Total posts: 855
-->
@3RU7AL
This from post #61...
whether or not it was "intended" to "discriminate" "against" "the black community" or not, IN PRACTICE it very clearly had that effect.So, FUNCTIONALLY INDISTINGUISHABLE from "systemic racism".
...doesn't seem to match this from post #64
There is no reason to use the word "racist" which strongly implies some level of "intention" (QUALIA).
Especially given the wording of my question.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
REFINED SUGAR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MORE DEATHS THAN HEROIN.
Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was absolutely clear that you believed refined sugar is more morally and physically destructive than heroin.
whether or not it was "intended" to "discriminate" "against" "the black community" or not, IN PRACTICE it very clearly had that effect.
Should we also assume that when a law benefits one racial group over others that, whether the benefit was intentional or not, the law is racist? Or at least functionally indistinguishable from systemic racism?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The question of whether any given law or action is racist is entirely a question about motivation
Should laws that are intended to benefit one racial group over others also be considered racist then?
So why the disparity? Well, I’m sure the fact that cocaine was widely found in white neighborhoods while crack was mostly found in black neighborhoods had nothing to do with it.
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. To make a special effort to criminalize crack is equivalent to attacking blackness.
The problem I see is that you are associating crack with the black identity - with blackness. This ideology then perpetuates racial stereotypes that black people are crack addicts, even if unintentionally.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Just so I'm clear, are you trying to assert that heroin is no more morally or physically destructive than refined sugar?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You're right. I was responding to see how far you'd take the point down the rabbit hole. It looks like we reached that point. You're free to believe that I am holding an emotion-based opinion that has no reason to support it. So I will just state again, I don't feel like trying to convince you that shooting heroin is bad. That is the reason (not an emotion) behind why I hold the opinion that it is not worth debating the morality of heroin use.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you saying that every opinion is based on at least one reason?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I get that this is a debate site, but that doesn't mean we have to turn everything into debate.
And you're next response will be, "I'm not trying to debate it! I just want to know your reasons, that's all!" And then we'll have to debate the meaning of the word "debate" to see if what you're doing should be considered debating or not.
It's getting comical at this point.
We're talking about whether or not you have REASONS to believe "that shooting heroin is bad".You see? Now you're trying to debate whether my statement about heroin use is a reason-based opinion or a baseless opinion so we can debate whether or not heroin use is bad so we can debate whether it should be illegal so we can debate whether that is racist so we can debate whether systemic racism exists.
And you're next response will be, "I'm not trying to debate it! I just want to know your reasons, that's all!" And then we'll have to debate the meaning of the word "debate" to see if what you're doing should be considered debating or not.
It's getting comical at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Was it a form of government control? I would say no, but an argument can be made for a yes. They were enabling the slaves to be controlled which I don’t see as the same thing.
By that logic, the government could make it legal to own registered Republicans as slaves, and it would not be considered "government control."
Let's say I were to claim that the government is trying to "control our lives" by allowing and enforcing the enslavement of certain humans, and my statement were true. It sounds like you would look at that and say, "I don't get the rationale behind people complaining that the government is trying to control our lives." Your critique of people complaining about government control seems somewhat meaningless then.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
It depends on how "reasonable" they truly are.
And there it is. You will reject my reasoning because I have a completely different worldview than you. I have a particular view of man, morality, and probably truth itself. That means that to even discuss the question of whether recreational drug use should be illegal will require us to overcome a great number of barriers that I just don't feel like taking the time to do right now. Maybe we can do that another day.
Put more simply, I don't feel like trying to convince you that shooting heroin is bad.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody is asking you to "debate".Just state your reasons.
So if I were to just state my reasons plainly, how are you going to respond? Are you going to just say, "Oh, those are interesting reasons. Have a great day," and be done?
Or are you going to try to rebut those reasons with your own arguments?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I just don't feel like taking the time to debate why we shouldn't let people shoot heroin. That also heavily distracts from the topic of systemic racism, which is why I engaged in the first place.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
YES I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE RECREATIONAL USE OF "DRUGS" LIKE HEROIN SHOULD BE ILLEGAL. BUT I REALLY DON'T FEEL LIKE GOING DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO COME TO ANY MEANINGFUL RESOLUTION TO THIS ISSUE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I think you need to read this paragraph again and focus on the words "could be," which is only implying a possibility of said outcome:
We can agree on the fact that it is reasonable to believe that a governmental authority may abuse their power for the sake of selfish personal gain. And it seems you would agree that current politicians often do so to varying degrees. So it does not seem irrational to say that governmental authorities could be seeking more power over citizens' lives. The question then is whether or not they are doing so.
Would you say that the government allowing slavery was a form of controlling them? If so, did controlling the lives of black people benefit those allowing slavery?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Is somebody making that argument?
Yes, the question was specifically asked in response to 3RU7AL who said in post #24:
"PERHAPS WE CAN AGREE THAT THERE IS NOT EXPLICIT "RACISM" IN THE LETTER OF THE LAW (although the criminalization of recreational drug use is "racist" in and of itself)"
Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin?I guess not.
Well that certainly adds another layer of complexity to the issue. I think we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
We can agree on the fact that it is reasonable to believe that a governmental authority may abuse their power for the sake of selfish personal gain. And it seems you would agree that current politicians often do so to varying degrees. So it does not seem irrational to say that governmental authorities could be seeking more power over citizens' lives. The question then is whether or not they are doing so.
Control over someone’s life means you get to make their choices for them. Government isn’t making your choices, they’re putting in place restrictions on what people can do. Those are very different things.
What you are talking about is mind control or brain washing. This is not what most people are talking about when referring to government control. You can always choose whether or not to obey the law. But let's say the government decided to implement vaccine passports. My argument is that restricting a person from participating in society for any other reason than imprisonment for a crime is the government trying to control your life.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
But you were talking about recreational drug use, not medicinal use. And besides that, you failed to answer the question. Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin *recreationally*?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I'm not saying that laws regarding drug use haven't been politically motivated in the past. But it was stated that criminalizing drug use is racist in and of itself. I'll ask the same questions then. Why is criminalizing the use of heroin racist in and of itself? Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not asking about how government officials may or may not have abused their power. You said that criminalizing drug use is racist in and of itself. Why is criminalizing the use of heroin racist in and of itself? Do you believe it should be a crime to use heroin?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Seeing as how CDC Director Walensky recently said in an interview that vaccine passports may very well be the path forward, I would disagree as to whether they are being considered or not. This point is certainly debatable, but let's assume they are considering it for the sake of argument. We can discuss that more if you want, but let's just examine that example.
I'm not talking about private businesses deciding to require vaccination for patronage. I'm talking about the government forbidding citizens from participating in society, both in the public and private sphere. As in, businesses can't serve unvaccinated people even if they want to.
If the government is the one restricting the participation of individuals within society, would that be an example of the government exercising a greater level of control over the lives of individuals?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Wait, why is criminalization of drug use racist?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You seem to have completely glossed over my questions:
Do laws regarding illicit drug use only apply to black people? Or is everyone equally forbidden from using certain drugs?
Do laws regarding illicit drug use only apply to black people? Or is everyone equally forbidden from using certain drugs?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
And do laws regarding illicit drug use only apply to black people? Or is everyone equally forbidden from using certain drugs?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That link did not cite a current law or policy that is discriminatory in it's nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I think we're starting to veer off the main point. This thread is about the rationale for believing the government is trying to exert more control over our lives. The popularity of *Democratic* Socialism was an example. I was not comparing it with other forms of Socialism. I was saying that under that system, the government would have more control over our lives than it has previously had.
It was also noted in the OP that mask mandates are just one example, but the government seeking more control is the main point. Mask mandates are not the first place I would go to argue that. Vaccine passports, or a similar system, is much more relevant to the main point of this thread. There are others as well, but let's stick with that one.
