claiming he needs to enter my home because some raging psychopath intends to kill him, and I decided not to let him in, did I murder him?
In general, I would say that if you have the ability to intervene in a situation like that, you would have the responsibility to do so. The full context obviously matters. But I also don't have the same responsibility to another grown adult as a parent has to their child.
If extreme cases like rape and medical issues mitigate her responsibility to carry the baby until it's born, then can I fairly assume that your notions of her responsibility are contingent on the idea that she is responsible because she elects to have sex under circumstances where coitus is voluntary? That is, an action she herself controls?
My statement was probably unclear. I was just citing the arguments people most often go to. I don't believe circumstances leading up to conception make a difference on moral obligations. If a woman conceives a child after being raped, I believe the rapist deserves the death penalty and not the child.
The only exception I can see as possibly being justified would be if the unborn child puts the life of the mother in jeopardy. But those are the exception and must be approached individually based on the situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm going to need you to make your personally preferred definition of "murder" explicit.
Without having placed this definition under strict scrutiny, I would personally use this one as biblically accurate:
- Killing a human being without justification or excuse.
If every life has inherent value, it is wrong for me to murder someone else. But it is also wrong for me to end my own life without justification or excuse. Discomfort, discontent, or poverty is not a justification to end someone else's life, nor my own.
Why do you think different factions of christians have historically slaughtered each other ?Is there one specific interpretation of the "ethics" outlined in the holy scriptures that is superior to any other ?
Yes, there is one correct interpretation of every biblical text. It is superior because it is correct, but it requires a consistent method of interpretation. Consistency is typically where people go wrong, and that error has led to disastrous results as you pointed out. But that shows a problem with the people not the text.
Why do you think the circumstances leading to the conception of the child (and or any incidental "medical issues") would have any effect whatsoever on the proposed "moral" responsibility or the proposed implicit contract between the foetus and the womb ?
I was just citing the arguments people most often go to. I don't believe circumstances leading up to conception make a difference on moral obligations. If a woman conceives a child after being raped, I believe the rapist deserves the death penalty and not the child.
The only exception I can see as possibly being justified would be if the unborn child puts the life of the mother in jeopardy. But those are the exception and must be approached individually based on the situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Per post #171, the Bible is my source of ethics. It is objective since it is outside myself. In a general sense, it functions similar to the U.S. Constitution.
(IFF) a competent adult wishes to painlessly opt-out (THEN) what moral theory would deny them this option ?
Simply put, suicide is murdering yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I see what you mean. But I will have to disagree with you on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well I suppose you could call it being "selectively moral" depending on what you mean. But I have a foundation for what I believe is right and wrong that is outside myself. I don't get to pick and choose based on my personal opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Let me ask you directly in order to avoid strawmanning you: what responsibilities do you believe the mother bears as it concerns her pregnancy? Why is refusing her womb to her zygote/embryo/fetus immoral?
I believe that a mother is responsible to carry the baby until it is born without trying to kill it (or intentionally letting it die). If the zygote/embryo/fetus is a life and it is intentionally killed with no just reason, that is murder.
Of course, the "no just reason" part is where we deal with the extreme cases like rape or medical issues, but those are special cases.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Voluntary suicide should be an option.
For homeless people? Because they're poor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Should U.S soldiers be charged with murder too.Seeing as you are advocating perfect morality.Or are you selectively moral just like all the other hypocrites?
Since when have I claimed to be a pacifist? If someone is shooting up a Walmart and I am armed, would it be immoral for me to shoot the assailant to stop the killing? Or should I just stay out of it because it would be immoral to intervene?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So you'd prefer to pay $40,000.00 per year per prisoner ?
No. Our current prison system is unbiblical, but that is a whole different conversation.
But I find your attitude toward children that might grow up in adversity concerning. Especially given your concern for homeless people. I imagine you wouldn't say to one of them, "It sucks that you're homeless. Too bad your parents didn't abort you." Should kids in third world countries be aborted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Who are you suggesting we punish and how much ?
The mother and abortionist should be charged with murder.
Why not make abortion obsolete by providing free child care and free birth control ?
The government is not obligated to convince people to obey the law at the taxpayers' expense.
Forcing an unwed teen to give birth without offering any sort of safety-net is only going to "punish" the child (that you seem to care so much about).
Personally, I see the death penalty as a much more severe punishment for the child than growing up poor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We appear to be in agreement on this particular point.How do you propose we "bridge the gap" ?
I'm assuming you are not agreeing that abortion is legal but immoral. Rather, you seem to be agreeing that there is a gap between legality and morality. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
There is not a way to perfect way to bridge this gap. That's why politics is such a contentious issue. This is all the more difficult when everyone has a fundamentally different ethical system from one another. We no longer operate, generally speaking, from the Judeo-Christian ethic we once did. The abortion debate is a prime example of colliding worldviews.
It's only "absurd" that you can't answer it.
I did answer it, and I gave reason for why I believe it is absurd. You failed to address my answer. If a woman has total jurisdiction over her uterus and was somehow able to put a newborn back into that uterus, would she regain the justification to kill that newborn? If not, then the woman does not have full jurisdiction over her uterus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's the gap between "legal" and "moral".
Similar to justifying abortion on the basis that it violates medical privacy. Even if the law allows one to murder people across the border, it is morally wrong. Even if the law allows a woman to murder her children just because of their location within the uterus, it is morally wrong.
Who has jurisdiction over a woman's own uterus ?
That's an absurd question. If a woman was somehow able to put a newborn back into her uterus, would she regain the moral justification to kill it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
For example, when an american border guard shot a mexican citizen to death across the border, a case that was reviewed by THE SUPREME COURT no less, it was ruled "not a crime" because nobody in the united states has legal standing to file a case against the border guard.
I don't know the specifics of the case. But if the killing of that Mexican citizen was unjustified, was it immoral to kill that citizen, even if the border guard was not found guilty in court?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Non-citizen deportation.
Please elaborate.
This is a statement of legal fact.
Slavery was also legal at the time. That was the point. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Just because people used to be able to own slaves doesn't make it moral. Just because women can legally murder their children doesn't make it moral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Isn't the entire function of government to PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF CITIZENS ?
Not the "freedom" to murder their children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
My analysis was in response to this post from you:
You can't "murder" a tumor.And even if you could, ONLY AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER WOULD HAVE LEGAL STANDING.
The phrase "Even if you could" would be interpreted to say "Even if we assume the unborn baby is a human life..."
We are working off that assumption for the sake of argument. So, for the sake of argument, if we assume the unborn child is a human life, and ending that life under normal circumstances would be considered murder, you are saying that the murder would be acceptable because no one can legally file a wrongful death claim. Is that correct?
The unborn, non-citizen, is a de facto part of the mother's body up to and until it is born alive and registered with the state.What a woman (or any human for that matter) does or does not do with their own body is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY (and MEDICAL PRIVACY IF THEY DECIDE TO CONSULT A DOCTOR).
You're conflating "moral" and "legal".
Pick one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Was I understanding you correctly in my analysis of your argument in my post #91?
Just to be clear, are you saying that murder is okay as long as you can find a loophole regarding wrongful death claims? Or in the context of abortion, rather than closing the loophole, we should protect a woman's "right" to murder her unborn child because there is no one to file a wrongful death claim. Am I understanding you correctly?
In response to your post #97:
The unborn, non-citizen, is a de facto part of the mother's body up to and until it is born alive and registered with the state.What a woman (or any human for that matter) does or does not do with their own body is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY (and MEDICAL PRIVACY IF THEY DECIDE TO CONSULT A DOCTOR).
And black people used to be a de facto piece of property until they were granted freedom by the state.
What a person does with their own property is a matter of PERSONAL PRIVACY.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you really and truly believe that someone who would even consider aborting their unborn child SHOULD be a parent of that unborn child ?
Do you really and truly believe that if a parent is unfit to raise their child, that justifies murdering the unborn child?
And even if you could, ONLY AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER WOULD HAVE LEGAL STANDING.
Just to be clear, are you saying that murder is okay as long as you can find a loophole regarding wrongful death claims? Or in the context of abortion, rather than closing the loophole, we should protect a woman's "right" to murder her unborn child because there is no one to file a wrongful death claim. Am I understanding you correctly?
Do you "support" the idea of FREE-MARKETS ?
In a sense yes, but I am not a libertarian. For example, I don't see prostitution as a legitimate "business." The government has certain roles in protecting it's citizens, but there will always be tension between a government's authority and it's citizens' freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I wonder if christopher columbus applied for a green-card when he landed in Hispaniola
I am not here to defend the actions of Christopher Columbus. I am just rejecting the idea of open borders as a bad policy for the good of a nation.
Because what I hear is that you want to use taxpayer dollars to try to violate MEDICAL PRIVACY.
Are you trying to say that child murder should be legal for the sake of protecting medical privacy?
It certainly seems like a perfect solution to the "problem".
No, parents raising their children instead of murdering them would be the perfect solution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The "legality" of immigration is historically amorphous.
But I - and I would guess nearly all nations historically - see open borders as an untenable policy. There has to be limits on how many people can become citizens. What parameters are used for limits is certainly up for debate. What is not up for debate is that entering a foreign country without permission is a crime.
So, you want to employ the force of the state in order to protect non-citizen blastocysts, but you DON'T want to employ the force of the state to protect homeless and or otherwise vulnerable citizens ?
If a fetus is a life, then abortion is murder. It is the government's job to enact justice upon murderers.
Now when you talk about employing the force of the state to "protect homeless and or otherwise vulnerable citizens", what exactly do you mean? Because what I hear is that you want to use taxpayer dollars to try to end poverty. If that's what you mean, I think that's a terrible idea. The government is awful at running programs and budgets, and I believe there are far better and more efficient ways to meet the needs of vulnerable citizens on a local level.
Do you believe the state should invest in ECTOGENESIS ?
Absolutely not
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you think an "unborn human" is more valuable than a homeless human or an illegal immigrant or a human fleeing a warzone ?
No, but I also have a worldview that allows me to say that all human beings have inherent value as image-bearers of God. And just because I don't want massive social welfare programs does not mean I don't believe in charity. And just because I don't want open borders does not mean I believe we should refuse asylum to those who are actually fleeing a warzone. And being against illegal immigration should be a non-issue for any law-abiding citizen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
That is irrelevant. The baby in the womb is either a life or it isn't. If it's a life, then abortion is murder.
But if life doesn't begin until birth, then late term abortion should be view conceptually the same as an abortion in the first trimester. You can "terminate the pregnancy" at any time with no moral issue. It's no different than clipping a fingernail, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Very few if any abortions are late term that is that crap that people whip out when they don't really have anything else to say about abortion.
You say this as though it makes a difference. If life doesn't begin until birth, then abortion at 4 weeks is no different than abortion at 40 weeks. Do you believe that abortion 10 seconds prior to birth is child murder or not?
Created:
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR LYING QUOTE IN POST #35:
"I have NOT blocked you in any whatsoever, period! I NEVER block pseudo-christians like you because they are easily put in their ungodly place, understood?"
Have you forgotten already?!?! This is COLD HARD EVIDENCE that you have me blocked from this post:
I don't have the time for the biblically challenged like you, therefore this is my last post to you. To save you any further embarrassment, I am going to have to BLOCK YOU, and subsequently, I am hoping that you will heal soon because of the wounds that 21C has inflicted upon you, and are obviously still with you at this late date. Try praying to Jesus to help you with your psychosis, okay, good luck!
Here is the full link to the post so we can all see if you delete or edit it like the SCARED PSEUDO-ATHEIST that you are! https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/2535-animals-and-the-afterlife?page=3&post_number=72
This is proof for the whole world to see that either I truly am blocked, or you are a LIAR! Which is it, hmmm???
Or perhaps it is you, the PSEUDO-ATHEIST, who has fallen prey to psychosis! What does it mean when a red banner appears on someone's profile that says, "Blocking you"? Perhaps it means that you have ACTUALLY BEEN BLOCKED by that SCARED RUNAWAY of a user??? Are you that out of touch with REALITY???
Or perhaps you are just RUNNING AWAY like you always do!! Why don't you RUN AWAY to another site's comment section like you're good at!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The only reason Christians care about the unborn is once a child is born they believe they're contaminated with original sin.
There may be "Christians" who argue that, but that is both inconsistent and unbiblical. If all humans are sinful by nature, that would include babies before and after birth. Your critique is correct, but a straw man.
So somehow terminating a pregnancy is evil but letting people die some other ways just fine it's complete and utter hypocrisy.
"Terminating a pregnancy" is child murder. "Letting people die" is an ambiguous statement that often just means "you don't want massive welfare programs!" Limiting welfare is not the same as actively murdering someone so there is no hypocrisy.
Stopping someone from being born is not the same as killing them whether you think so or not.
Killing a baby 10 seconds before being born is the same as killing a baby 10 seconds after being born whether you think so or not. It is also interesting to note that you used the word "someone" to refer to the baby in the womb...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Comparing abortion to a real life person dying a horrible painful death is stupid.
This statement is sadly ironic.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
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.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'M SUGGESTING THAT A TAX ON PINATA SALES DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS PEOPLE OF ONE SKIN-TONE.
If white people make up 73% of the U.S. population and Mexicans only make up 18%, then which skin tone do you think it would disproportionately affect? How many pinatas do you think Mexicans are buying?
I understand the point you are trying to make though. I just disagree. For one, it requires one to at least dabble in stereotyping. I would guess white people buy more pinatas in the U.S. than Mexicans so I think the example is flawed. But taking the point more generally, if only Mexicans were taxed 500%, yes that would be systemic racism. If everyone is taxed 500%, that is just good ol' fashioned government overreach.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm white and I have used a lot of pinatas in my day. Do you only associate pinatas with brown people? Seems a bit stereotypical...
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That was only a single example. Black people do not receive disproportionate prison time. Only people who associate black skin with crack users view the world that way. Even if the penalty for powder vs crack cocaine was unfair, it would be disproportionate between users of those drugs regardless of skin color. You are perpetuating stereotypes.
But the main point is that you seem to agree white people are victims of systemic racism that can actually be identified in the letter of the law.
Created:
Posted in:
The idea that not killing a baby should be considered "mandatory childbirth" is crazy to me. How is not being able to murder your child somehow a violation of freedom?
Created:
@BrotherDThomas
I see you still have me blocked. Very brave.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
It seems that you would agree with the following definitions:
- Unstoppable force: a force with the ability to move anything
- Immovable object: an object which nothing can move
Both of these objects cannot exist at the same time. If a force exists which can move the object, then the object cannot be said to be immovable. Conversely, if an object exists which cannot be move by the force, then the force cannot be said to be unstoppable. The definitions contradict each other.
Consider the definitions you are using so-called omnipotence dilemma:
- All-powerful: the ability to move anything
- Stone: this particular stone is so heavy that nothing can move it
As with the first example, an "all-powerful" being cannot exist at the same time as an immovable stone for the same reason that there is a conflict in definitions. So far, I don't think I have said anything controversial yet.
To answer your question then, God cannot create a stone so heavy He could not lift it. But we have to know why before we jump to logical conclusions.
Can God do anything which would violate His nature? For example, can God lie?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
I have to agree that this is a straw man argument based on the title of the thread. Your definition of an "All-Loving god" refers to the false god of Liberalism, whereas "The Biblical Yahweh" refers to the God of Christianity.
Liberals pick and choose what they like using from the Bible using various standards. But if one rejects what the totality of what the Bible teaches about God, they do not believe in the biblical God.
So if the definitions in the title are categorically different, it should have read:
"The Biblical Yahweh is not [the god of Liberalism]"
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That was not an answer to my question. So to be clear, you are saying that white people are currently victims of systemic racism in the U.S., correct?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So to be clear, you are saying that white people are currently victims of systemic racism in the U.S., correct?
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
It would be similar to recognizing what a human is and who a human is.
Human is a category. I would define a human as being made up of both a physical and spiritual aspect - body and soul. We are not debating how to define what a human is so let's just go with that for the sake of argument. So that tells us what a human being is.
And since humans are personal beings, that means they have will, desires, emotions, etc. This is distinct from animals, plants, and inanimate objects. Those all have being but lack personality.
So what a human is would be a body and soul. Who a human is consists of their will, desires, emotions, etc. I am a single being and a single person.
This would be a similar distinction for God. I will note that this is not a perfect comparison because God does not have multiple personality disorder. But God is also not subject to human psychology. God is a single, eternal, uncreated being that is spirit (no body). That is what God is. There are not three eternal beings, nor three created beings. But God is also a personal being, in that He has a will, desires, emotions, etc. There are three persons (Father, Son, and Spirit). All three are not partially God, but fully God
Created:
-->
@TheMorningsStar
If A, B, C, and D were all of the same category, then it would be illogical. But A, B, and C are referring to persons. D is referring to being. The Father, Son, and Spirit are not separate beings, yet they are distinct persons within one being.
Another way to say it would be that being refers to what God is, while person's refer to who God is.
Created:
One God, three Persons.
The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God.
However, the Father is not the Son or the Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Spirit. And the Spirit is not the Father or the Son.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
So when a recent COVID stimulus package tried to include a measure that would only give money to black farmers and exclude white farmers, that would be an example of systemic racism. Because the money would be distributed only to those of a certain skin tone.
This is part of the problem with proponents of CRT. They are trying to justify racist laws and policies today like the above COVID relief measures for black farmers. They are fighting alleged invisible systemic racism with actual and explicit systemic racism.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Well it shouldn't be very controversial to take a stance on whether laws or policies intended to benefit a particular racial group is racist.
But an example might be affirmative action type programs. Such are intended to benefit minorities in terms of college admittance or access to financial resources not afforded to white people.
But an example might be affirmative action type programs. Such are intended to benefit minorities in terms of college admittance or access to financial resources not afforded to white people.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Regarding your post #80, you interjected into the interaction between me and Double_R. The point was about associating crack with the black identity. I'm glad you disagree with Double_R, but you are now trying to discuss various punishments for using different forms of crack. We have already had a similar conversation and I don't intend to have it again, especially if I don't even know whether you believe recreational use of cocaine should be illegal. But to make it a conditional statement:
If you believe that recreational use of cocaine should be legal, then I have no interest in discussing various punishments for the recreational use of cocaine.
For example, if a hypothetical government does something like, I don't know, something maybe perhaps like, cutting estate taxes for people with a net worth over one million, and, hypothetically now, let's say, that just happens to benefit "non-black" individuals disproportionately, could that tax cut be considered functionally indistinguishable from "systemic racism" ?Is this what you're asking ?
No.
If I intended to ask you that question, I would have asked it. So, let me ask the question I intended to ask again so there's no confusion:
Should we assume that laws or policies that benefit one racial group over another are examples of systemic racism, or at least a functional equivalent to it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, you and I believe slavery is a form of government control. Double_R does not.
Based on post #74, I'm still unsure if you are trying to disagree with me. It seems like your disagreement should be with Double_R and his definition of government control not including slavery.
Based on post #74, I'm still unsure if you are trying to disagree with me. It seems like your disagreement should be with Double_R and his definition of government control not including slavery.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Consider this interaction:
Fruit_Inspector: My problem with this line of reasoning is that it requires one to create racial identities that apply to everyone in the group. Crack becomes associated with blackness, and cocaine with whiteness.Double_R: What created that was reality, not my line of reasoning.
Double_R seems to have made his point quite clear, so I will let him correct his post if he disagrees with me. I actually hope that you disagree with him on this point.
Now, to your question:
can you identify a reasonable, logical, rational hypothesis that explains why "powder-cocaine" and "crack-cocaine" are treated differently under the law ?
That depends. Do you believe that cocaine should even be illegal? Because if you don't (as with heroin), there is no point in going down this road.
Finally, you said in post #61 that if a law discriminates against a particular race, even if it is unintentional, it is still functionally indistinguishable from systemic racism. You used this to point to crack/powder cocaine laws as an example of systemic racism, or at least a functional equivalent to it. So I am still looking for clarity about whether laws or policies that benefit one racial group over another are examples of systemic racism, or at least a functional equivalent to it.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Laws intended to benefit one group over another I would call racist. Laws intended to level out the playing field by targeting minorities who have been historically marginalized… I would not.
You just completely contradicted yourself. Let me illustrate using your quote:
- "Laws intended to benefit [white people] over [black people] I would call racist.
- "Laws intended to benefit [black people] over [white people] I would [not] call racist."
There is a serious problem here. The first and foremost being that you are using the concept of systemic racism (i.e. super secret invisible racism) to justify actual racism.
What created that was reality, not my line of reasoning. The laws then followed.
So to be clear, you are agreeing with me that crack being a part of the black identity is not just a logical conclusion, but it is simply reality? Or, it is true that crack is actually a part of blackness?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Here is the main point of this thread from the OP:
This is a talking point I hear constantly from the right; the idea that “the left”, or “the government” just wants to control our lives...Is there anyone on this site who can explain the rationale here?
He seems to be criticizing and rejecting the idea that the government has been trying to assert more control over our lives in recent days. Yet, he also said this:
Was [slavery] a form of government control? I would say no...
So according to his logic, if the government was allowing and enforcing slavery, he would not see that as a legitimate reason to argue that the government is trying to assert more control over our lives.
Now I generally agree with your point that we should not be doing business with companies who utilize slave labor (we're looking at you China...). That being said, I'm not sure what your argument is in your post #74. Do believe that the government allowing and enforcing slavery within its own country can be considered government control?
Created: