kwassa's Journal - Archives
"I view everyone - no matter their color or orientation bigoted if they vote to take away rights from anyone... "
This is a common saying here on DU, but it is not an accurate discription of bigotry, because the vote itself tells nothing about the mindset of the individual voters.
First, this is what bigotry is:
A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.
The problem is this: To know if any single voter is bigoted, you must know the beliefs of each voter in regards to other groups. The vote alone does not reveal that, and to call someone bigoted without knowing that is a form of prejudice in and of itself. The word "prejudice" literally means to pre-judge.
There could be different reasons for black voters to vote in favor of Prop 8, which I stated multiple times over in the threads in the other forum. One reason is a socially conservative attitude about marriage, as many African-Americans are socially conservative. Another could be that they didn't know or realize that they were taking away rights from others, as the argument had never been made to them, due to little contact between the gay communities and the black communities. I think there is little interaction between the two communities, by and large, and there is a lot of cultural myopia on both sides. Some voters may have thought that they were voting in favor of their traditional concept of marriage of being one man and one woman, a concept that has been around many hundreds of years. This is compared to the relatively new phenomenon of same sex marriage, which the black voters probably haven't even thought about much yet because they've had little reason to, unless they are gay.
And some voters may simply be bigots. Whatever their reasons, without knowing those reasons one can not call them bigoted as a group without exhibiting bigotry oneself, in my opinion, as their motivations and beliefs cannot be ASSUMED. You have to ask them to find out why they voted the way they voted, and no one has done that, as far as I can tell. The mad angry rush to judge these voters was quite frightening and revealing, unfortunately.
"gay is the new black" is not a good analogy.
The types of oppression that both groups have suffered are quite different, from a historical point of view. The very valid arguments for gay marriage do not need to rest on this comparison, other than the basic recognition that separate is not equal, a lesson well learned from 100 years of Jim Crow separation of blacks and whites. There is no way that separate can be equal, and we now have the history to prove it.
I think this argument needs to be presented over and over again, that separate is not equal, in the reasoning for rejecting civil unions in favor of full marriage rights, before the entire American public. This argument has traction.
"Gay is the new black" suggests that the black struggle for equality and equity is over, and I don't think that most black people would agree with that, despite Obama's victory. The use of this as a slogan will have the net effect of alienating potential black supporters, I think, as if the unique history of their struggle has become co-opted. The gay struggle for rights is also unique and compelling, but it is a different story and needs to rest within it's own uniqueness, and not rest on other struggles that have great dissimilarities.
Posted by kwassa in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri May 16th 2008, 10:16 PM
Each side has it's irrational extreme, and many of them seem to participate on DU.
Just kidding. But, not too much.
These Hillary supporters going to McCain represent a tiny segment of the electorate. They do this out of deep anger, but they are not a significant force.
I don't think there is a claim that Clinton represents all women, but Clinton being treated in a sexist fashion DOES represent all women, regardless of her candidacy. Working women relate to the abuse she has received, as they have received it themselves.
There have been some really sexist treatment of Hillary, and it comes directly from a media that would never dream of doing the same thing racially. The consciousness is much higher in the media with race than it is with gender issues. This campaign really has revealed this point.
Dislike Hillary individually all you want. No woman should be required to receive the sexual insults, though, be it Hillary or ANY other women in politics, regardless of politics. I get angry at the treatment of Condi Rice on DU, as much as I disagree with her about everything politically. Criticize them in the correct areas; policy and leadership.
Why is Booker's statement powerful? Because you agree with it?
"Slavery was one of the worst mass crimes ever perpetrated on a people, but black people in America are better off than black people anywhere else in the world. And that's a fact."
How do you know that? How do you know that black Americans have it better than black people anywhere else in the world? I like to see you substantiate this bizarre assertion. What proof?
and if slavery is a great crime, what is it's blessing to those slaves???????
and this topper:
"Reparations would involve taking money from people who didn't own slaves and paying it to people who weren't slaves. That crime would be as egregious as the one that was taken against any member of the black race."
I see. Taking money from someone is as big a crime as whipping, beating, kidnapping, selling, working to death, raping, murdering.
You have both a sense of proportion and a great grasp of logic.
or much else about slavery. Jim Crow refers to the repressive laws and practices that disenfranchised blacks from their newly-won rights in the period directly after the Civil War and kept them disenfranchised right up to the 1960s civil rights marches.
These laws kept blacks from voting, enforced segregation in jobs and housing, prevented blacks from getting mortgage assistance from the US government, excluded blacks from colleges and universities, thereby preventing blacks from both getting good educations and from acquiring personal wealth.
We still have the effects of that legacy today.
The IMPACT of four hundred years of slavery and discrimination are STILL WITH US. Anyone who thinks it ended with the end of slavery, or that the descendants were also not affected by discriminatory practices that followed need to study the history of their own country. It wasn't only the slaves who were robbed of their futures; their descendants were, too.
edit to add:
There are many LIVING African-Americans who personally suffered the lack of opportunity presented under segregation. They were also prevented from passing on any inherited wealth or opportunity to their own children, like middle-class and higher income whites can, because they never had the opportunity to join the middle-class.
Posted by kwassa in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Mar 15th 2008, 05:39 PM
I hate that expression. Unless we are blind, we see color, and anyone who says otherwise is LYING.
Now, seeing color does not mean that we judge by color. That is something else.
Most churches in this country are still segregated, though, because that is also a legacy of hundreds of years of segregation. Blacks had to often create whole new denominations in order to worship at all.
And an inner-city Chicago church will reflect it's local demographic, which is a black neighborhood. So sit on your high diverse horse, the reality is that you are parochial in your church knowledge. Going to church with people of color doesn't mean you know anything about them in any serious way.
There is no bottom limit to how low someone will crawl to be on television. Some will do absolutely anything just to be on t.v.
Law # 2.
No show is too stupid for people to watch. The lower the show panders, the more likely many will watch.
I am reminded once again of why I ignore you so much.
"So you disagree with the site whose link you provided as a way to show me you're right."
I don't disagree with the site. That is your blatant misrepresentation. How surprising.
They offer their own definition of Christianity within their recognition that a huge variety of defintions of Christianity exist. That is the central point that has sailed right by you, that many different definitions exist for the term Christianity. I put that point in bold type so that you might be able to get it. Do you get it?
I happen to agree with a different definition within their list than the one that the site owners accept as their best definition of Christianity.
and the day you can win an argument with me will see major snow drifts in Miami.
Faith comes from belief grounded in experience. I have faith that the staircase I walk down won't collapse. The belief develops from the experience itself. I believe that staircases generally don't collapse, after walking down many, many staircases. Now, I could be wrong, and pick an old rotted staircase that does collapse, but I probably will be able to see that, as well. If someone built a trick staircase designed to collapse, then I would definitely be wrong.
But, generally, my faith is well-placed, and very rational.
I believe in God for the same reason. I have had a direct spiritual experience of the divine, which I believe to be a true experience. I could be wrong, but the characteristics of the experience that I have had are pretty much identical to what I've read and heard of the experiences of others who feel they've experienced the divine. Now, we might all be wrong, and suffering from mass delusions, but it is fascinating that a belief in God or gods, or some concept of the divine, or that-which-is-greater, is a very universal human experience found at all times and in all cultures. That also indicates to me that there is a great truth involved here. I think it highly rational to give this experience value, if such experiences are so wide-spread and characteristic of ourselves as humans.
Obama has supported and given a platform to a BIGOT after he has stated publicly that he will not.
He has not repudiated this bigotry in any way, shape or form: silence implies consent.
"Mr. McClurkin is the preacher who had said he was gay but was “cured” through prayer and tonight he was the star act in a parade of star acts, which included the Mighty Clouds.
His inclusion had drawn public criticism from gay activists who wanted Mr. Obama to cancel his appearance. Mr. Obama did not, but issued a statement a few days ago saying he strongly disagrees with Mr. McClurkin’s views and that he has tried to address what he called the homophobia among some black voters."
So, you are wrong on this point, aren't you?
Speculation: will he take bigotry to the endpoint that it may be taken considering the circumstances.
WHERE did you see that I said He WILL do ANYTHING?
This is REALLY getting boring. Will you please read the damned thing VERY CAREFULLY before gundecking it through your emotions?
You need to think before you type! Aside from bigoted, your OP is completely illogical.
1) You have no proof of any bigoted action on the part of Obama.
2) You make the fascinating presumption that using "the race card" is an act of bigotry. That in itself is a bigoted remark. There are many completely valid uses of race where racism is involved. To either assume or presume a black politician will play a race card shows prejudice on your part, in my opinion. You SUGGEST that he will do it; it is implied by your SPECULATION. Your ONLY reason to speculate that is that Obama is black; hence, it is a bigoted comment.
3) Your "endpoint" makes no sense. If he was a bigot, which he is not, why would play this so-called "race card" in the first place? What in the world would it do but destroy his candidacy? And why would he do that?
Obama has made his support of the gay community quite clear in previous statements. I suggest the emotional reponse is on your part.
first you say:
Edit: That is, if I provided an example that contradicts your statement, would you change your mind and retract the statement or would you cling doggedly to your misconception and ignore contradictory evidence?
you offered to provide an example.
I asked you to provide such an example, which you proceed to avoid with the following statement.
If facts are not sufficient to convince you, there is no point in presenting facts.
This indicates to me rather clearly that you have no example, and are now attempting to duck the question altogether.
Then you jump into diversion to avoid the trap you set for yourself.
And you have yet to present any evidence to support your contention. When you show me something other than your opinion, I will consider the need to present a contradiction. But if all you are going on is your opinion, I see no reason to discuss it further. It's just your opinion, not fact.
One of the false arguments you raise now, and have raised in the past, is that it is "only an opinion". This is your way of avoiding an argument you are unprepared for.
Opinions are both based on facts, and on belief, sometimes substantial facts, sometimes not. Most viewpoints in life are opinions, including yours, and that is precisely what we discuss here in all these forums. Our opinions. Some opinions are close to the truth, if not the truth itself, while at the other extreme they are based in complete fantasy of wishful thinking.
My opinion about the behavior of dogmatic people are based on a lifetime of human observation, and a knowledge of human psychology. You can reject my observations, and my opinions ...
BUT ... if you reject anything BECAUSE it is an opinion, you might as well walk away from DU and any other forum around. You will have to reject your own opinions, as well, because, after all, your opinion is only an opinion.
Choose a type from the list below, or from other lists
Main Entry: ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&ns, -"dens
Etymology: Medieval Latin evidentia, from Latin, that which is obvious, from evident- evidens clear, obvious, from e- out of, from + videns, present participle of videre to see
: something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof; especially : something (as testimony, writings, or objects) presented at a judicial or administrative proceeding for the purpose of establishing the truth or falsity of an alleged matter of fact —see also ADMISSIBLE, BEST EVIDENCE RULE, EXCLUSIONARY RULE, EXHIBIT, FOUNDATION, OBJECTION,, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, RELEVANT, SCINTILLA, STATE'S EVIDENCE, SUPPRESS, TESTIMONY, WITNESS Federal Rules of Evidence in the IMPORTANT LAWS section —compare ALLEGATION,ARGUMENT, PROOF
: evidence that is the most reliable and most direct in relationship to what it is offered to prove —see also BEST EVIDENCE RULE
: evidence of a particular human trait (as honesty or peacefulness) of a party or witness —see also character witness at WITNESS
NOTE: Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, character evidence generally may not be used to prove that a person acted in accordance with that character. It is admissible for that purpose, however, if a criminal defendant offers it about himself or herself or about the victim, or if the prosecution offers evidence to rebut the defendant's evidence in either of those circumstances. The prosecution may also rebut a claim of self-defense by presenting evidence of the peaceful character of the victim. Additionally, the character of a witness with regard to truthfulness may be attacked or supported by opinion or by evidence of reputation.
: evidence that tends to prove a factual matter by proving other events or circumstances from which the occurrence of the matter at issue can be reasonably inferred —compare DIRECT EVIDENCE in this entry
clear and convincing evidence
: evidence showing a high probability of truth of the factual matter at issue —compare PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, REASONABLE DOUBT
: TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE in this entry
: evidence that is admissible, relevant, and material to the factual matter at issue
: evidence that is independent of and different from but that supplements and strengthens evidence already presented as proof of a factual matter called also corroborative evidence —compare
CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE in this entry
: evidence that is of the same kind as evidence already offered as proof of the same factual matter —compare CORROBORATING EVIDENCE in this entry
: evidence in the form of objects (as maps, diagrams, or models) that has in itself no probative value but is used to illustrate and clarify the factual matter at issue; broadly : PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in this entry called also illustrative evidence
: evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful gathering of primary evidence called also indirect evidence secondary evidence —see also FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE
: evidence that if believed immediately establishes the factual matter to be proved by it without the need for inferences; especially : evidence of a factual matter offered by a witness whose knowledge of the matter was obtained through the use of his or her senses (as sight or hearing) —compare CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE in this entry
evidence in chief
: evidence that is to be used by a party in making its case in chief
: evidence that tends to clear a defendant from fault or guilt —see also BRADY MATERIAL
NOTE: The prosecution in a criminal case is obligated to disclose to the defense any exculpatory evidence in its possession.
1 : evidence regarding an agreement that is not included in the written version of the agreement
NOTE: A court may use extrinsic evidence to make sense of an ambiguity in a writing subject to some limitations.
2 : evidence about a witness's character obtained from the testimony of other witnesses rather than from cross-examination of the witness himself or herself
NOTE: A witness may not be impeached by the use of extrinsic evidence.
: a statement made out of court and not under oath and offered in evidence as proof that what is stated is true : HEARSAYil·lus·tra·tive evidence
: DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE in this entry
: evidence that may be used to impeach a witness because it tends to harm the witness's credibility
: DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE in this entryintrinsic evidence
: evidence that exists within a writing <the will contains ample intrinsic evidence of the testator's intent —Stoner v. Custer, 251 North Eastern Reporter, Second Series 668 (1968)> —compare EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE in this entry
: evidence that is likely to affect the determination of a matter or issue; specifically : evidence that warrants reopening of a claim or reversal of a conviction because but for the circumstance that the evidence was unavailable the outcome of the first proceeding would have been different
: evidence presented that is insufficient to prove a matter of esp. vital fact : a point of error that insufficient evidence has been presented to support a finding
: evidence of matters spoken (as an oral agreement) that are related to but not included in a writing —see also PAROL EVIDENCE RULE
: tangible evidence (as a weapon, document, or visible injury) that is in some way related to the incident that gave rise to the case called also real evidence —compare DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE and, TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE in this entry
: PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE in this entry
prima facie evidence
: evidence that is sufficient to prove a factual matter at issue and justify a favorable judgment on that issue unless rebutted
1 : BEST EVIDENCE in this entry
2 : evidence obtained as a direct result of an unlawful searchre·al vidence
: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in this entry
: evidence that tends to refute or discredit an opponent's evidence
: evidence that tends to prove or disprove any issue of fact that is of consequence to the case
: DERIVATIVE EVIDENCE in this entry
: evidence greater than a scintilla of evidence that a reasonable person would find sufficient to support a conclusion
: evidence offered to prove a factual issue rather than merely for impeachment
: evidence given in writing or speech or in another way that expresses the person's thoughts —compare PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in this entry
NOTE: Only testimonial evidence is protected by the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.—in evidence : as evidence <introduced a letter in evidence>
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
The catch: You can't use your own interpretation of the Bible to answer number 2. To do so immediately defaults to the fallacy of circular reasoning.
No, it doesn't. There is no logical reason I can't use MY interpretation of the Bible to say that the right-wingers are wrong. None, whatsoever. There is nothing circular in this! It is simply textual and contextual analysis of my own, and of many others, for that matter.
Unless you can fault my precise reasoning in terms of the Bible, you have nothing, which, AFAIC, is exactly what you have. Citing a logical fallacy does not make it a fallacy. There is no circularity in this, except for an external structure you attempt to impose on it. This tactic is usually done to avoid looking at the real arguments, IMHO.
"Circular reasoning is the practice of assuming something, in order to prove the very thing that you assumed. In Logic-speak, you assume that proposition A is true, and use that premise (directly or indirectly) to prove that proposition A is true. This is one of many logical fallacies that routinely get used in heated arguments, and is actually a special case of the fallacy of false assumptions."
There is no assumption involved. There is interpretation involved, which is an activity of study and analysis, which brings about a conclusion which is most definitely not an assumption at all. I never assumed from the outset that I knew something was true.
Therefore, no fallacy, because there is no application. Interpretation is not assumption. Get it?
and I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "angst".
Your line of reasoning is illogical, and I have pointed out why, in a clear and direct way.
The conservative Christians appear to many to be uncontested in the public arena due to the seeming silence of liberal and moderate Christians.
Talk to the media about that. Liberals and moderates are not quiet at all. There are many websites that attest to their views and activities. We can't make the media listen to us.
NonChristians do not have a responsibility to explore Christianity.
NonChristians do have a right to speak out against intolerance and hatred.
If the differences between liberal and conservative Christianity is not voiced in the public arena then it should not be expected that those being oppressed should know that there is a difference between liberal and conservative Christian beliefs.
Wrong, for the reasons pointed out before. It is YOUR responsibility to become educated on something you wish to criticize. It is one thing to criticize oppression, and anyone should do that towards whoever individually oppresses them. If you with to criticize a vast religion based on the actions of a few, then it is your reponsibility to become educated about that religion, rather than to smear many with the actions of a few. Otherwise, you are engaging in predjudice and bigotry.
Don't try to make an excuse for ignorance.
is that this is an old idea that comes up in this forum over and over again. It was false the first time, it is false now. You may have missed the previous editions of this oft-recycled idea.
If an offensive idea less offensive if it is said politely?
You and Okasha do a great job of feeding the perception to atheists that liberal Christians, or liberal whatever you claim to be, don't mind the fundies as much as the stupid stuff that is said about Christianity here in R/T.
In a sense you are correct, because to me, intelligent, educated progressives should know better than to say such stupid stuff. I expect fundies to be ignorant, it goes with the territory, but I don't expect it from DUers.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
St. Nicholas Day. I want a present!
By No Elephants
Warren: I'm not running for President.
By No Elephants
Newest recruits in the war on seniors, widows, orphans and the disabled: PBS and Charlie Rose
By No Elephants
Why should anyone but billionaires be able to view art in person
By No Elephants
Obamacare offers more goodies for insurers
By No Elephants
NYC train derailment airs queries about technology
By No Elephants
Paging Leopold's Ghost and NYC_SKP
By No Elephants
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.