https://vm.tiktok.com/TTPdk8fa6W/
2 points here…
Progressive liberalism is a self destructive mechanism. It’s like putting insects in a jar with one another and believing they stand a chance to survive.
Whoopi should have told everyone to fuck off. She’s in the same spot (arguably worse) apologizing insincerely) than just owning it.
I think Whoopi was fucking ignorant and totally, in-comprehensively, wrong.
Nazis were obsessed with Jews as a race and viewed them as racial inferiors, justifying the extermination of them. “This is why Nazis targeted anyone with a Jewish grandparent, regardless of whether the person identified as Jewish or not. Nazism is a blood doctrine of racial supremacy. Race is a social construct, and that is how it was constructed in Nazi Germany and much of Europe.”
Jews are curious in that they don’t confirm to Western notions of race or religion. You can be Jewish without being religiously Jewish. It’s not a a race, in western the sense, as you can convert to it. It’s not simply a nationality, because not all Jews subscribe to Israel as a homeland.
It’s quite difficult to confine to a box in the Western understanding of race, religion or nationality.
BUT, within the construct of the Nazis, it was a race. Race, in the current western construct, is a social construct. There is only 1 biological race, of which we are all a part. The fallacy of Blumenbach in the 18th century is dis proven daily by geneticists, along with disproving the likes of Charles Murray, Jason Richwine, etc. But, in terms of the understanding of race in Nazi Germany, it was for sure about race.
I do find your views on strength and weakness to be strange, similar to a 3rd grade bully or one of his little minions who hang around and cheer him on.
Again, this is a concerning interpretation of what happens. You do have remarkably high authoritarian, fascist tendencies. I have a feeling you’d have fit in quite well in 1920s-1930s Italy. You don’t appear to hold the standard virtues as values, but rather what you can gain from the exercising of said virtues in a disingenuous way, basically removing the virtue from the virtues…weird. Doing good or right for the sake of it just doesn’t seem to enter your mind or be a factor.
Frightening issues for a person. Methinks you should start seeing a shrink
You might be right in some cases but this seems like a bad example to me. Her politics don’t matter. Anyone, left right or center, if they say the Holocaust wasn’t about race, anyone will be excoriated for that. Let’s face it, it’s a dumb thing to say.
Now, if she had said race was an excuse, maybe she might have a discussion, but race was definitely central.
I don’t know if I agree with this. The religious part is exactly the same as other religions. The race part is more about ethnicity, and anyone familiar with European racism of various ethnicities, it’s all white people hating white people. It can seem silly or obtuse to Americans because we simplify down to white/black, but the reality is groups of people are different because of their shared beliefs, language/dialects, traditions, etc. All this hate stems from being against the Other.
This is an interesting point. As a self-proclaimed man of God, he only views apologies through the lens of whether it makes the person stronger or weaker. Sounds like an opportunity for introspection to me.
So firstly, I’m no “self proclaimed man of God”
What I am, is a humble sinner who believes there’s a higher power, namely, Jesus Christ the Messiah, who will forgive me for my disgusting sins.
And as far as viewing things with bias. Tag- your both it.
Please show me a human being that doesn’t do this? I’d like to learn.
We didn’t claim you only view things with bias. We claimed you don’t appear to see the virtue in doing something that’s good, or just for the sake of it. Instead, you look at proper acts as whether or not they benefit the person, through a lens of strong or weak.
To expound, I consider good people do good things for the sake of doing them, as opposed to how it benefits them or makes them look strong or weak.
That’s a very sociopath like belief window you’ve got there.
Let me guess…Your favorite political side really does huh?
Partisan…Sheep
It’s been pretty well established that your posts are little more than farts.
It’s been pretty well established that your posts are little more than farts.
And yours are really informative, raw story
Delusional little partisan sheep
And I’m not sure why you have this view of me.
But more importantly, you CAN’T have this view of me.
You don’t believe in God. Therefor you have no way to ground your moral beliefs, let alone present them to me as a duty I must fulfill.
To you- morals are relative, subjective, and voluntary.
So I can simply bypass your objection as irrelevant. I don’t want to participate in your subjective moral worldview. But thanks.
You’re revealing so much about yourself. It’s sad that overly fundamental religious folk, like yourself, derive morality FROM your book. Of course, a simple read of your book shows the source to be one of the most immoral to ever be committed to paper. It allows folks like your to act in an inevitably immoral way and try to justify it by citing your book decides what is moral and what isn’t. History is plagued with men, like yourself, who derive their morality from their religious beliefs and use it to justify wholly immoral acts.
It does confirm the sentiment expressed beforehand, however, and shows both myself and 305 to be correct about you. Additionally, is shows how those who are not religious are far more moral in character as a rule than those who are. We do things for the sake of being good, to help people, with no religious balance sheet in the discernment of thought and action.
Not all folks who are religious are so radical in thought, fundamentalist in nature, and believe morality is derived solely from their religious dogma. BUT, those who do have a long history of savage and cruel actions. In fact, I’d pose that the God in your Bible is the least moral being ever put on paper in human history.
Also, you don’t know if I believe in a God. I don’t believe in Christianity, for sure, though.
Typical.
It doesn’t matter whether the God is Yahweh, Allah, or Brahman.
In order to have morality you must have a transcendent being who defines what’s moral and holds men to account.
Honor- can you show me what honor is? It certainly isn’t a platonic structure that exists somewhere we can’t see right? You do t subscribe to that I’d presume.
So it’s a concept, perceived by the mind of man, and acted upon/adhered to, lest we reveal to other men we lack it. Correct?
But if it’s a figment of the mind and lacks any ontological basis for existence then we are INSANE to adhere and comply with. You’d agree right?
We shouldn’t be moral just because we believe others think we should be moral. We should be moral (or in this instance, have honor) because we believe honor exists and it is a “better making property” for human beings.
So, if you can, show me the existence of honor ontologically if you can.
Or love, or joy, or grief, or betrayal, or jealousy, or passion, or any other virtue or vice.
Don’t give me epistemological examples. Don’t give me actions. I want “the what.”
Show it to me where it exists and then if you’d like- show me how we perceive it and strive toward it.
I can show you. Let’s see if you can do the same.
in other words, don’t be a good Christian simply to get into Heaven. Be a good Christian because you believe being good.
This is a requirement of divine morality, not morality in general.
Ok- what grounds your general morality?
And what make me or others bound to it?
Like most people, being raised with certain values reinforces them somewhat throughout life. Personally, I subscribe to the golden rule, which is to treat others how you would expect to be treated. Not for little things necessarily, but for larger issues that can affect someone. I don’t want to be a piece of shit, basically.
No one is bound by another’s morality. Usually this type of stuff gets codified into law by a society, whether this takes the form of commandments or laws. But you can’t actually legislate what’s in the heart, just what other people see you doing, so there are a lot of loopholes.
So what your essentially saying is that there really isn’t any morality. You were just happened to be raised a particular way…. You agree with it…. And it is what it is.
But that doesn’t really tell us anything. Nothing binds my morality or your morality in this framework.
So if someone commits a horrendous atrocity in your life to yourself or to a family member- you really have no claim to make, from a moral sense, on that person, that what he or she did was morally wrong to you.
Because that person could have been raised to think that raping you or killing you is normal and perfectly moral.
And I know you’ll say something like “yea- sure” but you’d never live this way.
We all have a sense of moral duties and obligations. If the government collapsed tomorrow, the majority of us would still behave morally toward one another. Not because the codified law mandates us…. And not because our parents ingrained it in us…. But because we believe it’s binding.
And I submit to you that the ONLY WAY it’s binding is if there is accountability in the end from the one who created it in the first place.
This is such a weird argument.
Morality is a belief. That’s it.
Different people have different moralities. That is undeniable.
Different groups of people / cultures do indeed have completely different sets of moral principals. The Vikings raped and pillaged. Some places sill have slavery. Whether it’s true or not, we commonly hear that in Chinese business, stealing to get ahead isn’t really wrong.
So I don’t know what you mean when you say I wouldn’t live this way. I live the way I live based on what I believe, and I live in a country that shares many of my values.
You’re correct about morality still existing if the government collapsed. First you need to understand that just because the laws are gone, as is their enforcement, the hearts and minds of men don’t immediately change. The majority of the population would still think killing and stealing was wrong.
Maybe I should have emphasized that morality is tied to community, a kind of social contract. You ever see those videos of someone snatching a purse in South America and twenty bystanders run up and beat the hell out of that thief? Stealing is a huge problem in places like that, and the people HATE IT, and they all have the shared values to help each other against it. That exists outside the written law.
As far as binding, I don’t know what you mean by that. If you are talking about consequences and accountability, then it is usually community based, whether that by law or otherwise.
Pardon the disgusting example….
If someone raped your son or daughter, and then said to you, “it’s what I believe” I doubt you’d accept that answer from them.
You would believe your moral code supersedes their “belief” and would want justice (another virtue).
Your position is untenable. You say “x” but you live “y.”
Everyone with your worldview does.
Would you accept your wife cheating on you and starting a second family if her family taught her that and she believed it?
Would you allow a woman to drown in front of you if you had the chance to save her life? What difference does her life make if morals aren’t objective?
She is just matter in motion right? If you don’t believe she has…. Wait for it…. VALUE (another moral that we hold to be true and not just a belief$ why save her?
This answer of yours is lazy. It lacks any real punch. It has no foundation. There is no reason to care what one believes if it has no foundation in TRUTH.
Moral relativism is rampant in society today.
It’s basically, I’ll do what I feel like doing and if I think it’s good it’s good.
It’s one of the consequences of the large number of people who don’t believe in God.