However, the abortion debate is usually not about such life and death situations but about women just being able to undergo a procedure to expel the fetus from the uterus even if only on a whim. — TheMadFool

I was just challenging your unqualified statement.

As to the usual debate, consider the case where the fetus is killing the woman but she wouldn't want the baby, and would abort anyway if she otherwise could. In that case, does big government first ask the women "Hey, do you want the baby?" And then does big government vet the doctor's determination that the fetus is killing the woman? Does big government get to seek a second opinion from another doctor? Who vets the qualifications or objective abilities of that doctor? Big government?

Personally, I think this is all noise but I'm curious how the pro-life crowd would have big government pursue these issues, logistically.

Remember, a woman's concern is the actual baby, — TheMadFool

Not always. Sometimes the baby isn't the issue. In fact, they might love to have the baby. But the fetus is killing them.

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus

All four.

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus

Generally, I don't.

Well that's the base. . . . But I was talking about he leaders, the establishment. Most of them don't really like Trump at all. Like McConnell. What do they really stand for anymore? Or is it the same thing they've stood for since the 70s? — Xtrix

Actually, I was not talking about the base. I was talking about the leader's fear of the base. They may agree with the base, or they may just want the base even if they secretly don't agree with them. Worst case is, they don't agree and don't even want the base, but they are under threat (physical or otherwise) from the base. Liz Cheney is the exception and has bigger balls than all of them. Of course, the base probably knows that if they fuck with Liz, her dad is the kind of guy who would have them disappeared.

good way to screw up your self esteem — MikeListeral

Thank you for teaching me about religion, spirituality and self esteem.

maybe your just a wimp who wants to make excuses — MikeListeral

LOL! Yeah, that's it. LOL!

you have two choices in life
1- get more power and reap the rewards of that power
2- be passive and suffer the consequences — MikeListeral

I disagree. Whenever someone (including life) gives you two choices, pick the third.

what do they stand for, at bottom? — Xtrix

Fear.
Donald Trump.
Some Republicans are on board with their base.
Some Republicans disagree with their base on principle, but subordinate that disagreement with a desire to keep the base.
Some Republicans disagree with their base and would not subordinate their disagreement with their base but they are under threat of physical violence or extortion from their base.
Fear.

My opinion, my wants, my hatred of my enemies, have all had what I perceive to be as an undue and dominant influence on my life, and I tire of it. So, rather than surrender to them, as some (you?) appear to be suggesting, I think I'll look for something other than the either/or, illogical two-valued orientation. I will seek to check, not to obliterate. I'll merely try to reign things in a little bit. That's not a flawed spirituality. However, as in all examples of oppression, release therefrom can result in some natural push-back. My opinion, my wants, my hatred of my enemies may have to stand down and take a back seat for a little bit.

I think respective opponents often fail to take their arguments to a logical conclusion and then go for it from there. This leaves them open to ongoing, endless debate, misunderstanding, irrelevant nuance, and culture wars. I was taught in law school to give the other side every thing they want until you find out what that really is, and what it is you simply refuse to give them. Therein lies the nut over which a fight can be launched, or not. Everything else is noise.

If the pro-choicers would simply say as you do, that abortion kills a potential human but that it's justified on whatever grounds, that would be logically defensible. — fishfry

I'll go a step further and say it's not a potential human: It's a human. But she can kill it, carte blanche, as far as I'm concerned.

Which is exactly why I used the word murder and not homicide. Are you saying abortion is homicide? — fishfry

I personally believe life begins at conception, if not before. So yes, abortion is homicide. But it's not murder unless we say it is.

It's cold comfort to the fetus that it was the mom and not the dad who killed him. But I already said that. — fishfry

Yes, you did. And I said the comfort of the fetus, cold or otherwise, does not matter.

your post didn't help answer my question, — fishfry

It directly answered your question. Mother's choice; fetus doesn't count. Period. I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you. You might disagree, but that does not mean your question was not answered. It was answered.

What is the moral or philosophical principle involved? — fishfry

Mother's choice. Asked and answered. That is the moral principle: Mother's choice. Mother's choice is the moral principle.

"Women get special consideration for murder," — fishfry

It's not murder if it's legal. Homicide, yes, murder, no. Mother's (should) get special consideration for their own fetal homicide.

Are you "my body, my choice" with respect to experimental vaccines? Use of illicit substances? — fishfry

Yes. But as in the rest of life, there may be consequences, cancel culture, or ostracization. Thus, your body, your choice with respect to experimental vaccines, but you may not get goods or services from the private sector or the government. And if your use of illicit substances poses a threat to others, you can, for instance, lose your driver's license, etc.

Why is "unborn baby Conner" a clump of undifferentiated cells for purposes of the abortion debate, yet deserving of a name and thereby his humanity in a murder trial? — fishfry

Because the mother was deprived of choice.

How do you convict a man of the murder of an undifferentiated clump of cells? — fishfry

Because the mother was deprived of choice.

If Laci had aborted the fetus, nobody in the San Francisco bay area would have batted an eye. — fishfry

Because it would have been the mother's choice.

This case always stands out for me as exemplifying the massive hypocrisy of the pro-choice position. — fishfry

You should not let the case always stand out for you as exemplifying the massive hypocrisy of the pro-choice position. Rather, you should see it as an example of the patent consistence of the pro-choice position.

But I hope you see my point, and I wonder if some of you philosophers can help me understand why "unborn baby Conner" was even deserving of a name, let alone the status of a murder victim, in a strongly pro-choice state like California. — fishfry

I don't see your point. I see your failure to understand pro-choice. You can take cold comfort in the fact that you are not alone.

You might say it's the mother's choice, but how can that be? If "unborn baby Conner" has human rights and can be murdered, then surely it's cold comfort to the fetus that it was his mom and not his dad who decided to kill him. — fishfry

I don't "might say." I do say it is the mother's choice. It can be, because it is. It's no comfort, cold or otherwise, to the fetus who happens to kill it (or not). The comfort of the fetus doesn't matter unless the mother says it matters. The mother is the sovereign ruler over all fetus' that reside within her. That is the way it should be. So says me.

Does a fetus deserve moral consideration? And when do we give the fetus moral consideration? Better question when do we give anything moral consideration? — Oppyfan

I've always felt uncomfortable with the word "deserve". To me, I think that, in order to deserve something, it must be earned. And, to be earned, there must have been agreement. I distinguish deserve from "entitlement." Something/someone can be entitled without having earned, and without deserving. I'll not waste your time going any further into my nuanced understanding of "deserve." I will stick to "entitled."

I think everything (including the absence of things) is entitled to moral consideration. But there is a world of difference between entitlement and receipt. Folks generally don't have the patience to afford consideration to anything, much less moral consideration.

Further, affording moral consideration does not demand a particular result. So, in the case of the fetus, moral consideration can be afforded to the fetus, and to the mother, and to the father, and to me and other entities that have to share the planet with it. One doesn't necessarily trump the other, and we can't logically presuppose what a moral end result of consideration would look like. There are too many angles and entities to consider.

That brings us, in my personal opinion (which I'm trying to not care about), to the conclusion that what a moral result of consideration should look like would be subjective, and personal. A personal example I have considered extensively is the hunt. I think whether a specific killing is moral depends upon what lies in the heart of the killer, before, during and after the kill. One need not feel guilt, remorse, doubt or questions about the kill in order for it to be a righteous or moral kill. But neither can the kill be the result of blood lust, or a vainglorious, sadistic, or proxy act. Their must be respect, and grace, and honor and gratitude.

As much as I do not like what I see in the field, or hear about in the hunting community, I try not to judge because I know the impact the hunt and other interactions with nature can have on the soul; the wonders it can work, and the sometimes inexplicable reverence and sanctity that a clumsy person can feel without sufficient articulation. I hope that the hunt is working it's magic, even on the jerk.

When it comes to the fetus, I likewise think that the moral consideration of it demands no particular result in the treatment thereof. The mother, like a hunter, is left alone, with her own heart, to deal with nature. I personally feel that if we, as a society, would like to find a greater sanctity, and a reverence for the life of a fetus, then we should start by trusting nature to work her magic; we should not second-guess the result, just because we don't like it. Rare is the mother who kills her baby out of blood lust, vainglory, sadism, convenience, as a method of birth control, vengeance or other motivation. I sincerely believe that no one, not even the most heart-felt, empathetic pro-life person on the planet, will give more moral consideration to the act of abortion than the average mother. Sure, there is the exception, but we should not make rules based on exceptions.

We enact laws out of frustration with fucking assholes who lack respect, grace, honor and gratitude. But those laws are really just the state stepping in where we, as people, have failed in virtuous leadership by example. Making fun of, and disrespecting food only happens because "that's how daddy did it." And daddy only did it that way because his daddy did it, etc. That's not the state's fault. That's failure of leadership and virtue that started sometime in the past when honorable men and women were not around mentoring. Abortion is a hell of a long way from such immorality. Abortion receives more moral consideration than most all other life decisions; and that is even without the pro-choice/pro-life debate. Rare is the woman who takes the decision lightly. Leave her the fuck alone and mind your own god damn business.

Having said it out loud seems to have helped. While I still have opinion, I am certainly less enamored of it, it's easier to ignore it, and it's been somewhat liberating.

Next step, is "want." While I don't find myself wanting much, I do find that want seems to permeate the essence of life. Every direction I turn, there it is; even the idea of wanting to not want.

So, here I am:

1. I want to love my enemy. So far, no joy. I have made some headway, but there's a long way to go.
2. I want my opinion to leave me the fuck alone. I'm better. I find it is no longer my master.
3. I want to not want. Let's see how I can do with that. LOL!

Environmental personhood is a legal concept which designates certain environmental entities the status of a legal person. This assigns to these entities, the rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities and legal liability of a legal personality. Environmental personhood emerged from the evolution of legal focus in pursuit of the protection of nature. — Wikipedia

Lest anyone think this is "off the hook" they should consider that we provide such status to estates, corporations, trusts and other non-blood-pumping legal fictions, so why not more crucial aspects of nature?

Christopher Stone's law review article "Should Trees Have Standing" and Reed's article "Should Rivers Have Running" are good, provocative reads.

I wrote an article in Indian Law (never published) advocating similar notions for events. Events themselves should have standing. I would not propose litigation over an issue of whether a pack of wolves should eat a cow or calf alive (of course they should), but any event where man is the actor could be considered, and proposed and opposed by competent legal counsel, with burdens of proof, scopes and standards to be worked out in common law.

Anything that contextualizes man is a good thing. Quite simply, we ain't all that. Cry Havoc! and let slip the philosophers of litigation!

So, have you wirtten your last will and testament and had it properly legalized? Have you gotten all your affairs in order and cleaned out your house? — baker

Yes. And updated periodically as situations change.

hen why are there laws against stealing and killing, for example, if those are no-brainers? — baker

They are for people with no brains.

Something being a no-brainer doesn't mean it needn't be made into a law. — baker

True. There are many people with no brains, so they need laws.

If society wishes to enforce various types of discrimination against people, based on whether they are vaccinated or not, then there needs to be a legal basis for this. — baker

On the other hand, we could ostracize, consequence, cancel the dummies. But instead, we have dummies passing laws making it a $5k fine to ostracize, consequence or cancel dummies.

Making sure to keep the discourse ever so superficial, eh? — baker

You are correct. I apologize.

P.S. A Trumpette I know had a sig line on his web site years ago. It was an old John Wayne quote that said: "Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid." This guy never followed protocols and didn't vax. He just died of Covid. It was a long, hard, miserable death. Hard on his family too. Some of them followed protocols and vaxed. So, life is not only harder when you're stupid, but stupid people can make life hard for smart people too. Oh well, stupid is fixed now. Smart is still hurting. I don't know if laws would have helped, but a healthy dose of ostracization, consequence and cancel might have done the trick.

Finally, I hear most folks are asymptomatic and don't even know they had it when they did. They spread it and kill people. Fuck them. They also make for variants that could bypass the vaccine or be more contagious or be more deadly. Fuck them.

And governors who make it a crime to ostracize, consequence or cancel? Fuck them.

I'm leaving for a while to do some other shit and only came back because I received an email saying you replied. Adios.

Capitalism has innumerable variations but most of them do not pervert the basic system. — Judaka

I stopped reading there, and did not continue in consideration of anything else you had to say, or in contemplation of any questions you may have asked. I think something needs to be cleared up. I will then be leaving, not because you are not worthy of engagement, but because I tire of TPF and would like to take a break of undetermined length. On the contrary, I find your intellectual curiosity to be sincere and I enjoy reading your posts. For now I will simply say:

True capitalism has some fundamental, foundational constituents, the absence of which makes for something that is not capitalism. I don't care if self-identified capitalists, or their opposition, want to paint a system as such, or a variation on it: If these constituents are not present, then capitalism has been left behind:

1. Property ownership;
2. Voluntary or negotiated payment in exchange.

Here I am setting aside, and capitalism itself often overlooks, how ownership was originally obtained, whether the obtaining was legal, ethical, moral, voluntary or negotiated. There are a plethora of legal principles, some fiction, some real, which permit a baseline from which ownership is stipulated. I'm not going to lay all those out for you at this time. But suffice it to say, one can own their body, their labor, a widget, an acre, an idea, a breath for their lungs, the food in their mouth, their personal space, their dignity, the integrity of their being, a legal or Constitutional or regulatory right, etc. ad infinitum.

If at any time that which is yours is taken from you outside of #2, then you do not have capitalism. You have something else, but you do not have capitalism. I don't care how anyone spins it, you do not have capitalism. It's not me making this shit up as I go, or creating artificial prerequisites to support my own bias. It simply is what it is.

All you have to do, Judaka, to attack the people that you and I both think are FOS, is to call them out and hang them on a petard they pay lip service to, but do not actually abide. I understand your frustration, but you are letting them define the terms of debate, and pervert capitalism to what they want it to be, in convivence of their own pursuit of greed, and in an effort to shut you down. They are availing themselves of nuanced version of socialism, where they privatize the profits and externalize (socialize) the costs. That is not capitalism and it's not a flavor of capitalism. It's not even a perversion of capitalism. If you take something without paying what is asked, you are a fucking thief. You are not a capitalist.

I could go on with how government fits in to all of this (corporations are a creature of the state), and how we entice capital into the markets outside of capitalism, and how we agree to externalize costs onto all or a few in furtherance of what should be the common good (if the people actually owned their government, which they don't, because it's been stolen). But alas, I tire.

I wish all the best to all of you. Have fun.

I'm reading a fun book recommended to me by Tim Wood and it's stimulated my writing bug, so I'm off to that. Peace.

In order for this to happen white allies need to take direction from black communities. We absolutely need this coordination to happen before whites go out and do this type of work. Whites are not to be operating independently. — BitconnectCarlos

I emphatically disagree. Whites need to clean their own house. We don't need blacks telling us we need to put the crazy uncle back in the basement. We know that. We know what is wrong. It's on us to deal with it. The black folks might need help getting their feet under them, but they don't need to be saddled with helping us unfuck our stupid racist legacy. They've had enough of that. We didn't consult with them and they didn't tell us how to kill confederates and slave owners. It was our mess. We just didn't take out all the trash after the war was over and we left them with a mess to clean up. That's not fair to them. If they want to be magnanimous, forgive, whatever, that's fine. But they have their own things to do besides helping us deal with those within our ranks who absolutely hate them.

Example, like you said, Jews can run their own affairs. They might need some help ($) and someone killing fascists while they try to set up, but they don't need to be telling us how to how to fix what we know is wrong with us. That's on us. "Hey Jews, come on back to Germany here and help us educate these people about the error of their ways. You don't have anything better to do, right?" LOL!

This is unjust. Justice must occur on an individual level - children of slaveholders are not guilty and should not be stripped from their parents. No more breaking apart families. Two wrongs don't make a right. Justice cannot be carried out on a group level like that. I can't tell where you're getting your idea of justice from. — BitconnectCarlos

It's too late now, but failure of follow through left us with 150 years of segregation, disenfranchisement, Jim Crow, burnings, shootings, lynching's, theft, rape, systemic racism, Trump, neo-Nazis and white supremacists (out from under the fridge; I know they would always be with us, but they'd be hiding instead of out and proud) and causal mechanics that we will deal with for god knows how long into the future. And you know who's fault that is? It's the fault of your counterparts back in the day.

I'm done with this conversation. Remember, the first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem. Anyone who thinks we don't have systemic racism (OP) has a problem.

P.S. One final thought: My feelings about this spring largely from a desire to honor all the people who suffered and died killing fascists in WWII and traitors in the Civil War. Imagine that "last full measure of devotion" being disrespected the way we have. Yellow ribbons and bumper stickers and flowers on the grave don't do it. We need to live in accord with the ideals and aspirations of the nation they fought suffered for. Or it was all for naught.

I hate to say it, but it is ultimately on the oppressed because the oppressed understand their own problems and situation better than the rest of the world. Even if allies try to connect and reach out, this is an interest or a hobby (maybe a job?) for us when it's your life. Allies certainly have some role to play and they can help, but it's not a leading one. I would feel intimidated teaching or lecturing on racism to other white people, but hats off to allies who make a genuine effort. — BitconnectCarlos

I don't know what to make of your response to my post. I have been arguing the exact opposite of having anyone in the non-oppressed community trying to "connect and reach out" to anyone in the oppressed community. I'm talking about those in the oppressor community reaching out to the oppressors and trying to work with them. In other words, "woke" whites should be schooling other "non-woke" whites. I'm not proposing that BitconnectCarlos go to Latvia and work with Jews, or even to Latvia to work with any anti-Semites that might be there (and who might kill him). I'm proposing that non-Jewish "woke" Latvians deal with Latvian anti-Semites. In America, it would be like me, a classic white male, dealing with racist, confederate, fascist white assholes, or even just simple dummies who deny racism exists and who think the "black issue" is over because, well, "emancipation and Obama!"

I'm just always on the look-out. — BitconnectCarlos

Those with a hammer see a lot of nails.

It's not like Israel needs American foreign aid dollars to survive. — BitconnectCarlos

I disagree. But I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you.

The playing field isn't level and never will be. — BitconnectCarlos

It would be level, or a whole lot leveler if we would have, after the Civil War, dealt with the enemy in this way: All former slave-owning properties were given to former slaves; All children of former slave-owners were taken from their families and removed to a school in Carlisle, PA for re-education; All wives and old men of former slave-owners were shipped off to distant Reservations to become dependent wards of the government; All former slave-owning men were forced into indentured servitude under their former slaves for a period of years; All proven sympathizers of slavery and/or former slave-owners were subject to the same treatment; All those who resisted were hung or shot.

That is people within the oppressor community dealing with the oppressors.

The fact such did not occur is proof-positive of the greatest example of post-war white privilege in history. And it left us with the systemic racism we deal with today. There would be no people flying the Stars and Bars in the shadow of the First Amendment. There would be no statues glorifying Traitors. And the racists would not be out from under the fridge, in the daylight, brave and getting braver. No one would be left to take pride in their treasonous ancestors.

That is the left-wing liberal woke whites dealing with the white racists. That is the whites giving he blacks the tools to do what they need to do (just like the Jews were given the tools they needed to do what they have done). But we didn't do that because of white privilege and systemic racism. Hell, even many a Northern White Abolitionist didn't want the blacks "that" free.

I didn't know you were black when I engaged you. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not black.

In a co-op, as an example, the workers do indeed own the factory they work at, they own the tools and materials they use. But what rightfully belongs to whom is still determined in exactly the same way as before, the workers conjointly own the business and these articles of property belong to that business. Is this kind of model something you could get behind? — Judaka

I think I'm being facetious here, not sure, but I toss this out because you should be ready to answer this when the opposition throws it at you: When it comes to publicly traded companies, the employees can own it if they buy stock. Then, we'll have to see where their morals lie when they are looking at quarterly dividends versus "doing the right thing" generally.

They are not an oppressed minority when they have held the reigns of power in the very system that is defined as being systemically racist. — Harry Hindu

BS. They are an oppressed minority regardless of any lies the majority tells itself about those they oppress, and regardless of any anecdote (Obama?) they can point to. I know some dummies would like to think Obama ended racism and they could then safely ignore the causal mechanisms they benefit from. But that is not how facts and the truth work. You don't stop kicking a man and expect it to be all good when you stop. There's a reckoning that must take place. And it's not just the kickers, but all their progeny that benefited down through the ages from the initial kicking. Doh!

what about — Harry Hindu

"Whataboutism" if for weak minds. Be better.

You speak as if whites are the only race in the world that has never experienced oppression in history. Your whole speal just reaks of a lack of perspective. — Harry Hindu

That's because you're distracted by shiny objects and can't keep your eye on the ball. I've lived where I was an unwelcome minority, and I know full well whites can be such. But try to focus. Focus. We are talking about whether systemic racism exists in the U.S. Focus. Focus. Be better.

It's that the some lives' message is that everyone that is white, or wears a cop uniform is racist. — Harry Hindu

No, son. That's your guilty conscience shining through. You are telling those you perceive to be your opposition what it is they are saying, rather than letting them speak for themselves and then responding to that. They aren't saying all whites are racists any more than they are saying all blacks are racists. Sure, everyone is racist, even if subliminally, blacks included, but you are running off with your hair on fire and your panties in a knot over an issue that is not even on the table. And as to cops, don't confuse an occupation with race. A cop can take off his uniform. A black man can't take of his black (Michael Jackson notwithstanding).

If all lives matter is already assumed to be the case, then why even say, some lives matter? — Harry Hindu

I already explained this to you, but you are not paying attention. Focus, focus. Be better. Blacks (generally) are or have been oppressed. The causal mechanisms of their current behavior and situation linger. Idiots who think the fact the blacks are no longer slaves, or there was a half/half POTUS, means bygones should be bygones, are part of the systemic racism problem we have in the U.S. You, Harry Hindu, are living, walking, talking, posting proof of the answer to the question in the OP: Yes.

You're simply assuming that because some whites are racist, they all are. THAT is racism in a nutshell. — Harry Hindu

When you ASSume you are making an ass or yourself, not me. I never said or even implied "that because some whites are racist, they all are." It's just the racists themselves, and their enablers, who want to move on without having done the hard work. The first step is to admit you have a problem, Harry. Then and only then can the hard work begin. All whites benefit from systemic racism, even those who are not racists.

Clarity is so unfamiliar it is often mistaken for truth. — T Clark

HA! Good one. And it explains the appeal of some charlatans. Their followers might call it "brute honesty" and "political incorrectness" or "common sense". It works well with confirmation bias in an echo chamber, and finds it's way into the vernacular of the moron and pseudo-intellectual.

Truth has an awful burden to bear, having to deal with clarity and what not, and it's not always up to the task. Nevertheless, it's out there, somewhere, trudging along.

Getting angry or enraged about their lack of education doesn't solve anything. If anything it could be counter-productive because now I'm seen as unstable. — BitconnectCarlos

True. I wasn't suggesting you'd get angry or enraged. I was suggesting that you might be afraid. Very afraid. Now, if you had nothing to be afraid of, then they might be open to education. Failing that is when frustration and anger kick in. But here you are, the minority, trying to do the heavy lifting for them. I think you, in that case, and blacks here at home, in our case, shouldn't necessarily have to shoulder the burden of schooling their oppressors. The oppressors have a lot of work to do themselves, and the "enlightened" or "woke" members of their own should pitch in.

The reason I bring up these points is because I do know people who think/believe this way and I like to know right off the bat whether I'm dealing with one. — BitconnectCarlos

I can understand that. However, going to the extreme is not unlike a racist running to the "black welfare queen in Chicago" or pointing out the few looters in an otherwise peaceful protest or saying "All lives matter!" in response to a BLM statement. It's all a distraction from the merits of issue under discussion. It also ignores the casual mechanics of what got us here in an undesirable situation, and it is part of what keeps us here.

Civilization stands atop a pile of bones. — BitconnectCarlos

They do. Some of those bones aren't boot-strapping, self-made heroes. Some are victims of evil institutions. If I get your labor for free and rise further above you, passing that down my line and compounding the growth and interest in wealth and education, my progeny might want to take a step back and realize that although they did not personally take your labor for nothing, they certainly benefited from it, the playing field is not level, and the causal mechanics compounded the negative in the opposite direction for your progeny. And our institutions still have remnants of that system embedded within them. It's called "systemic." And until we admit it, it's not going away.

I understand that people can frame success in condescending ways, but I know you're able to look past the tone to see the deeper truth here. — BitconnectCarlos

I get what you are saying. But I find no problem with Indians holding out Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull and Geronimo, et al, as heroes. All while their kids were forced in the the Carlisle Indian School and told who they should emulate and look up to.

The world will do as it does; the Jewish people strive toward their goal regardless. Sure the UN + Britain helped with the creation of the state, but Israel is always ultimately defended by Israelis, not Americans or Brits. — BitconnectCarlos

It was a whole lot more than set up. It's billions of dollars every freaking year.

CRT is the news of the day here. It brought race back into the limelight recently. — BitconnectCarlos

The way you formulated the issue made it sound as if I was the one who brought it up and was pushing it. I'm trying to stand on my own two legs, regardless of what people are calling something these days. The right is too accomplished at distortion for me to want to use phraseology that meant one thing one day and has since been twisted to mean another. Like "liberal" and "capitalism" and "America" and "BLM" and whatnot. I'm sure CRT meant one thing to one "side" and another to the other. Best to avoid getting pulled down some rabbit hole and get cornered by someone else's hyperbolic understanding of what something is/was.

I'll add, that it's best - you have to - make your decisions ahead of time and ahead of need. — tim wood

Agreed. Some might say "Know yourself." That way, when the moment comes, you can remain centered and respond in accord with your morality.

In my opinion, the answer takes the work that the academic professes to enjoy, but I'm not so sure he/she really wants to do the work. The work is in formulating questions. It takes a great deal of time, patience and work for people like me to formulate a probing, non-threatening, inciteful question to ask the mentally weak or lazy person. Indeed, I am a mentally lazy person myself, so I'm more inclined to argue (in the lay sense of the term) than to formulate good questions. But like most people, I will entertain a question.

A fantastic solution to this problem was the style adopted by Jesus, who talked in parables, that is, short stories very easy to understand and, at the same time, very concentrated in meaning. — Angelo

That is good too, but I think it also takes time, patience and work to put together a parable. At least it does for me.

Granted, there are brilliant people who seem capable of working up a good question or parable off the cuff, but that ain't me. Those people, like Socrates, Jesus, et al, should be sought out. If you find an academic, a professor, or anyone else for that matter, who has mastered the art of the question or parable, latch on to them and don't let go until you've exhausted them, or it's otherwise time to move on.

One final point on the question and the questioner: I think a lot can be discerned in the genuine intellectual curiosity of the person asking the question. If they sincerely want to know what it is that a lazy/weak mind is thinking, the question will not be set up to prove something. It will be set up to understand. And people will often be amazed at what the process reveals.

I wish I had patience and the desire to understand. But some people are insufferable. Like me. :razz:

When does "just doing my job" fail to alleviate one of moral responsibility? — Judaka

You are never alleviated of moral responsibility. I tried to draw that distinction between ethics and morals on the thread about that subject. Moral responsibility it your responsibility to yourself.

I would investigate the U.S. military. They have been struggling with this for quite some time at the extremes of human endeavor. You must do what you are told to do, as fast as you can and to the best of your ability; and yet you cannot obey an unlawful order. Unlike civilians, they can't just walk away without suffering severe punishment. They are stuck trying to decide what is an unlawful order when they have not been given the tools to make that call. The situation differs greatly from the one you have laid out, but it is your situation refined down to the extreme nut.

When it comes to morality, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. And be prepared to suffer the consequences, or be hailed a hero. You could also look into the Nuremberg Trials, My Lai Massacre. It makes simply walking away (a civilian right) seem like an easy call.

I think that if the employee has sufficient information about the context of their actions to know that the broader aims and/or means of their employer are reprehensible, but they continue so as not to lose their job, there is moral culpability on the part of the employee for those actions. — Kenosha Kid

:100:

I wrote the following about intuition vs cognition, but it could be applied to learning:

The mode of travel can matter. I used to be jealous of those who, after my long cognitive slog to a place, I find already there, having arrived on the wings of intuition. But then I remember I have found along my way; the truth is often counterintuitive. While others may wonder what took me so long, I’d rather arrive knowing what I don’t know. We may be in agreement; we may be in the same place. But if I must have company, I choose those who arrive by foot.

You also keep accusing me of straw-manning you but I've never claimed to know or understand your exact positions so I wish you'd stop doing that. — BitconnectCarlos

You said "Sure - don't forget, but also don't base your whole mentality around it." Where did you get the idea that anyone anywhere of any consequence to you was basing their whole mentality around anything? That's a straw man, when someone says "X" and you say they are saying "X+1" you have set up a position for them that they did not set forth and a very easy one to knock down when no one in their right mind has said "X + 1".

You also said ". . . a history that presents America as being racist to the bone . . ." No one was saying we should teach that America is racist to the bone. Another argument that is easy to knock down.

if I was being educated in these countries and they were negligent or unwilling to talk about this topic I would definitely be frustrated. — BitconnectCarlos

I dare say that if you were a member of the class of victim of the atrocities you would be way more than "frustrated." You might be down right scared! And understandably so. Imagine being black in a country when the enemy flag is still paraded around like an icon, and statues all over the fucking place. How would Jews feel if statues of Hitler, Goebbels (sp?), et al were up in places of government and prominence, along with swastikas and whatnot? Maybe not in Massachusetts, but Massachusetts ain't America.

If I had to guess, I'd say the reason whites aren't crazy about engaging on slavery is that a good chunk of them have no ancestral tie in with the institution. — BitconnectCarlos

That's because they don't want to admit they stand atop a pile of bones. Anyone familiar with finances and the compounding of money should understand the same principle applies to economic and cultural advantage. And the compounding also works the other direction, putting the debtor further in the hole.

We did spend a long time on slavery on my US history class though, but I have no idea how this topic is handled down South. — BitconnectCarlos

Slave, chains, work, whip, rape, split up, yeah, slavery. That doesn't address the above referenced compounding and the causal mechanism behind today's complaint; i.e. the pile of bones.

However, if we bring critical race theory into public schools it becomes my issue because it's now being pushed by the state. From the way you're describing it though, it almost seems like it's a branding issue - call it something else, not critical race theory. — BitconnectCarlos

You lost me. Critical race theory? What? The way I'm describing what?

And we do focus on anecdotal economic success stories because people need role models. — BitconnectCarlos

As long as those role models are pre- approved by us and the economic system in which we operate? "Look boy, if you do as we tell you, then you can be like Bob over here. Look at all the money he's got, and the house and car and boat. Why, if you're good enough, and you mind your p's and q's, they'll let you in the Country Club and you too can hob knob with the important folk. We're progressive now, don't you know? Just don't go gettin' uppity, now, ya hear?"

I don't expect to wake up one day and have stigma & prejudice just disappear. It'll always be there; oppression will always be there, but I am not defined by it nor am I helpless in facing it. If someone makes a stupid comment towards my condition I'll educate them, but I'll react to it like I'm talking to small, dumb child. — BitconnectCarlos

Again, you seem to be focusing on what "they" think or what "we" should be teaching "them". Forget blacks, forget the Jews, forget the Indians, forget all that, just for a minute. Focus instead on "us". We are the ones with the fucking problem and once we come to terms with it, their life might begin to approach some kind of level playing field. And if the shoe does not fit, then for crying out loud, quit wearing it! If you are not in denial about the pile of bones upon which you stand, and if you are not standing in the way of the education of racists fascist assholes, then step aside and let the state school these jerks. Take a seat. Your just providing aid and comfort to the enemy when you act all put upon. The assholes need the (critical race theory??? don't even know what that really is) education about the compounding interest they are the beneficiaries of, the privilege, and their own contribution to systemic racism. Cool, hip, woke folks like you shouldn't get your panties all up in a knot when folks try to undo the damage done and being done. If the methods seem harsh, just remember, their being on the wrong side of history has it's drawbacks. Acknowledge history, acknowledge how you've benefited from it, and step back while those recalcitrant, denial-ridden, reactionary enemy are dealt with.

Teach about oppression all you want; it's certainly out there in the world - it's a fact. It's entirely about you handle it and move forward. — BitconnectCarlos

We could have said that to the Jews: "Life's a bitch, sorry, but no state and no money. Keep wandering and maybe you'll learn to be like your tormentors some day. You could start by not being who you are. Yeah, that's the ticket."

Sarcasm off.

there are no universal truths that should not be known by all, even if some of those truths do not reflect well on others. — Gladiator of Truth

He could have said that, but he did not. Instead, he opened himself up to questions that he damn well could have put to bed (pun intended) back in his day. Apparently he did not.

I wonder if that failure had something to do with his knowing slavery was fundamentally wrong and against everything he said he stood for, but he was unwilling to walk the walk? That has jack shit to do with bathroom habits, bedroom activities, the combination to his safe or personal details of his life. It has everything to do with a founding father and a signatory of the Declaration of Independence.

Hey, like America, I love Tommy. He's a hero of mine. But as a gladiator of truth, I'm not afraid of it, and if he's a hypocrite, let the truth be known.

Sure - don't forget, but also don't base your whole mentality around it. — BitconnectCarlos

Straw man. Nobody is saying to base their whole mentality around anything. But in might make you feel like they are because, well, I don't know, BitconnectCarlos: Why do you feel blacks whole mentality is something? Maybe "against you"? Do you feel they are all against you? Or is it their liberal champions? Are they all out to get you?

The Nazi hunters are all dead now and last one died out around a decade ago, it's just not a thing anymore in the Jewish community. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, I guess there was no Jewish influence behind this: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wwii-nazi-concentration-camp-guard-removed-germany Probably just a bunch of WASPS or blacks in the Justice Dept. doing their duty.

Do we never forgive the German people? Seriously? — BitconnectCarlos

First, the Germans have done an outstanding job of educating themselves about their history and what their forefathers did. They don't sweep it under the rug like many (not all) whites do about slavery, Indians, etc. But let's not play "favorites" with the Holocaust. Many other horrors were perpetrated on this Earth that did not involve Jews. Blacks have suffered some of it. Let's go deep in the heart of Dixie and set up half of what the Germans have set up regarding the holocaust, deep in the heart of Germany, where it happened.

I was speaking to you as a person - a person who is a collection of traits - and I was asking you if one victimized trait makes one a victim. — BitconnectCarlos

Hmmm. I was getting a paternal vibe about what we should be teaching in school or encouraging blacks to focus on. You know, like their successes that occurred in spite of, and not as a result of your way of thinking. Because, you know, you pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps and so should they.

I've never really felt put-upon by those supporting the black push-back but if they were to get very pushy and aggressive about it I would be annoyed. — BitconnectCarlos

Wait, let me get out my violin.

I would tell them that BLM is not my fight. I have my own fight as I'm part of a non-profit that pushes for disability rights. Even if I did join I'd just be another clueless white person marching for something they'll never understand. — BitconnectCarlos

And yet you are out trying to get the abled to be concerned about the rights of the disabled? Should I just be clueless about the ADA and tell those folks they need to tone it down before I get annoyed? Why don't you just focus on their anecdotal economic success stories?

Of course I want history taught honestly, but a history that presents America as being racist to the bone without any hope for black success outside of sports or entertaining is a really chilling cultural message to send. I think we can do better for our young people. Do you see how beliefs like that lead to toxic behavior? I'd certainly be toxic if that's what I was taught to me about how my people are treated in this nation. Violence becomes rational. — BitconnectCarlos

Another straw man. Teaching history honestly that presents America's racism is NOT teaching that America is racist to the bone. There's that old slippery slope hyperbole BS again. You don't like what you hear so you extrapolate to worst case scenario that is not even on the table. That's why folks like me would have you just take a seat. You already said you don't have a dog in this fight. You can't see systemic racism? Fine, neither can half the blind people in this country. The mere teaching of history is offensive because, well, it must mean something "to the bone" or whatever. Jeesh!

I see how your reasoning leads to toxic behavior. You forget, "they" are not the ones who need to be taught about how our ancestors treated theirs. They know. It's US that needs to teach US about how our ancestors treated theirs. The toxicity comes from living in a country full of white privileged assholes who think systemic racism does not exist because they have not been taught about, or can't understand, or don't want to hear about causal mechanisms (tip o' the hat to Xanatos). Study causal mechanisms and you'll see it has to do with way more than slavery. There is extensive fall out.

Try applying a simple white familial example: Wife beating. Or racism. Through the generations. Someone, sometime, somewhere has to break the chain, we hope. But if some life event does not intercede, the damage can continue and compound, from generation to generation. What would make the inner-city ghetto life any different? The intercession is NOT some white bread MFr coming in with a bunch of BS about bootstraps and hard work, and suits and ties and hair cuts and whatnot. It's more along the lines of what was done to make the Jewish state a success.

"Blacks were victimized and white people in Oklahoma did horrible things." - Fine, that's true. — BitconnectCarlos

Germans killed some Jews. Fine, that's true.

"Black economic success is worthless because whites just tore it down" -- incredibly destructive message. Child abuse. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, where is that being taught? On the contrary, I remember being taught about black success that occurred in spite of, and not because of systemic racism.

And as to your studies of history, where did you go to school? And when did you learn that stuff? Did it start in grade school? You know, when the "American exceptionalism" has started to be pounded into the little skulls? Or later, in college? Where you deep in the heart of the conservative south when you learned all about that in public schools? Down south? Asking for myself.

That's a total different issue though nothing to do with freedom so I leave it there. — dimosthenis9

Agreed. Besides, I don't understand the rest of what you said. I'd ask if English is your first language, but I guess I don't much care since none of any of what has been said addressed my OP about nothing is free.

The central lesson of Jewish history and the cultural message should never be taught as "never forgive, never forget" and if you think that's how Jews teach their own history then you're clueless (I am speaking as someone who went through a considerable Jewish education.) — BitconnectCarlos

Maybe they are all about forgiveness, but I often hear their statement "never forget." And, whether they agree with it or not, I think it's a good idea. Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it. If we don't make perps pay, they will gladly forget it. By the way, how many Jews failed to forgive the Nazi POS that murdered Jews? I think they are still hunting them down now. Why not just forgive?

But black people aren't just black. Is that all they are? A victimized skin color? Are they right to declare themselves -- as complex persons -- victims?
— BitconnectCarlos

Whatever they are is not for you to say. The question is, what are you? Are you a victimized skin color for feeling put-upon by those who support black push-back?

Is that how it works -- if there's one aspect of me that's victimized do I get to declare myself a victim and say "never forgive, never forget" to all those evil oppressors? — BitconnectCarlos

That seems to be the way a lot of the majority feel about it. They declare themselves victims of the evil left, put-upon for their privilege, the theft of their Christmas, the "woe is me commies are commie to hold me accountable for the sins of my fathers blah blah blah, whine, whine whine." Why don't they man up, take a seat already. Broaden their shoulders and try pulling their brother up instead of bitching all the time about "teach a man to fish" etc.

You're the one telling them to think of themselves as victims. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not telling them shit. I'm trying to get my own to quit being little babies.

Our public schools do. Unless you just want separate black education. — BitconnectCarlos

Our public schools should, but don't. Were you taught about the recently-in-the-new Oklahoma massacre? I wasn't. Now that it's finally working it's way into the news we have a bunch of conservatives whining about the "re-writing" of history. Jeesh! STFU already. Our founding fathers came up with public education but boy is that a drag for the right. They are afraid of the truth and love their alternative facts.

Alright so how do you want us to convey this truth to our nation's students? — BitconnectCarlos

We teach history, not with stupid statues venerating the enemy, but by telling them of the horrors inflicted upon the bones under the very feet they stand on.

You want all those newly-anointed poor black victims to be thinking "never forgive, never forget." — BitconnectCarlos

You mean like the Jews? Look, the black victims are not "newly-anointed." And they don't need to be told what to think. They know, better than anyone. What they need is a level playing field. And don't tell me you can kick a man for ever, stop kicking, let him get up and have access to what you have and there you have it, a level playing field. That's more BS perpetrators trying to let themselves off the hook. "Oh, let's move on! Let bygones be bygones. We're all good now, right?" Tale about white privilage.

You want to build up a people? Maybe focus on the ways that they've succeeded. — BitconnectCarlos

You mean like the Jews having been given a state, and umpteen billion dollars and then making something of themselves? Sounds good. Let's start with that. Then we can focus on how blacks succeed without cherry picking anecdotes like Herman Cain and whoever that brain surgeon is.

We can teach them the facts of atrocities, sure, but the teaching of history is never "just the facts." — BitconnectCarlos

We don't need to teach "them." We need to teach our selves. But "we" find many facts "inconvenient" and uncomfortable.

So it's a kind of society "selfish" thing to do. And it is fair don't you think? Society shouldn't have a way to get protected from individual stupidity? So laws offer that protection. Society has to win something too out of it. Seems logically fair to me at least. — dimosthenis9

Human beings have evolved to take care of the sick, lame, lazy, stupid, and merely unlucky (including those intelligent and wise who dare). It is our way. The idea that people should be left to fend for themselves is inhumane and, from an evolutionary standpoint, stupid. Neandertals took care of each other, as did Cro-Magnon and everyone else on two legs with a brain. But this is all really beside the point that nothing is free. If it's not costing one, it's costing another. That can be through payment or through cost-externalization, but it will be paid for.

Causal mechanisms take more time to explain, — Xanatos

They not only take more time to explain, but it's a hard row to hoe when those your are trying to explain it to don't want to hear it (truth is inconvenient) or are too stupid to understand it.

How is All Lives Matter an opposing view to BLM? — Harry Hindu

Because it's a tone-deaf dog whistle used by morons who couldn't read a room if their lives depended on it. No one said only BLM. They said BLM. They said BLM because blacks are an oppressed minority. Once whites become a minority, are enslaved, have all their property stripped away from them, their families torn apart, a war fought to free them, their former owners reinstated to their black privilege after the war, are subjected to Chad Crow, lynching's, burnings, beatings, ghettos, voter suppression, white-on-white violence due to lack of opportunity brought on by black privilege, then we can talk about WLM. But in the mean time, to paraphrase a meme, you don't walk across the street and interrupt the fire fighters while they are fighting a fire in your neighbor's house and say "Hey, what about my house? All houses matter!"

All lives may matter but only an idiot would say that in the midst of a conversation about some lives. That's how "All Lives Matter" is an opposing view to BLM. It's a dummy interrupting a conversation with an irrelevant truth. "BLM!" "Really? How about them Broncos! Did you see that rain last night?"

Do you mean a "good" capitalist? Why is your adjective "true"? — Judaka

"Good" is subjective, whereas "true" is objective. I use "true" capitalist to distinguish from the lying POS who socializes his costs onto the backs of innocent third parties who had nothing to do with the subject activity, or the one who thinks he (or the others who hold him out as having ) pulled himself by his own bootstraps with no help, or who avails himself of all kinds of government services while denigrating that same government for helping others.

That is true capitalism, that is how capitalism operates. — Judaka

No, it is not. It is self-interest. Self-interest is greed. Capitalism is enlightened self-interest. You know, where you don't kill the goose that lays the golden egg just because you feel like eating goose.

I dislike it when people slap "true" on something and then insert their ideals as if the status quo is a perversion rather than the norm. — Judaka

I did not slap "true" on to capitalism. I distinguished capitalism from the socialism that so many self-identified "capitalists" avail themselves of and pursue through their ownership of government. If you dislike hearing the truth about a status quo perversion of it (even when the perversion is the norm), then the fault is yours. Don't allow self-identified capitalists (false capitalists) to tell you what capitalism is. They are liars. Don't allow liars to define the terms of your conversation.

Has capitalism been misunderstood? — Judaka

Only by people who misunderstand it to be what the false capitalists tell them it is.

What problems can be truly ascribed to capitalism and which constitute a perversion? — Judaka

Those are two different questions: 1. Capitalism is a tool and problems lie not in the tool itself, but in the users thereof. 2. The perversions of capitalism have been laid out for you. I could go on because they permeate our society like a metastasized cancer. Or, as you said, they have become the norm.

Isn't it inherently true that within the business, the employer must be given extensive rights to do with his business as he sees fit for capitalism to function correctly? — Judaka

Those extensive rights are checked by his inability to externalize costs. It is only when he is allowed to externalize costs that capitalism is prevented from functioning. One example is a gallon of gas. It costs so much more than what we pay for it at the pump. To the extent it does, we are externalizing costs every time we fill up. We are being subsidized by those and that which pays those costs without having negotiated the terms and agreeing to assume them. Subsidy is not capitalism.

How many regulations and rules can be effectively enforced and to what extent do they really change anything? — Judaka

One rule: Receive no product or service for free unless we collectively agree to charge ourselves, or others, to provide it.