The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread
- Thread starter Strell
- Start date
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Leave it to you guys to completely ignore the part where they say slavery was terrible, and attempt to pull hidden meanings that contradict what they just said.[/QUOTE]
Here's the thing though, just don't say it at all, there's no need for that line to be in there. There is literally no reason to bring it up at all.
Here's the thing though, just don't say it at all, there's no need for that line to be in there. There is literally no reason to bring it up at all.
[quote name='Knoell']Leave it to you guys to completely ignore the part where they say slavery was terrible, and attempt to pull hidden meanings that contradict what they just said.[/QUOTE]
Really man? Did you read the report that statistic was sourced from? Do you even know anything about the organization that sponsored the study?
Really man? Did you read the report that statistic was sourced from? Do you even know anything about the organization that sponsored the study?
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IRHari']By the way, does anyone feel like there should be a Godwin's law for slavery? I see Bachmann comparing a lot of things to slavery. Not sure if all of them really qualify, or are appropriate.[/QUOTE]
There is a term. It's called white-privilege.
There is a term. It's called white-privilege.
[quote name='Knoell']Leave it to you guys to completely ignore the part where they say slavery was terrible, and attempt to pull hidden meanings that contradict what they just said.[/QUOTE]
I am used to you making disgusting and incredulous stretches...but even for you this/that was quite the stretch......
I am used to you making disgusting and incredulous stretches...but even for you this/that was quite the stretch......
Are any of you really going to deny the deterioration of traditional familes of any race since then? It is quite blatent.
Sure the slavery line should not have been in there but to call them out as racists because you are drawing conclusions of what you think they are thinking? Come on. Grow up.
Sure the slavery line should not have been in there but to call them out as racists because you are drawing conclusions of what you think they are thinking? Come on. Grow up.
[quote name='Knoell'] Are any of you really going to deny the deterioration of traditional familes of any race since then? It is quite blatent.[/QUOTE]
Is there any factual basis for saying that black families are worse off now than when they were slaves? The answer is blatantly obvious.
Is there any factual basis for saying that black families are worse off now than when they were slaves? The answer is blatantly obvious.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Are any of you really going to deny the deterioration of traditional familes of any race since then? It is quite blatent.
Sure the slavery line should not have been in there but to call them out as racists because you are drawing conclusions of what you think they are thinking? Come on. Grow up.[/QUOTE]
I'd be willing to have a conversation with social conservatives concerning the welfare state if they would admit that their favored political policies have directly led to the following, despite violent and property crime falling through the floor over the last thirty years:
- A prison population exceeding 2.3 million people, by far the most inmates of any country in the world, with incarceration rates that far exceed any western or industrialized nation. We have gone from incarcerating 220 per 100,000 in 1980 to over 750 per 100,000 today.
- Nonviolent offenders make up over 60% of the prison population.
- Nonviolent drug offenders make up about %25 of the prison population.
- 40% of inmates are non-Hispanic blacks, for a total of nearly one million inmates. This figure beats whites by well over 100,000.
- Around 10% of black Americans are incarcerated.
- 54% of inmates have minor children; including 1.1 million fathers (couldn't possibly have anything to do with the breakdown of families, especially black families. Nope. Impossible.)
- 1 in 28 children have a parent who is incarcerated. Two-thirds of these children's parents were incarcerated for nonviolent offenses.
- Incarceration reduces yearly male wages by 40%. Only 2 percent of previously incarcerated men who started in the bottom fifth of the earnings distribution made it to the top fifth 20 years later, compared to 15 percent of never-incarcerated men who started at the bottom.
- About 14% of drug users are black. 36% of those arrested for drugs are black. Nearly two-thirds of those sent to prison for drugs are black.
I have zero interest in discussing the breakdown of the family with social conservatives until they understand what I've posted here.
Sure the slavery line should not have been in there but to call them out as racists because you are drawing conclusions of what you think they are thinking? Come on. Grow up.[/QUOTE]
I'd be willing to have a conversation with social conservatives concerning the welfare state if they would admit that their favored political policies have directly led to the following, despite violent and property crime falling through the floor over the last thirty years:
- A prison population exceeding 2.3 million people, by far the most inmates of any country in the world, with incarceration rates that far exceed any western or industrialized nation. We have gone from incarcerating 220 per 100,000 in 1980 to over 750 per 100,000 today.
- Nonviolent offenders make up over 60% of the prison population.
- Nonviolent drug offenders make up about %25 of the prison population.
- 40% of inmates are non-Hispanic blacks, for a total of nearly one million inmates. This figure beats whites by well over 100,000.
- Around 10% of black Americans are incarcerated.
- 54% of inmates have minor children; including 1.1 million fathers (couldn't possibly have anything to do with the breakdown of families, especially black families. Nope. Impossible.)
- 1 in 28 children have a parent who is incarcerated. Two-thirds of these children's parents were incarcerated for nonviolent offenses.
- Incarceration reduces yearly male wages by 40%. Only 2 percent of previously incarcerated men who started in the bottom fifth of the earnings distribution made it to the top fifth 20 years later, compared to 15 percent of never-incarcerated men who started at the bottom.
- About 14% of drug users are black. 36% of those arrested for drugs are black. Nearly two-thirds of those sent to prison for drugs are black.
I have zero interest in discussing the breakdown of the family with social conservatives until they understand what I've posted here.
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I'd be willing to have a conversation with social conservatives concerning the welfare state if they would admit that their favored political policies have directly led to the following, despite violent and property crime falling through the floor over the last thirty years:
- A prison population exceeding 2.3 million people, by far the most inmates of any country in the world, with incarceration rates that far exceed any western or industrialized nation. We have gone from incarcerating 220 per 100,000 in 1980 to over 750 per 100,000 today.
- Nonviolent offenders make up over 60% of the prison population.
- Nonviolent drug offenders make up about %25 of the prison population.