We could sum it up with two questions then. Are vaccine passports being seriously considered by the U.S. government? Do vaccine passports give the government more control over the lives of individuals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But didn't Jesus die as blood "ransom" for our sins? If not, what was the point of going to the extremes of god impregnating an unwilling maiden ? And promising her that her son would inherit the throne and kingdom of David when he didn't even get to sniff the seat? And what was the point of sending Jesus to suffer a wild and vicious bloody scourging ending in the torturous execution by Crucifixion?Do not bother answering.
But also:
You are wasting both our times on someone else's thread.
Irony.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have many Christian friends and they seem to believe that I always make and raise good biblical talking points.
For some reason, I have a hard time believing this one!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You are correct that I meant "own desires" in the sense of personal gain. Perhaps even saying selfish personal gain would be better. And I agree with you that the "everybody does it" defense does not make something right.
My point is that too often, people see their side as those who can do no wrong, and the other side as nefarious ne'er-do-wells. Not sure why that was the first word that popped into my head for it, but it's fitting. And this applies to both sides. But if Republicans can be guilty of exercising their political power for selfish personal gain, what makes Democrats exempt from such practices?
This leads us to the main point. If politicians in general are guilty of pursuing selfish personal gains, what makes it so hard to believe that they would use the current turmoil to seize more power and control over people? Especially when governmental authorities have done such things in the past.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
I agree with you that systemic racism cannot definitionally exist without any laws or policies that can be identified as discriminatory. It should be case closed. However, this type of reasoning has failed to prevent a large number of Americans succumbing to Wokeness. That means to continue gaining ground in the culture war, we have to go beyond this argument in attacking CRT. Of course, this applies in the context of the U.S. more than other countries.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I don't need to re-read it , I just simply do not believe it.
I know you don't. That's the problem. You are an angry individual who has an obsession with attacking Christianity. There is no reason to answer your questions because you don't care what the answers are. You will just keep hating God, no matter what I say. And I suspect you also harbor some resentment for Christians, including myself. That's no way to live your life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I will respond to your other points, but I want to clarify something. You didn't answer these questions, which are important to your original point:
Do you believe that Trump tried to overstep his authority and use "government control" to accomplish his own desires? Do you believe other Republicans do this too? What would they get out of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I meant exactly what I said. But perhaps you should read this section again:
There is a God who will judge the world. Everyone who has broken God's law, everyone who has chosen to sin against Him, will experience the consequences of their choices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I have a brother who was an alcoholic for a number of his young adult years. I remember the night we had to call an ambulance after we found him passed out in a pool of his own vomit at the bottom of the stairs. That was the same night I realized I could no longer ignore that he was going down a path of self-destruction. He was experiencing the consequences of his actions. It was love that caused me to confront him about his alcoholism. Letting him continue down that path unhindered would have been the most unloving thing for me to do.
My family's love is part of the reason my brother is now sober and getting his life together. It quite literally saved his life.
That is the same love that drives the Christian message. There is a God who will judge the world. Everyone who has broken God's law, everyone who has chosen to sin against Him, will experience the consequences of their choices.
But let me be clear. Every Christian is just as deserving of hell as every non-Christian. The difference is that God has promised to save those who will turn away from their sin and trust in the Lord Jesus for salvation.
If this is true and I failed to tell others about this message of salvation - if I allow them to continue down their path of self-destruction unhindered - I would be the most unloving person in the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Bernie Sanders, a self-proclaimed Socialist, has seen quite a bit of popularity in the last two presidential elections. Even though he did not win, that shows there are many Americans who support his Socialist policies. Even if you are not a Socialist, it does not seem accurate to say that "almost no one on the left is pushing for socialism."
There is nothing inherently wrong with having lots of money. Can you point to a valid ethical standard that says having money is, in and of itself, evil? If you create a product the many people are willing to pay for, why do you not deserve a greater profit than someone with a less desirable product? The great irony is that people complain about the wealthiest in America, while at the same time taking advantage of Amazon's 2-day shipping, or using Microsoft products on their computers. You can't complain about someone having too much money as you are constantly handing that person your money.
But what does that even mean? "Trying to" is as phrase that points to motivation. Please help me understand how you make sense out of claiming that their motivation is to control you're life. What does any politician, who mind you will likely end up a private citizen themselves in the near future subject to the same"government control" you are asserting, get out of it?
Why would a governmental authority desire to have more power and money? Or why would they want less oversight to do as they please with no repercussions? There could be a number of reasons, some which should be quite obvious if the authority has malicious intentions. Do you believe that Trump tried to overstep his authority and use "government control" to accomplish his own desires? Do you believe other Republicans do this too? What would they get out of it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It is no secret that many on the Left are pushing for Socialism. This would lead to extreme government control over the lives of individuals. That being said, the idea that certain governmental authorities from a particular party are trying to assert more control over our lives is undeniable based on their own ideology.
It also seems uncontroversial to say that many governmental authorities have historically sought more and more power, and this has led to oppression of the people throughout history.
In the U.S. today, there are many of us who view recent events as a power grab by governmental authorities that will eventually lead to oppression of the people. Even if we're wrong (though it daily seems more apparent we are not), there is a historical precedent to governmental overreach that at least makes our suspicion rational.
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
What are you having trouble rebutting? Do you find yourself in general agreement or with my argument?
Created:
-->
@drlebronski
"This post is intended to be an informal debate as i prefer a less organized debate."
Should I expect another forfeiture in our debate since this post is directly related? 12 hours left...
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
What happens if being good requires sacrifice (giving what little I have to someone in need), but being evil is expedient (cheating on your taxes). What is the incentive to work hard and earn my own money if the government is going to give me welfare to relax at home? Why be honest when it could get me in trouble if I can lie to avoid it?
If I am only to live a short life in a meaningless universe just to die and be forgotten, what's the point of trying to make "heaven" at great cost to myself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
You are absolutely correct. And that is why a pastor should study the original languages, cultural norms and idioms, types of literature within the Bible, and other such things. This allows him to overcome the barriers you mentioned in properly interpreting the text as the author meant to convey it. This includes being able to recognize when the text calls for something to be understood allegorically. If I told you I was going to use an analogy to try to make a point, that would be a clear evidence that you should interpret my next statement in an allegorical-type way, rather than a more literal way.
And while many people miss this purpose for weekly church gatherings, one of the main reasons to listen to sermons on Sunday is so that the pastor who has labored to rightly interpret the text can then explain it to the church members in a way they can understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I think the simplest way to explain how I would argue the Bible should be interpreted is to use the same method of interpretation we use every day. How did you read my last message? You first look at the data. You break it down to the subject and object of the sentence, as well as the main verb. You look for modifiers. Is there an indirect object? If there is a pronoun, what is the antecedent? This becomes so natural that we often forget that we're doing it. But failure to do so results in misinterpretation.
"Jack threw Jim the ball."
After breaking down the sentence, a straightforward interpretation would tell you that a man named Jack threw a ball to a man named Jim. But what if Jack decided to name his ball "Jim." That might seem strange, but it would be a reasonable interpretation with no other context. But this simple approach is different than the allegorical approach.
The allegorical method would accept that the sentence literally means that Jack threw a ball to someone, but there is a hidden spiritual interpretation behind the literal meaning. They might tell you, "What the text truly means is that Jack represents God, Jim represents humanity, and the ball is all the good things that God blessed us with." When people use the allegorical method of interpretation, they are always seeking out these hidden spiritual meanings, even when the context gives no basis for doing so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Gotcha. I know I've heard that as a somewhat common reason so I was curious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
While I do believe evolution can be argued against from a purely scientific perspective, I also have a number of theological disagreements. The main one is the mechanism by which evolution is said to occur.
Genesis says that God created the world and it was good, and it was the entrance of sin by Adam and Eve that is the reason for death and disease. Yet if evolution is true, then death and disease must have been present in creation prior to the arrival of Adam and Eve for natural selection to occur. That means death and disease would be part of God's "good" creation, rather than a consequence of sin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You've literally suggested one race is closer to apes and puzzled over why anyone would find that reprehensible
You may be confusing my comments. An African is someone who originates from Africa. It is not technically a race. This is why I have commented multiple times that "Asian" is a poor title for a race category. Russians are Asians, yet we don't consider them "Asian."
So if the earliest humans originated in Africa and had dark skin, there seems to be nothing in my allegedly reprehensible comment that contradicts what you stated here:
The earliest humans were dark-skinned and (being an earlier form) would have been more similar to apes from which we all evolved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Well I'm glad we can at least agree on that.
Accepting evolution would be anti-Christian, not anti-White Supremacy.
It's funny that there are a great number of Christians who don't understand these two points, namely that creation is biblical and not everything is racist.
If you don't mind my asking, was evolution a primary factor in becoming an atheist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I didn't mention the objective principle of mathematics.
If you say so.
There is no evolutionary direction or destination other than survival.
So there is an evolutionary direction?
What it does not do is recognize societal/cultural conceptions of race as biologically valid classifications.
My statement about dark-skinned Africans and light-skinned Europeans had nothing to with the manmade categories of race. My point was that even within a single species, the earliest forms of that species are more similar to the latest form of their predecessor species. This is inevitable if species arise by gradual changes in a continuous process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Thanks for the clarification. This thread got off in the weeds a bit here so maybe I'll ask, did you happen to look at the article at all from my OP? Do you think that such an article has any reason to be in Scientific American, even as an opinion piece? My original purpose was to find agreement with evolutionists that the increasing popularity of Critical Race Theory is the mechanism that allowed such a poorly argued assertion to be considered for a scientific publication.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
No, I'm just pointing out that your criticism of "species" cuts deeper than you may have realized. Every word we utter, every concept we think has an 'arbitrary and manmade' component to it.
I don't think you realize the category error you made in comparing the objective principles of mathematics and numbers to the parameters we use to classify different types of organisms.
"If you'd like to make a case for dark skinned humans and light skinned humans being different species with the relevant experts, have at it."
That does not have anything to do with my point, since nowhere have I suggested that we split modern humans into different species based on skin color. Perhaps this is why we seem to be talking past each other. My point is that even organisms in the same species can be further along in the continuous evolutionary progression than earlier forms of that species. But you previously said something to refute the idea that we can say organisms in the same species can be said to be "closer" or "further" in the evolutionary progression:
Light skinned and dark skinned humans would be on the same branch of the tree. Evolution doesn't recognize a difference between the two.
It seems on this basis alone, you would reject the idea of peppered moths being an example of evolution, correct? Because evolution doesn't recognize a difference between light and dark members of the same species?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
This is word play. Two, four, plus, and equal are arbitrary and manmade too, but 2+2 still equals 4.
There is currently debate happening about whether there is one species of giraffe with nine subspecies, or if there are four species with five subspecies. However we resolve this debate depends on how we determine to set parameters on what constitutes a distinct species.
Are you really willing to say that the objective principles of mathematics are as arbitrary as the giraffe species debate?
That being said, the point you're trying to make has no basis in evolution. The earliest modern humans were ...modern humans. Any attempted distinctions based on societal/cultural constructs (like skin color) are not evolution
The point I am trying to make is that evolution is a continuous process that does not stop just because modern humans decide to categorize a particular organism. If modern humans have evolved from where we were 500 years ago, then we are further away from our common ape ancestor than humans 500 years ago. But you seem to be saying that species just jump into existence rather than gradually changing because there are no distinctions within species groups.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
But species themselves are an arbitrary and manmade category to differentiate between various points on a continuous progression of evolutionary changes. The different species in the Homo family did not just spontaneously appear.
Isn't it true that species are always evolving, even within their individual species? And isn't it also true that earlier forms of a particular species are "closer to" their predecessor species than later forms, at least in terms of their position on the continuous progression of gradual evolutionary changes?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Are you saying that evolutionary biologists would make no distinction between Homo sapiens from 100,000 years ago and Homo sapiens today?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
"Africans would presumably be the closest to original homo sapiens in terms of genetics"
I should note that this does seem to be a fairly clear answer, but with a lot of unnecessary qualifications. What do you see wrong with simply stating what should be obvious from an evolutionary standpoint?
Created: