Post by: vivalarevolución on Thu, 19 November 2015, 15:59:26
EDIT: Am I condemning entire categories of people by calling them xenophobes?
Post by: SpAmRaY on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:02:00
Post by: jdcarpe on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:04:27
Post by: SpAmRaY on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:07:14
I recognize the humanity in all people...and want to kill it. I'm for fewer people, generally. Can we bomb some more people, please? There are way too many people already.
It's time we try out some of those lower power nuclear bombs.
Post by: nubbinator on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:07:54
Post by: jdcarpe on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:08:31
Yes, that's a good idea. Get rid of lots of people at once that way. And then no one will mess with you, because, you know, nukes.I recognize the humanity in all people...and want to kill it. I'm for fewer people, generally. Can we bomb some more people, please? There are way too many people already.
It's time we try out some of those lower power nuclear bombs.
Post by: katushkin on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:08:49
People are stupid.
Post by: Air tree on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:08:49
As long as we don't discriminate, then I'm fine, Nuclear bombs for everyone!I recognize the humanity in all people...and want to kill it. I'm for fewer people, generally. Can we bomb some more people, please? There are way too many people already.
It's time we try out some of those lower power nuclear bombs.
Post by: Bromono on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:10:37
Yes, that's a good idea. Get rid of lots of people at once that way. And then no one will mess with you, because, you know, nukes.I recognize the humanity in all people...and want to kill it. I'm for fewer people, generally. Can we bomb some more people, please? There are way too many people already.
It's time we try out some of those lower power nuclear bombs.
Warheads on foreheads?
In light the Paris terrorist attacks, the xenophobes are coming out of the woodwork. I'm not sure if I should ignore them or attempt to engage in an enlightening discussion to encourage them to realize the humanity in all people, rather than condemn entire categories of people. Or perhaps try a different strategy.
Unfortunately the only way to this is to change the culture. and the only way to change the culture is to get rid of the people that are preaching the culture in the first place.
Post by: katushkin on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:11:28
Unfortunately the only way to this is to change the culture. and the only way to change the culture is to get rid of the people that are preaching the culture in the first place.
And then you become the problem you are trying to remove.
Post by: jdcarpe on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:12:19
No, no. That's not quite it. I want to get rid of others, while keeping myself intact. So, we need to be the ones doing the nuking, not them.As long as we don't discriminate, then I'm fine, Nuclear bombs for everyone!I recognize the humanity in all people...and want to kill it. I'm for fewer people, generally. Can we bomb some more people, please? There are way too many people already.
It's time we try out some of those lower power nuclear bombs.
Post by: Bromono on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:15:04
Unfortunately the only way to this is to change the culture. and the only way to change the culture is to get rid of the people that are preaching the culture in the first place.
And then you become the problem you are trying to remove.
mmm I see removing the people who use religion to push political agendas and to suppress basic human rights as a necessity.
Slapping their hands and putting them in time-out does nothing.
Case and Point: Putin
Cold War 2 is right around the corner my friends.
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:15:57
There are way too many people already.
There is no avoiding this fact. A good human population for this planet is probably <1B. Maybe way less than.
Post by: demik on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:18:52
Post by: jdcarpe on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:22:01
Let's get rid of Florida then Texas. Great starting points.See? demik hates me and wants to kill me, just because I live in Texas. So I have to kill him preemptively, to protect myself. Now I'm a racist xenophobe, just because I need to kill demik.
Post by: demik on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:23:55
isn't life great?Let's get rid of Florida then Texas. Great starting points.See? demik hates me and wants to kill me, just because I live in Texas. So I have to kill him preemptively, to protect myself. Now I'm a racist xenophobe, just because I need to kill demik.
you guys dont even know what race i am tho OuO
Post by: azhdar on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:26:26
If he's stupid enough to think that every muslim is a jihadist or a bomber.
Ask him if every latinos is a cartel member?
If every black person is a somalian pirate?
If every white is a KKK member?
Then (assuming he's a white idiot) reminds him some white history : Slave Trade, cruisades, slaughter of the natives, atomic bombs, ...
Post by: nubbinator on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:42:42
Let's get rid of Florida then Texas. Great starting points.
Texans were surprisingly accepting when I went there for undergrad. Seattle was far more racist than Texas was, in my experience. They're white middle/upper class liberals there, meaning they focus on marijuana decriminalization, gay marriage, clean energy, and other yuppie **** without caring about the poor or institutional racism and would actively comment that we were in a post-racial society and that institutional racism did not exist. I constantly called out that BS when I was there, but most people seem fine with it. There are exceptions, of course, but they were less common. Most the Texans I knew who had any racism did so out of ignorance and were quick to change when called out. Many of them recognized institutional racism too, but, IMO, they were ignorant about how to fix it and lauded the free market as a way to correct it. And those who were racist and wouldn't change were at least open and honest about it.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:46:51
Post by: hudson0804 on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:49:14
I read someone say that love forgives all. Whether I believe that or not is not relevant here. However I do believe that an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.
As the majority of you are American are you not concerned that you end up being labelled as war mongers looking to profit from these wars. As I Brit I feel disappointed with my country for our behaviour towards the Iraqis and the lengths we went to destabilise the country - which ultimately resulted in the now so called Isis and the strengthening of the taliban.
More to the topic I try to avoid and ignore toxic people. The worlds bad enough already.
Post by: heedpantsnow on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:51:24
Fighting violence with violence will only result in violence.
I read someone say that love forgives all. Whether I believe that or not is not relevant here. However I do believe that an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.
As the majority of you are American are you not concerned that you end up being labelled as war mongers looking to profit from these wars. As I Brit I feel disappointed with my country for our behaviour towards the Iraqis and the lengths we went to destabilise the country - which ultimately resulted in the now so called Isis and the strengthening of the taliban.
More to the topic I try to avoid and ignore toxic people. The worlds bad enough already.
"However I do believe that an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind. "
Never heard that before; I think it is a keen observation.
Post by: nubbinator on Thu, 19 November 2015, 16:53:47
21st century's biggest irony? The people who push tolerance and being "enlightened" are the same people who make fun of others for not being like them.
Disagree. You can have bigotry on both sides of the fence. The recent "Social Justice Warrior" movement is a prime example of bigoted and intolerant people on the extreme left. You can push for tolerance and acceptance and condemn ignorance and bigotry in the same breath, but you have to be willing to engage people in dialog and let their voice be heard. If you are not willing to engage in a dialog and have a reasoned discussion with someone where you can walk away still respecting them even while fundamentally disagreeing with them, you are no more tolerant or enlightened than the most resolute and close minded of people.
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 19 November 2015, 17:05:38
If you are not willing to engage in a dialog and have a reasoned discussion with someone where you can walk away still respecting them even while fundamentally disagreeing with them,
This is where I fall down.
After engaging in a discussion with someone who is an ignorant idiot, I often walk away with less respect for them than before.
My little brother is a climate denier, warmonger, ever more "religious" as time goes by, and, naturally, a rabid Republican.
I have only had 1 face-to-face conversation with him in almost 3 years. I don't know which breaks my heart more: missing him or engaging him.
Post by: nubbinator on Thu, 19 November 2015, 17:16:14
If you are not willing to engage in a dialog and have a reasoned discussion with someone where you can walk away still respecting them even while fundamentally disagreeing with them,
This is where I fall down.
After engaging in a discussion with someone who is an ignorant idiot, I often walk away with less respect for them than before.
My little brother is a climate denier, warmonger, ever more "religious" as time goes by, and, naturally, a rabid Republican.
I have only had 1 face-to-face conversation with him in almost 3 years. I don't know which breaks my heart more: missing him or engaging him.
Well, if you can't walk away without coming to some sort of a agreement, then you never truly engaged in a dialog. True dialog relies upon both parties being willing to change and to back their beliefs. If one party walks in with an open mind and the other walks in with a closed mind and argues from ignorance without evidence, they are a fool and you should lose respect for them. Someone who can back up their beliefs with logic or evidence, regardless of how much I fundamentally disagree with them, is someone I can respect.
Post by: Photekq on Thu, 19 November 2015, 17:24:19
Post by: vivalarevolución on Thu, 19 November 2015, 17:26:51
What do you classify as 'xenophobic'? What kind of things are people coming out with?
All Muslims are potentially violent.
All Syrians refugees should be rejected from the United States.
We should bomb the entire Middle East and start over.
Post by: vivalarevolución on Thu, 19 November 2015, 17:39:12
Fighting violence with violence will only result in violence.
I read someone say that love forgives all. Whether I believe that or not is not relevant here. However I do believe that an eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.
As the majority of you are American are you not concerned that you end up being labelled as war mongers looking to profit from these wars. As I Brit I feel disappointed with my country for our behaviour towards the Iraqis and the lengths we went to destabilise the country - which ultimately resulted in the now so called Isis and the strengthening of the taliban.
More to the topic I try to avoid and ignore toxic people. The worlds bad enough already.
I believe that love and acceptance is the basis and of solutions to many of the world's conflicts, whether it is individual or widespread. But love takes conscientiousness and deliberate effort, that is for sure.
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 19 November 2015, 17:40:19
Well, if you can't walk away without coming to some sort of a agreement, then you never truly engaged in a dialog.
True dialog relies upon both parties being willing to change and to back their beliefs.
Someone who can back up their beliefs with logic or evidence, regardless of how much I fundamentally disagree with them, is someone I can respect.
Under that definition, "true" dialog is impossible on questions with incompatible and irreconcilable differences. Abortion rights, for example.
The leader of the "Islamic State" holds a PhD in religious studies and would consider himself to have superior "knowledge and information" to 99.9% of the rest of the people on the planet. Did you read this article that has been cited recently:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Post by: vivalarevolución on Thu, 19 November 2015, 17:50:32
Under that definition, "true" dialog is impossible on questions with incompatible and irreconcilable differences. Abortion rights, for example.
The leader of the "Islamic State" holds a PhD in religious studies and would consider himself to have superior "knowledge and information" to 99.9% of the rest of the people on the planet. Did you read this article that has been cited recently:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
What's the accreditation of that university that gave him a PhD? I'm contacting the regional accreditation organization of that university.
Post by: jdcarpe on Thu, 19 November 2015, 17:51:19
I believe that love and acceptance is the basis and of solutions to many of the world's conflicts, whether it is individual or widespread. But love takes conscientiousness and deliberate effort, that is for sure.
Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, *****, you knew I was a snake."
Post by: vivalarevolución on Thu, 19 November 2015, 17:54:34
I believe that love and acceptance is the basis and of solutions to many of the world's conflicts, whether it is individual or widespread. But love takes conscientiousness and deliberate effort, that is for sure.
Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, *****, you knew I was a snake."
It's a theory, I'm doing research at the moment.
And that snake wasn't full of love. If it was, it would not have killed the woman. Therefore, love would have prevented this scenario.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 19 November 2015, 17:56:27
They are doing what's in THEIR ability to be risk-adverse.. So they are doing precisely what they should be doing.. Regardless of how Racist/xenophobic it appears to be..
Now, YOU, as 1 person, can not possibly have the resources to engage enough of the under-educated masses to make any difference..
We can only wait until THEIR children goes to school, If these adult / parents are xenophobic at a late age, it's already too late to educate them further..
Post by: nubbinator on Thu, 19 November 2015, 18:04:05
More
Well, if you can't walk away without coming to some sort of a agreement, then you never truly engaged in a dialog.
True dialog relies upon both parties being willing to change and to back their beliefs.
Someone who can back up their beliefs with logic or evidence, regardless of how much I fundamentally disagree with them, is someone I can respect.
Under that definition, "true" dialog is impossible on questions with incompatible and irreconcilable differences. Abortion rights, for example.
The leader of the "Islamic State" holds a PhD in religious studies and would consider himself to have superior "knowledge and information" to 99.9% of the rest of the people on the planet. Did you read this article that has been cited recently:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
An agreement can be something as little as agreeing that both sides have well reasoned points, even if you both walk away in disagreement on the core discussion. You do not have to come to a mutually agreed upon conclusion, but you do have to come to some sort of agreement or compromise. The problem with the abortion debate is that most who debate it are zealots. A zealot is someone you can rarely have a dialog with.
Does that leader have an open mind that is willing to be changed? I doubt it. I know many intellectuals who do not have open minds. I saw a ton of that in grad school and it was a huge point of contention for me since I believe it's intellectually dishonest.
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 19 November 2015, 18:04:07
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 19 November 2015, 18:07:40
The problem with the abortion debate is that most who debate it are zealots.
Since the dawn of history, birth and death have been the "bookends" of life.
Anti-abortion advocates are attempting to change one of the fundamental understandings of what it is to be "alive"
Post by: nubbinator on Thu, 19 November 2015, 18:32:52
The problem with the abortion debate is that most who debate it are zealots.
Since the dawn of history, birth and death have been the "bookends" of life.
Anti-abortion advocates are attempting to change one of the fundamental understandings of what it is to be "alive"
It's off topic, but can you clearly state when life begins? How do you define it? Death is, typically, easier to define, but where does life begin? I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I don't struggle with that issue.
That's where I tend to put the zealotry element in play, those who are adamant that they can give an exact time for when a life becomes a life rather than acknowledging that the discussion is more nuanced.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 19 November 2015, 19:06:30
The problem with the abortion debate is that most who debate it are zealots.
Since the dawn of history, birth and death have been the "bookends" of life.
Anti-abortion advocates are attempting to change one of the fundamental understandings of what it is to be "alive"
It's off topic, but can you clearly state when life begins? How do you define it? Death is, typically, easier to define, but where does life begin? I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I don't struggle with that issue.
That's where I tend to put the zealotry element in play, those who are adamant that they can give an exact time for when a life becomes a life rather than acknowledging that the discussion is more nuanced.
The tough call here, is when the cost to recreational sex, which is no different than a drug, is aborted fetuses..
That's really the only moral dilemma we're wrestling with..
and ALL moral dilemmas are fundamentally the Human thwarting of evolutionary propagation, by the use of "intellect"..
So, while abortions may be a smart decision, it is fundamentally an expense..
Some consider this expense too high.... (the zealots)..
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 19 November 2015, 19:06:43
can you clearly state when life begins?
Death is, typically, easier to define,
Until the recent brou-ha-ha began, a baby was considered to have been successfully "born" when he ("/she" being unnecessary modern politically correct terminology since a woman is a female man, since "man" is the species here (when my kids were small my standing joke when they got into this "not man .... since she is a woman" was to ask them whether a "man-eating-shark" would eat a woman) but I digress into nested digressions) drew his first breath.
Lung development and the simple ability to breathe air is generally the limiting factor that decides when a fetus is viable outside the womb, and this normally occurs in the mid-late-20-week period (a close friend was a neo-natal nurse for some years).
Abortion opponents love to crow about when a proto-heart starts to "beat" at some milestone of very few days or weeks and that this is a "sign of life" but if you apply similar standards at the other end of the scale - brain-dead "living" corpse hearts can be kept beating almost indefinitely by simple machines.
If the "life" standard is based on brain activity rather than heart activity, as is often applied to the "brain-dead" at the ends of their lives, then the first "blip" of brain activity shows up in the fetus around that same mid-late-20-week mark that begins the consolidation of lung tissue. But what is a "blip"? What can this "thing" that has never opened its eyes "know" or "feel" or "think" without any real life experiences?
Personally, I regard any argument concerning the "quickening" of "personhood" before lung development and the most rudimentary brain activity to be patently absurd.
Between that point and actual birth, when the development of the fetus has reached higher levels but birth has not yet occurred, then there may be some point of discussion. But ridiculous crap like trying a killer of an 8-month-pregnant woman for 2 murders instead of 1 is just stupid.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 19 November 2015, 19:10:59
can you clearly state when life begins?
Death is, typically, easier to define,
Until the recent brou-ha-ha began, a baby was considered to have been successfully "born" when he ("/she" being unnecessary modern politically correct terminology since a woman is a female man, since "man" is the species here (when my kids were small my standing joke when they got into this "not man .... since she is a woman" was to ask them whether a "man-eating-shark" would eat a woman) but I digress into nested digressions) drew his first breath.
Lung development and the simple ability to breathe air is generally the limiting factor that decides when a fetus is viable outside the womb, and this normally occurs in the mid-late-20-week period (a close friend was a neo-natal nurse for some years).
Abortion opponents love to crow about when a proto-heart starts to "beat" at some milestone of very few days or weeks and that this is a "sign of life" but if you apply similar standards at the other end of the scale - brain-dead "living" corpse hearts can be kept beating almost indefinitely by simple machines.
If the "life" standard is based on brain activity rather than heart activity, as is often applied to the "brain-dead" at the ends of their lives, then the first "blip" of brain activity shows up in the fetus around that same mid-late-20-week mark that begins the consolidation of lung tissue. But what is a "blip"? What can this "thing" that has never opened its eyes "know" or "feel" or "think" without any real life experiences?
Personally, I regard any argument concerning the "quickening" of "personhood" before lung development and the most rudimentary brain activity to be patently absurd.
Between that point and actual birth, when the development of the fetus has reached higher levels but birth has not yet occurred, then there may be some point of discussion. But ridiculous crap like trying a killer of an 8-month-pregnant woman for 2 murders instead of 1 is just stupid.
The people with agendas (the politicians) chain together the people with (nothing-better-to-do), for publicity..
Doesn't matter if they outlaw abortion, if someone decides to have one, without or without permission, they're gonna do it.. and it's really NOT THAT HARD..
who's gonna police this exactly.. what could you possibly do to prevent intentional miscarriages.. NOT a damn thing.
all discussions of ethics and the grammatical principle of life goes out the window, when comes the hard fact, She can't afford to raise the thing.
Post by: billnye on Thu, 19 November 2015, 19:17:47
Well said nubs.21st century's biggest irony? The people who push tolerance and being "enlightened" are the same people who make fun of others for not being like them.
Disagree. You can have bigotry on both sides of the fence. The recent "Social Justice Warrior" movement is a prime example of bigoted and intolerant people on the extreme left. You can push for tolerance and acceptance and condemn ignorance and bigotry in the same breath, but you have to be willing to engage people in dialog and let their voice be heard. If you are not willing to engage in a dialog and have a reasoned discussion with someone where you can walk away still respecting them even while fundamentally disagreeing with them, you are no more tolerant or enlightened than the most resolute and close minded of people.
I like a quote from the governor of Alabama regarding the migrants:
"My heart says that we should let these people in simply because they are fighting ISIS and have been displaced by ISIS," Bentley said. "My head says that I have to protect the people of the state of Alabama and keep them secure."
Don't see why we should take the risk if we don't need to. Allowing ~10,00 of them to come to our country is not going to stop the problems that are causing them to leave their home in the first place. An update on our foreign policy would be much more worthwhile.
Post by: Melvang on Thu, 19 November 2015, 19:26:23
You have to understand... People who are not well educated, do not have the capacity to properly evaluate "Risk",
Wrong again here Tp. Do you read your posts back to yourself before you post?
This statement couldnt be farther from the truth. I know many people with college degrees that will never legally drive in their life due to multiple DUIs. Yet myself as an example haven't been pulled over or in a car accident since 2003 ish. And I am a high school dropout that couldn't manage to pass a single English or social studies class throughout 4 years of high school.
Try again to.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 19 November 2015, 19:35:51
You have to understand... People who are not well educated, do not have the capacity to properly evaluate "Risk",
Wrong again here Tp. Do you read your posts back to yourself before you post?
This statement couldnt be farther from the truth. I know many people with college degrees that will never legally drive in their life due to multiple DUIs. Yet myself as an example haven't been pulled over or in a car accident since 2003 ish. And I am a high school dropout that couldn't manage to pass a single English or social studies class throughout 4 years of high school.
Try again to.
Mel, you are not evaluating my words properly..
Educated, can mean many things.. It doesn't have to be college.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 19 November 2015, 19:38:08
It's not my intention to paint anyone by pieces of paper..
I only see them by their choices..
Post by: fohat.digs on Thu, 19 November 2015, 19:38:54
Educated, can mean many things.
It doesn't have to be college.
True that.
http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm
Post by: Melvang on Thu, 19 November 2015, 19:48:00
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 19 November 2015, 20:08:34
I apologize guys. I had a different interpretation on "educated". I was taking it as formal education, vs what I would call intelligence for what you guys are referring to. But this could be due to my lack of engrish edumacashun.
So, like, we're cool ?
You'd still buy Tp4 keycaps when they come out?
(http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/onion-head/embarrassed2-onion-head-emoticon.gif?1292862502)
Post by: Melvang on Thu, 19 November 2015, 20:10:18
I apologize guys. I had a different interpretation on "educated". I was taking it as formal education, vs what I would call intelligence for what you guys are referring to. But this could be due to my lack of engrish edumacashun.
So, like, we're cool ?
You'd still buy Tp4 keycaps when they come out?Show Image(http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/onion-head/embarrassed2-onion-head-emoticon.gif?1292862502)
Only in buckling springs flavor but yeah.
Post by: tp4tissue on Thu, 19 November 2015, 20:13:14
I apologize guys. I had a different interpretation on "educated". I was taking it as formal education, vs what I would call intelligence for what you guys are referring to. But this could be due to my lack of engrish edumacashun.
So, like, we're cool ?
You'd still buy Tp4 keycaps when they come out?Show Image(http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/onion-head/embarrassed2-onion-head-emoticon.gif?1292862502)
Only in buckling springs flavor but yeah.
hahaha..
Mx-first
Topre- IDK, not sure I should support EVIL..
Buckling.. um... this will be tough, since i'd have to machine so many sides on the base connector
Post by: vivalarevolución on Thu, 19 November 2015, 20:20:35
Wrong again here Tp. Do you read your posts back to yourself before you post?
This statement couldnt be farther from the truth. I know many people with college degrees that will never legally drive in their life due to multiple DUIs. Yet myself as an example haven't been pulled over or in a car accident since 2003 ish. And I am a high school dropout that couldn't manage to pass a single English or social studies class throughout 4 years of high school.
Try again to.
Who cares, you've done well, regardless of educational achievements.
Post by: GenKaan on Sun, 22 November 2015, 12:51:31
I live by one rule:
People are stupid.
And half are dumber than the average stupid
Post by: iri on Sun, 22 November 2015, 15:01:27
EDIT: Am I condemning entire categories of people by calling them xenophobes?Yes.
All Syrians refugees should be rejected from the United States.All three?
Seattle was far more racist than TexasOh dear, I'll wear a space suit when in Seattle.
Post by: noisyturtle on Sun, 22 November 2015, 16:15:59