- 40% of inmates are non-Hispanic blacks, for a total of nearly one million inmates. This figure beats whites by well over 100,000.
- Around 10% of black Americans are incarcerated.
- 54% of inmates have minor children; including 1.1 million fathers (couldn't possibly have anything to do with the breakdown of families, especially black families. Nope. Impossible.)
- 1 in 28 children have a parent who is incarcerated. Two-thirds of these children's parents were incarcerated for nonviolent offenses.
- Incarceration reduces yearly male wages by 40%. Only 2 percent of previously incarcerated men who started in the bottom fifth of the earnings distribution made it to the top fifth 20 years later, compared to 15 percent of never-incarcerated men who started at the bottom.
- About 14% of drug users are black. 36% of those arrested for drugs are black. Nearly two-thirds of those sent to prison for drugs are black.
I have zero interest in discussing the breakdown of the family with social conservatives until they understand what I've posted here.[/QUOTE]
Dont forget too that they must admit to the hypocrisy in complaining about the family unit while at the same time undercutting social programs that support them. It seems to be becoming more and more common for social conservatives to pretend they care about the plight of the poor black child growing up with a single mother in the ghetto. Yet at at the same time they are saying that child does not stand a chance without a father they cut programs like WIC and daycare assistance he desperately needs.
Social conservatives whisper to these poor black mothers, "Abortion is wrong, abortion is a sin, do you really want to kill this baby. Have it, there are programs to help you, there are people to help you" while at the same time they scream about cutting those very programs. Of Course there has been a decline in the welfare of poor blacks over the last few decades...you cut their freaking welfare, their education funding, their job assistance programs and everything else that could ever help them move forward in life.
Knoel is incapable of understanding a single word you say though so I really do not know why you try. For years we have known he is beyond help, but now that he can not even see what is wrong with the statement that black children were better off under slavery because they had two parents....despite the fact that blacks were not allowed to marry at the time, the family was frequently split up being bought by different masters and or split up to force them to work different areas of a plantation, it shows just how ignorant he is of history, life and morals. We all knew it all along...but this even for him as I said before is astonishing.
- A prison population exceeding 2.3 million people, by far the most inmates of any country in the world, with incarceration rates that far exceed any western or industrialized nation. We have gone from incarcerating 220 per 100,000 in 1980 to over 750 per 100,000 today.
- Nonviolent offenders make up over 60% of the prison population.
- Nonviolent drug offenders make up about %25 of the prison population.
- 40% of inmates are non-Hispanic blacks, for a total of nearly one million inmates. This figure beats whites by well over 100,000.
- Around 10% of black Americans are incarcerated.
- 54% of inmates have minor children; including 1.1 million fathers (couldn't possibly have anything to do with the breakdown of families, especially black families. Nope. Impossible.)
- 1 in 28 children have a parent who is incarcerated. Two-thirds of these children's parents were incarcerated for nonviolent offenses.
- Incarceration reduces yearly male wages by 40%. Only 2 percent of previously incarcerated men who started in the bottom fifth of the earnings distribution made it to the top fifth 20 years later, compared to 15 percent of never-incarcerated men who started at the bottom.
- About 14% of drug users are black. 36% of those arrested for drugs are black. Nearly two-thirds of those sent to prison for drugs are black.
I have zero interest in discussing the breakdown of the family with social conservatives until they understand what I've posted here.[/QUOTE]
Dont forget too that they must admit to the hypocrisy in complaining about the family unit while at the same time undercutting social programs that support them. It seems to be becoming more and more common for social conservatives to pretend they care about the plight of the poor black child growing up with a single mother in the ghetto. Yet at at the same time they are saying that child does not stand a chance without a father they cut programs like WIC and daycare assistance he desperately needs.
Social conservatives whisper to these poor black mothers, "Abortion is wrong, abortion is a sin, do you really want to kill this baby. Have it, there are programs to help you, there are people to help you" while at the same time they scream about cutting those very programs. Of Course there has been a decline in the welfare of poor blacks over the last few decades...you cut their freaking welfare, their education funding, their job assistance programs and everything else that could ever help them move forward in life.
Knoel is incapable of understanding a single word you say though so I really do not know why you try. For years we have known he is beyond help, but now that he can not even see what is wrong with the statement that black children were better off under slavery because they had two parents....despite the fact that blacks were not allowed to marry at the time, the family was frequently split up being bought by different masters and or split up to force them to work different areas of a plantation, it shows just how ignorant he is of history, life and morals. We all knew it all along...but this even for him as I said before is astonishing.
[quote name='IRHari']Is there any factual basis for saying that black families are worse off now than when they were slaves? The answer is blatantly obvious.[/QUOTE]
Of course there is! When the white masters raped their female slaves, the family wasn't separated as long as he didn't sell off the mother and or children. So if the slave master raped MANY slaves and had MANY children, that would mean MANY families are still intact and being supported! Easy Peasy you racist!
But seriously, implying that the black community is more broken now since the election of Obama compared to mass enslavement is so
ing bonkers, I don't know how anyone can defend it considering the gravitas of that statement. I'd wager that it is almost literally impossible to be true unless my sarcastic comment above is accurate to how they arrived at that number.
edit: I also read through some of that study and there's no way I can verify it's accuracy because of all the sources they used, but it's not looking good for the Institute for American Values.
Of course there is! When the white masters raped their female slaves, the family wasn't separated as long as he didn't sell off the mother and or children. So if the slave master raped MANY slaves and had MANY children, that would mean MANY families are still intact and being supported! Easy Peasy you racist!
But seriously, implying that the black community is more broken now since the election of Obama compared to mass enslavement is so
ing bonkers, I don't know how anyone can defend it considering the gravitas of that statement. I'd wager that it is almost literally impossible to be true unless my sarcastic comment above is accurate to how they arrived at that number.edit: I also read through some of that study and there's no way I can verify it's accuracy because of all the sources they used, but it's not looking good for the Institute for American Values.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Are any of you really going to deny the deterioration of traditional familes of any race since then? It is quite blatent.
Sure the slavery line should not have been in there but to call them out as racists because you are drawing conclusions of what you think they are thinking? Come on. Grow up.[/QUOTE]
Come on man, they SPECIFICALLY said African-American. They didn't say ANY other race. I don't really understand why you're trying to defend this.
Sure the slavery line should not have been in there but to call them out as racists because you are drawing conclusions of what you think they are thinking? Come on. Grow up.[/QUOTE]
Come on man, they SPECIFICALLY said African-American. They didn't say ANY other race. I don't really understand why you're trying to defend this.
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='MSI Magus']Dont forget too that they must admit to the hypocrisy in complaining about the family unit while at the same time undercutting social programs that support them. It seems to be becoming more and more common for social conservatives to pretend they care about the plight of the poor black child growing up with a single mother in the ghetto. Yet at at the same time they are saying that child does not stand a chance without a father they cut programs like WIC and daycare assistance he desperately needs.
Social conservatives whisper to these poor black mothers, "Abortion is wrong, abortion is a sin, do you really want to kill this baby. Have it, there are programs to help you, there are people to help you" while at the same time they scream about cutting those very programs. Of Course there has been a decline in the welfare of poor blacks over the last few decades...you cut their freaking welfare, their education funding, their job assistance programs and everything else that could ever help them move forward in life.
Knoel is incapable of understanding a single word you say though so I really do not know why you try. For years we have known he is beyond help, but now that he can not even see what is wrong with the statement that black children were better off under slavery because they had two parents....despite the fact that blacks were not allowed to marry at the time, the family was frequently split up being bought by different masters and or split up to force them to work different areas of a plantation, it shows just how ignorant he is of history, life and morals. We all knew it all along...but this even for him as I said before is astonishing.[/QUOTE]
I might go through and debate some of your points regarding welfare and education funding at some point, (the Bush administration doubled the size of the Department of Education, as an example) but the larger issue I'll focus on is this:
The economic and monetary system we have in our country rewards those who receive the money first: banks, both MICs, corporations. By the time the pricing and money works its way through the system, the best the average person could hope to do is to keep up with inflation. Worse yet, with all of this money being pumped through the system, malinvestment becomes both pervasive and ever-larger. It inevitably leads to bubbles and creates a perpetual boom and bust cycle - and when the bust happens, who gets bailed out? The very people who perpetuated the cycle to begin with.
This ties in with government and foreign policy in the following manner:
All of this has gone into overdrive since 1971. Since leaving the Bretton Woods system, the Fed has become the financier of government and corporate excursions at home and abroad. This is why you cannot separate monetary and foreign policy from economic discussions, for they are at the heart of our ruin.
This is the cause for the massive disparity in printed wealth between us peons and our masters; taxation is merely a scapegoat. Someone making $400k a year is a peon, not a member of the elite. Ironically, taxation benefits the elitist thugs to receive handouts in greater and more numerous proportions; the more there is in the pot, the more there is to give away. Our wise overlords have schemed to have us work for their benefit, to take from our labor to gift the machine; and when their investments go bust, who pays for it?
You.
This is why Wall Street is worried about the debt ceiling. No debt ceiling increase = party's over.
Let it rot.
Social conservatives whisper to these poor black mothers, "Abortion is wrong, abortion is a sin, do you really want to kill this baby. Have it, there are programs to help you, there are people to help you" while at the same time they scream about cutting those very programs. Of Course there has been a decline in the welfare of poor blacks over the last few decades...you cut their freaking welfare, their education funding, their job assistance programs and everything else that could ever help them move forward in life.
Knoel is incapable of understanding a single word you say though so I really do not know why you try. For years we have known he is beyond help, but now that he can not even see what is wrong with the statement that black children were better off under slavery because they had two parents....despite the fact that blacks were not allowed to marry at the time, the family was frequently split up being bought by different masters and or split up to force them to work different areas of a plantation, it shows just how ignorant he is of history, life and morals. We all knew it all along...but this even for him as I said before is astonishing.[/QUOTE]
I might go through and debate some of your points regarding welfare and education funding at some point, (the Bush administration doubled the size of the Department of Education, as an example) but the larger issue I'll focus on is this:
The economic and monetary system we have in our country rewards those who receive the money first: banks, both MICs, corporations. By the time the pricing and money works its way through the system, the best the average person could hope to do is to keep up with inflation. Worse yet, with all of this money being pumped through the system, malinvestment becomes both pervasive and ever-larger. It inevitably leads to bubbles and creates a perpetual boom and bust cycle - and when the bust happens, who gets bailed out? The very people who perpetuated the cycle to begin with.
This ties in with government and foreign policy in the following manner:
The very rich have stayed very rich in what would otherwise be a dynamic and evolving economic free-for-all by enjoying state-granted monopolies, securing government favors (ExIm Bank is notorious for subsidizing overseas operations to the elite. Enron received billions in this manner), and using the US military as their security force.
All of this has gone into overdrive since 1971. Since leaving the Bretton Woods system, the Fed has become the financier of government and corporate excursions at home and abroad. This is why you cannot separate monetary and foreign policy from economic discussions, for they are at the heart of our ruin.
This is the cause for the massive disparity in printed wealth between us peons and our masters; taxation is merely a scapegoat. Someone making $400k a year is a peon, not a member of the elite. Ironically, taxation benefits the elitist thugs to receive handouts in greater and more numerous proportions; the more there is in the pot, the more there is to give away. Our wise overlords have schemed to have us work for their benefit, to take from our labor to gift the machine; and when their investments go bust, who pays for it?
You.
This is why Wall Street is worried about the debt ceiling. No debt ceiling increase = party's over.
Let it rot.
[quote name='IRHari']Is there any factual basis for saying that black families are worse off now than when they were slaves? The answer is blatantly obvious.[/QUOTE]
Where was that in there again? I missed it.
[quote name='docvinh']Come on man, they SPECIFICALLY said African-American. They didn't say ANY other race. I don't really understand why you're trying to defend this.[/QUOTE]
They are commenting on the deterioration of families. They hold up marriage as something that benefits society. (Marriage is the whole basis of their pledge). I think we all acknowledge there is a higher poverty rate in certain races than others. It is not inherently racist for them to say that the deterioration of family and marriage isn't helping the African American household. I will grant you that they could have explained their point better, but it isn't racist.
Where was that in there again? I missed it.
[quote name='docvinh']Come on man, they SPECIFICALLY said African-American. They didn't say ANY other race. I don't really understand why you're trying to defend this.[/QUOTE]
They are commenting on the deterioration of families. They hold up marriage as something that benefits society. (Marriage is the whole basis of their pledge). I think we all acknowledge there is a higher poverty rate in certain races than others. It is not inherently racist for them to say that the deterioration of family and marriage isn't helping the African American household. I will grant you that they could have explained their point better, but it isn't racist.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Where was that in there again? I missed it.
They are commenting on the deterioration of families. They hold up marriage as something that benefits society. (Marriage is the whole basis of their pledge). I think we all acknowledge there is a higher poverty rate in certain races than others. It is not inherently racist for them to say that the deterioration of family and marriage isn't helping the African American household.[/QUOTE]
No, they're commenting specifically on the deterioration of African American households in particular. If they were commenting on the deterioration of families overall, they could have just said that.
They are commenting on the deterioration of families. They hold up marriage as something that benefits society. (Marriage is the whole basis of their pledge). I think we all acknowledge there is a higher poverty rate in certain races than others. It is not inherently racist for them to say that the deterioration of family and marriage isn't helping the African American household.[/QUOTE]
No, they're commenting specifically on the deterioration of African American households in particular. If they were commenting on the deterioration of families overall, they could have just said that.
[quote name='docvinh']No, they're commenting specifically on the deterioration of African American households in particular. If they were commenting on the deterioration of families overall, they could have just said that.[/QUOTE]
So talking about the specific problems of a race is now racist? You have got to be kidding me. Sorry Dohdough, I guess you are racist for pointing out problems specific races are dealing with. Damned if you don't talk about these issues, and damned if you do.
Like I said I think we can all agree that the poverty rate is higher, so how exactly is offering an explanation for that be racist?
If you really are focused on the slavery aspect of it, you should know that part was just a kicker, a wow factor. A kid born into slavery in 1860 was free in 1865. They could say the same about kids born in 1870 1880 1890 etc etc
So talking about the specific problems of a race is now racist? You have got to be kidding me. Sorry Dohdough, I guess you are racist for pointing out problems specific races are dealing with. Damned if you don't talk about these issues, and damned if you do.
Like I said I think we can all agree that the poverty rate is higher, so how exactly is offering an explanation for that be racist?
If you really are focused on the slavery aspect of it, you should know that part was just a kicker, a wow factor. A kid born into slavery in 1860 was free in 1865. They could say the same about kids born in 1870 1880 1890 etc etc
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']So talking about the specific problems of a race is now racist? You have got to be kidding me. Sorry Dohdough, I guess you are racist for pointing out problems specific races are dealing with. Damned if you don't talk about these issues, and damned if you do.
Like I said I think we can all agree that the poverty rate is higher, so how exactly is offering an explanation for that be racist?
If you really are focused on the slavery aspect of it, you should know that part was just a kicker, a wow factor. A kid born into slavery in 1860 was free in 1865. We all know slavery just didn't disappear, so no need to argue about that.[/QUOTE]
They also specifically tied it to the fact the Obama was African American. If they really wanted to say that family unit and marriage overall was going down the tubes, they could have easily provided overall statistics, there was no reason to point out one specific race. If they weren't being racist, this was certainly one of the worst comparisons to use, I think we can both agree about that. I honestly have no idea why you're so adamant on defending this, I think they knew they screwed up, the people who signed it knew it was a screwup, pretty much everyone knew it was a terrible comparison.
Like I said I think we can all agree that the poverty rate is higher, so how exactly is offering an explanation for that be racist?
If you really are focused on the slavery aspect of it, you should know that part was just a kicker, a wow factor. A kid born into slavery in 1860 was free in 1865. We all know slavery just didn't disappear, so no need to argue about that.[/QUOTE]
They also specifically tied it to the fact the Obama was African American. If they really wanted to say that family unit and marriage overall was going down the tubes, they could have easily provided overall statistics, there was no reason to point out one specific race. If they weren't being racist, this was certainly one of the worst comparisons to use, I think we can both agree about that. I honestly have no idea why you're so adamant on defending this, I think they knew they screwed up, the people who signed it knew it was a screwup, pretty much everyone knew it was a terrible comparison.
[quote name='Knoell']They are commenting on the deterioration of families. They hold up marriage as something that benefits society. (Marriage is the whole basis of their pledge). I think we all acknowledge there is a higher poverty rate in certain races than others. It is not inherently racist for them to say that the deterioration of family and marriage isn't helping the African American household. I will grant you that they could have explained their point better, but it isn't racist.[/QUOTE]
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/family/history2.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/family/history2.html
Because of the high premium placed on male labor, throughout every period of American slavery, black men were the most likely to be parted from their families. For slave owners, who considered the basic family unit to be comprised of mother and child, husbands and fathers could be, and were, easily replaced. Many a slave woman was assigned a new husband by her master. Male children were also frequently taken from slave mothers. The bond between an enslaved mother and daughter was the least likely to be disturbed through sale. Yet this tie was also fragile. Owners could reap large returns by selling pretty girls, especially light-skinned ones, into prostitution or concubinage.
The possibility of separation was an ever-present threat to every member of a slave family. When a master died, his slaves might be indiscriminately distributed among his heirs or sold off to multiple buyers. When a planter's child was born or married, he or she might receive the gift of a black attendant. Mothers were taken from their own children to nurse the offspring of their masters. And slave children were torn from mothers and brought into the house to be raised alongside the master's sons and daughters.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IRHari']http://www.pbs.org/wnet/slavery/experience/family/history2.html
I really do not know why you try with knoell. No matter what you say he is going to twist things some how. Some people just have a need to twist reality to fit their perception to protect their psyche.
Because of the high premium placed on male labor, throughout every period of American slavery, black men were the most likely to be parted from their families. For slave owners, who considered the basic family unit to be comprised of mother and child, husbands and fathers could be, and were, easily replaced. Many a slave woman was assigned a new husband by her master. Male children were also frequently taken from slave mothers. The bond between an enslaved mother and daughter was the least likely to be disturbed through sale. Yet this tie was also fragile. Owners could reap large returns by selling pretty girls, especially light-skinned ones, into prostitution or concubinage.
The possibility of separation was an ever-present threat to every member of a slave family. When a master died, his slaves might be indiscriminately distributed among his heirs or sold off to multiple buyers. When a planter's child was born or married, he or she might receive the gift of a black attendant. Mothers were taken from their own children to nurse the offspring of their masters. And slave children were torn from mothers and brought into the house to be raised alongside the master's sons and daughters.
[/QUOTE]
I really do not know why you try with knoell. No matter what you say he is going to twist things some how. Some people just have a need to twist reality to fit their perception to protect their psyche.
I am twisting reality? You are twisting someone talking about the deterioration of family and marriage being a bad thing into racism. I already said they shouldnt have used that example. Being factually wrong is different than being racist. Quit being stupid.
http://news.yahoo.com/herman-cain-tennessee-mosque-builders-want-sharia-law-150045303.html
Paranoia strikes deep indeed.
Also think it's funny that, despite his insistence that other religions take no part in government, we know that's bullshit. If it were true then for one, no one would take a candidates religion into account, and we wouldn't hear calls about this being "a Christian nation". Add to that the fact that obviously, a person's religious beliefs influence their opinions on laws, just look at how Christians feel about abortion, they'd love to have it made illegal. So I think most conservative Christians would love nothing more for us to be living under Christian law in this country as much they think Muslims would like to have us live under Sharia law.
Paranoia strikes deep indeed.
Also think it's funny that, despite his insistence that other religions take no part in government, we know that's bullshit. If it were true then for one, no one would take a candidates religion into account, and we wouldn't hear calls about this being "a Christian nation". Add to that the fact that obviously, a person's religious beliefs influence their opinions on laws, just look at how Christians feel about abortion, they'd love to have it made illegal. So I think most conservative Christians would love nothing more for us to be living under Christian law in this country as much they think Muslims would like to have us live under Sharia law.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Add to that the fact that obviously, a person's religious beliefs influence their opinions on laws, just look at how Christians feel about abortion, they'd love to have it made illegal.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's exclusive to Christians. I'd bet most religions folks would like to see it banned. Some non-religious folks who feel that human life begins before birth might also agree, based on the whole "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" thing.
I don't think that's exclusive to Christians. I'd bet most religions folks would like to see it banned. Some non-religious folks who feel that human life begins before birth might also agree, based on the whole "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" thing.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't think that's exclusive to Christians. I'd bet most religions folks would like to see it banned. Some non-religious folks who feel that human life begins before birth might also agree, based on the whole "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" thing.[/QUOTE]
Abrahamic religion maybe.
I doubt you'll find a sizable portion of athiests and who want to make abortion illegal. The approach towards abortion among other religions is generally more nuanced, after all they often weigh in factors such as human suffering that many practitioners of Abrahamic religions willfully ignore. I think most people agree that abortion is regrettable and want to do everything possible to reduce abortions.
But making abortion illegal is a whole different kettle of fish.
Abrahamic religion maybe.
I doubt you'll find a sizable portion of athiests and who want to make abortion illegal. The approach towards abortion among other religions is generally more nuanced, after all they often weigh in factors such as human suffering that many practitioners of Abrahamic religions willfully ignore. I think most people agree that abortion is regrettable and want to do everything possible to reduce abortions.
But making abortion illegal is a whole different kettle of fish.
[quote name='camoor']Abrahamic religion maybe.
I doubt you'll find a sizable portion of athiests and who want to make abortion illegal. The approach towards abortion among other religions is generally more nuanced, after all they often weigh in factors such as human suffering that many practitioners of Abrahamic religions willfully ignore. I think most people agree that abortion is regrettable and want to do everything possible to reduce abortions.
But making abortion illegal is a whole different kettle of fish.[/QUOTE]
Not really. If one approaches the abortion issue from the perspective that a child-to-be is alive before birth, there's no way to sensibly argue that abortion shouldn't be totally illegal (or, at least, limited exclusively to circumstances where the mother's life is imminently threatened), without throwing the 14th Amendment out the window.
[quote name='Clak']http://news.yahoo.com/herman-cain-tennessee-mosque-builders-want-sharia-law-150045303.html[/QUOTE]
"This isn't like past racism 'cause I get to be on the cool kids' team this time!"
I doubt you'll find a sizable portion of athiests and who want to make abortion illegal. The approach towards abortion among other religions is generally more nuanced, after all they often weigh in factors such as human suffering that many practitioners of Abrahamic religions willfully ignore. I think most people agree that abortion is regrettable and want to do everything possible to reduce abortions.
But making abortion illegal is a whole different kettle of fish.[/QUOTE]
Not really. If one approaches the abortion issue from the perspective that a child-to-be is alive before birth, there's no way to sensibly argue that abortion shouldn't be totally illegal (or, at least, limited exclusively to circumstances where the mother's life is imminently threatened), without throwing the 14th Amendment out the window.
[quote name='Clak']http://news.yahoo.com/herman-cain-tennessee-mosque-builders-want-sharia-law-150045303.html[/QUOTE]
"This isn't like past racism 'cause I get to be on the cool kids' team this time!"
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Magus8472']Not really. If one approaches the abortion issue from the perspective that a child-to-be is alive before birth, there's no way to sensibly argue that abortion shouldn't be totally illegal (or, at least, limited exclusively to circumstances where the mother's life is imminently threatened), without throwing the 14th Amendment out the window.[/QUOTE]
I was talking about people's attitudes towards abortion, not the actual debate over abortion. Just pointing out that outside the conservative Christian echo chamber, the world-at-large has taken a much more moderate approach to abortion.
Switching gears, your statement is not well founded. The fetus could be declared a human life after conception but before birth, which would negate your assertion. I know that Americans typically like to break things down to the binary level, but it's not an all-or-nothing situation.
I was talking about people's attitudes towards abortion, not the actual debate over abortion. Just pointing out that outside the conservative Christian echo chamber, the world-at-large has taken a much more moderate approach to abortion.
Switching gears, your statement is not well founded. The fetus could be declared a human life after conception but before birth, which would negate your assertion. I know that Americans typically like to break things down to the binary level, but it's not an all-or-nothing situation.
[quote name='camoor']I was talking about people's attitudes towards abortion, not the actual debate over abortion. Just pointing out that outside the conservative Christian echo chamber, the world-at-large has taken a much more moderate approach to abortion.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, but on some level people are likely compromising what they really believe for the sake of practicality.
[quote name='camoor']Switching gears, your statement is not well founded. The fetus could be declared a human life after conception but before birth, which would negate your assertion. I know that Americans typically like to break things down to the binary level, but it's not an all-or-nothing situation.[/QUOTE]
In the abstract, sure. But on a practical level, any line between life and non-life will be contrived to the point of absurdity; rationally, it has to be all-or-nothing. Though I'll admit that if there's any decision that necessitates an irrational compromise, determining where "life" begins is probably it.
[quote name='IRHari']Who are the 'cool kids'?[/QUOTE]
Theones who win at dodgeball people not victimized by this particular breed of prejudice.
Fair enough, but on some level people are likely compromising what they really believe for the sake of practicality.
[quote name='camoor']Switching gears, your statement is not well founded. The fetus could be declared a human life after conception but before birth, which would negate your assertion. I know that Americans typically like to break things down to the binary level, but it's not an all-or-nothing situation.[/QUOTE]
In the abstract, sure. But on a practical level, any line between life and non-life will be contrived to the point of absurdity; rationally, it has to be all-or-nothing. Though I'll admit that if there's any decision that necessitates an irrational compromise, determining where "life" begins is probably it.
[quote name='IRHari']Who are the 'cool kids'?[/QUOTE]
The
[quote name='Magus8472']The ones who win at dodgeball people not victimized by this particular breed of prejudice.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Martin Niemoller']When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.[/QUOTE]
lawl
[quote name='Martin Niemoller']When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.[/QUOTE]
lawl
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Magus8472']Fair enough, but on some level people are likely compromising what they really believe for the sake of practicality.[/QUOTE]
You can read minds now too?
[quote name='Magus8472']In the abstract, sure. But on a practical level, any line between life and non-life will be contrived to the point of absurdity; rationally, it has to be all-or-nothing. Though I'll admit that if there's any decision that necessitates an irrational compromise, determining where "life" begins is probably it.[/QUOTE]
Of course you would say this, you're an extremist. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Take off the filter, the world is not all black-and-white.
You can read minds now too?
[quote name='Magus8472']In the abstract, sure. But on a practical level, any line between life and non-life will be contrived to the point of absurdity; rationally, it has to be all-or-nothing. Though I'll admit that if there's any decision that necessitates an irrational compromise, determining where "life" begins is probably it.[/QUOTE]
Of course you would say this, you're an extremist. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Take off the filter, the world is not all black-and-white.
Said it before and now ill say it again. Stop talking about being "pro life" unless you truly support life. You are pro breeding. Have kids(most likely lots of them)but then once their out of the womb em. No welfare, plenty of pollution, no jobs programs and tax cuts for the rich while cutting grandmas medicaid. If this is you then you believe in Birth then dearth not life.
em. No welfare, plenty of pollution, no jobs programs and tax cuts for the rich while cutting grandmas medicaid. If this is you then you believe in Birth then dearth not life.[quote name='camoor']You can read minds now too?[/QUOTE]
I can read mine. At the risk of being honest, I think life begins before birth but also that a total (or nearly total) ban on abortion would do far more harm than good. I guess that makes me a hypocrite. But you're right, maybe I'm the only one.
[quote name='camoor']Of course you would say this, you're an extremist. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Take off the filter, the world is not all black-and-white.[/QUOTE]
I'll bite. Where's a legally defensible place for drawing the line as to where life begins that's not birth or conception?
[quote name='IRHari']lawl[/QUOTE]
You're going to have to elaborate, because I don't understand what you're driving at. Prejudice has a generally deleterious effect on society and victimizes everyone, if not now then soon? Sure. Being silent in the face of prejudice is to be complicit in it and therefore indirectly perpetrate it yourself? Fine. What goes around comes around? Duh. I get it; I'm just not sure Herman Cain does. Would it help if I edited the post to say directly victimized?
If it's something else, enlighten me, really.
I can read mine. At the risk of being honest, I think life begins before birth but also that a total (or nearly total) ban on abortion would do far more harm than good. I guess that makes me a hypocrite. But you're right, maybe I'm the only one.
[quote name='camoor']Of course you would say this, you're an extremist. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Take off the filter, the world is not all black-and-white.[/QUOTE]
I'll bite. Where's a legally defensible place for drawing the line as to where life begins that's not birth or conception?
[quote name='IRHari']lawl[/QUOTE]
You're going to have to elaborate, because I don't understand what you're driving at. Prejudice has a generally deleterious effect on society and victimizes everyone, if not now then soon? Sure. Being silent in the face of prejudice is to be complicit in it and therefore indirectly perpetrate it yourself? Fine. What goes around comes around? Duh. I get it; I'm just not sure Herman Cain does. Would it help if I edited the post to say directly victimized?
If it's something else, enlighten me, really.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Magus8472']I can read mine. At the risk of being honest, I think life begins before birth but also that a total (or nearly total) ban on abortion would do far more harm than good. I guess that makes me a hypocrite. But you're right, maybe I'm the only one.[/QUOTE]
It sounds like you need to sit down and think about it a little more. You need to know what your position is before you can begin to criticize others.
[quote name='Magus8472']I'll bite. Where's a legally defensible place for drawing the line as to where life begins that's not birth or conception?[/QUOTE]
I would draw the line based on three factors:
1) stage of biological development
2) differentiantion from other mammals at that stage
3) degree to which the organism is sentient
It sounds like you need to sit down and think about it a little more. You need to know what your position is before you can begin to criticize others.
[quote name='Magus8472']I'll bite. Where's a legally defensible place for drawing the line as to where life begins that's not birth or conception?[/QUOTE]
I would draw the line based on three factors:
1) stage of biological development
2) differentiantion from other mammals at that stage
3) degree to which the organism is sentient
[quote name='MSI Magus']Said it before and now ill say it again. Stop talking about being "pro life" unless you truly support life. You are pro breeding. Have kids(most likely lots of them)but then once their out of the womb em. No welfare, plenty of pollution, no jobs programs and tax cuts for the rich while cutting grandmas medicaid. If this is you then you believe in Birth then dearth not life.[/QUOTE]
You forgot also pro-death penalty.
[quote name='Magus8472']
I'll bite. Where's a legally defensible place for drawing the line as to where life begins that's not birth or conception?[/QUOTE]
Here perhaps?
em. No welfare, plenty of pollution, no jobs programs and tax cuts for the rich while cutting grandmas medicaid. If this is you then you believe in Birth then dearth not life.[/QUOTE]You forgot also pro-death penalty.
[quote name='Magus8472']
I'll bite. Where's a legally defensible place for drawing the line as to where life begins that's not birth or conception?[/QUOTE]
Here perhaps?
[quote name='hostyl1']You forgot also pro-death penalty.
Here perhaps?[/QUOTE]
/nod pro death penality too. Its truly amazing how conservatives claim to be so pro life yet once a child is actually born they really could care less about their well being. Its a conservatives Christians responsibility to make sure that every baby is born and the government should do the same, but ppppphhh once a kid is born its completely up to their parents to do every little last thing regardless of their circumstances.
Here perhaps?[/QUOTE]
/nod pro death penality too. Its truly amazing how conservatives claim to be so pro life yet once a child is actually born they really could care less about their well being. Its a conservatives Christians responsibility to make sure that every baby is born and the government should do the same, but ppppphhh once a kid is born its completely up to their parents to do every little last thing regardless of their circumstances.
[quote name='MSI Magus']/nod pro death penality too. Its truly amazing how conservatives claim to be so pro life yet once a child is actually born they really could care less about their well being. Its a conservatives Christians responsibility to make sure that every baby is born and the government should do the same, but ppppphhh once a kid is born its completely up to their parents to do every little last thing regardless of their circumstances.[/QUOTE]
Those conservative christians you are bashing probably do the most charity around the country. But of course if it isn't the government helping out, it aint worth it. Amiright?
As for camoor telling someone they need to sit down and think about their position? lolz
Those conservative christians you are bashing probably do the most charity around the country. But of course if it isn't the government helping out, it aint worth it. Amiright?
As for camoor telling someone they need to sit down and think about their position? lolz
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Those conservative christians you are bashing probably do the most charity around the country. But of course if it isn't the government helping out, it aint worth it. Amiright?[/QUOTE]
I don't know. Why don't you prove it instead of pulling theories out of your ass?
I don't know. Why don't you prove it instead of pulling theories out of your ass?
Most churches are known for their charitable work. Most people can fall back on the community in the church. Churches take private donations through the community to help the community.
When you find a report recording how many free meals, clothing, food and clothing drives, how many community events churchs hold etc let me know. It should be an interesting read.
When you find a report recording how many free meals, clothing, food and clothing drives, how many community events churchs hold etc let me know. It should be an interesting read.
[quote name='Knoell']Most churches are known for their charitable work. Most people can fall back on the community in the church. Churches take private donations through the community to help the community.
When you find a report recording how many free meals, clothing, food and clothing drives, how many community events churchs hold etc let me know. It should be an interesting read.[/QUOTE]
So in other words you pull a theory out of your ass and then ask the rest of us to do the work to prove your theory. Yep sounds like a Knoell post.
But hey lets enter Knoell world for a minute(just a foot in to your world though, dont want to catch the crazy). Lets say your right. Lets say that Christians, hell lets take it a step farther and say all of religion combined does more good then all government and non profit organizations combined. Do you think they alone can meet the needs of the impoverished masses? Do you think they alone can feed the hungry, clothe the poor, give shots to those in third world countries and clean their water supplies?
Even if we pretended that every last freaking religious person in the world was the good hearted soul you naively believe them to be it would not be enough.
As it stands though your world is a sham that you build to back your beliefs. The reality is that not all churches do charity, those that do charity do not do so every week or even month.....yet charity is needed every day in massive amounts.
So I am sorry but it changes nothing. Most conservatives are anti abortion while at the same time pro small government. You do believe in cutting welfare programs, international aid and other vital programs. You may go and work a soup kitchen or most likely handle charity like my mother in laws church who does charity that directly benefit church members not the unwashed masses. But if you then go to the voting booth and vote to cut federal funding to these vital programs it means your a pro life Christian 2 or 3 days a month.
When you find a report recording how many free meals, clothing, food and clothing drives, how many community events churchs hold etc let me know. It should be an interesting read.[/QUOTE]
So in other words you pull a theory out of your ass and then ask the rest of us to do the work to prove your theory. Yep sounds like a Knoell post.
But hey lets enter Knoell world for a minute(just a foot in to your world though, dont want to catch the crazy). Lets say your right. Lets say that Christians, hell lets take it a step farther and say all of religion combined does more good then all government and non profit organizations combined. Do you think they alone can meet the needs of the impoverished masses? Do you think they alone can feed the hungry, clothe the poor, give shots to those in third world countries and clean their water supplies?
Even if we pretended that every last freaking religious person in the world was the good hearted soul you naively believe them to be it would not be enough.
As it stands though your world is a sham that you build to back your beliefs. The reality is that not all churches do charity, those that do charity do not do so every week or even month.....yet charity is needed every day in massive amounts.
So I am sorry but it changes nothing. Most conservatives are anti abortion while at the same time pro small government. You do believe in cutting welfare programs, international aid and other vital programs. You may go and work a soup kitchen or most likely handle charity like my mother in laws church who does charity that directly benefit church members not the unwashed masses. But if you then go to the voting booth and vote to cut federal funding to these vital programs it means your a pro life Christian 2 or 3 days a month.
soulvengeance
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 195 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Those conservative christians you are bashing probably do the most charity around the country. But of course if it isn't the government helping out, it aint worth it. Amiright?
As for camoor telling someone they need to sit down and think about their position? lolz[/QUOTE]
To be fair, I think a lot of liberal christians do charity work too. I would bet they do just as much as the conservative ones.
As for camoor telling someone they need to sit down and think about their position? lolz[/QUOTE]
To be fair, I think a lot of liberal christians do charity work too. I would bet they do just as much as the conservative ones.
O and btw Knoell. When my wife and I started dating I was on Social Security for Disabilty for several years. My wifes Presbetarian(think thats what she was then)mother called me a leach, as did her Catholic grandmother as did her step moms Baptist grandparents. Not a single one asked what was wrong with me, not a single one tried to get to know me. Not a single one offered up those great Christian hands to help me. No I was a leach and a drain on society and soon to be their daughter. Even in my own family my religious aunts have never talked to me about the issues I have, they just chalked me up as worthless and moved on. Meanwhile my family that are not church goers actually talked to me and tried to understand. A few did a few didnt, but they at least tried.
Again Christians do great charity work and the world would be much worse off without them. But the idea that people can turn to the church is a myth that has not been true for decades. Nowdays the church is motivated by people within its own flock not the greater good.
This is again why most Christians are ok with cutting such vital programs. Because they think they should have more money to look after their own. Your not interested in helping, your interested in helping people who subscribe to your ideology.
Again Christians do great charity work and the world would be much worse off without them. But the idea that people can turn to the church is a myth that has not been true for decades. Nowdays the church is motivated by people within its own flock not the greater good.
This is again why most Christians are ok with cutting such vital programs. Because they think they should have more money to look after their own. Your not interested in helping, your interested in helping people who subscribe to your ideology.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='MSI Magus']So in other words you pull a theory out of your ass and then ask the rest of us to do the work to prove your theory. Yep sounds like a Knoell post.[/QUOTE]
You're on fire in this thread!
You're on fire in this thread!
[quote name='Knoell']Most churches are known for their charitable work. Most people can fall back on the community in the church. Churches take private donations through the community to help the community.
When you find a report recording how many free meals, clothing, food and clothing drives, how many community events churchs hold etc let me know. It should be an interesting read.[/QUOTE]
Ha, I'm more interested in finding out why they do it rather than how much they do. And don't try to tell me it's because they're just charitable, I know better and have witnessed first hand what some churches get out of their charitable work.
When you find a report recording how many free meals, clothing, food and clothing drives, how many community events churchs hold etc let me know. It should be an interesting read.[/QUOTE]
Ha, I'm more interested in finding out why they do it rather than how much they do. And don't try to tell me it's because they're just charitable, I know better and have witnessed first hand what some churches get out of their charitable work.
[quote name='Clak']Ha, I'm more interested in finding out why they do it rather than how much they do. And don't try to tell me it's because they're just charitable, I know better and have witnessed first hand what some churches get out of their charitable work.[/QUOTE]
/nod thats another fact that I did not take in to consideration. Many churches besides doing work that mostly benefits their congregation also tend to proselytize in the process. It is rarely charity for charities sake.
My mother in law that is out twice a month for her churches breast cancer walks and fairs(which started when a member of the churchs sister got breast cancer)pitched a fit and then refused to toss my wife a Bridal shower when she said we didnt want gifts, we wanted people to donate to charity. When at Christmas we said we didnt want to get gifts and again asked for charity donations we had the same reaction(the following year we stopped celebrating Christmas).
I am not saying I think this is the typical Christian, I certainly dont...but I think its much more common then Knoell would ever admit.
/nod thats another fact that I did not take in to consideration. Many churches besides doing work that mostly benefits their congregation also tend to proselytize in the process. It is rarely charity for charities sake.
My mother in law that is out twice a month for her churches breast cancer walks and fairs(which started when a member of the churchs sister got breast cancer)pitched a fit and then refused to toss my wife a Bridal shower when she said we didnt want gifts, we wanted people to donate to charity. When at Christmas we said we didnt want to get gifts and again asked for charity donations we had the same reaction(the following year we stopped celebrating Christmas).
I am not saying I think this is the typical Christian, I certainly dont...but I think its much more common then Knoell would ever admit.
bread's done