You are a saint. You should work with mentally disadvantaged children. More than just the one, I mean.
No, you’re not. You’re shooting from the car before that. Or why is he already dropped to the ground before your car even comes to a stop and your door opens?
If I tried very hard I could possibly write something more insulting about you than that statement, but I doubt it.
The sad thing is that you’re not even self aware enough to know just how insignificant that statement reveals you to be. Vile, yes, but of absolutely no consequence whatsoever.
If I tried very hard I could possibly write something more insulting about you than that statement, but I doubt it.
The sad thing is that you’re not even self aware enough to know just how insignificant that statement reveals you to be. Vile, yes, but of absolutely no consequence whatsoever.
[/QUOTE]
Many of those fellating black-killing cops are themselves gun freaks, who think every Tom, Harry and White Dick should have a concealed handgun. Is Smapti one of those? Either way cowardice seems to be a common theme:
[ul][li] A cop should empty his magazine into suspect’s center of mass, rather than risking a hangnail.[/li][li] Some Doper gun nuts wouldn’t draw their weapon during a massacre; others are afraid to travel without their handgun.[/li][li] Smapti wouldn’t sit at an Atlanta lunch counter or cross the Selma Bridge against police orders like Martin L. King did?[/ul][/li]
I guess the generous interpretation is that Smapti is enamoured With democracy: Blacks should have waited until they were a majority (or Honkey Man said OK) before asking for desegregation, etc.
Steophan, please provide your non-racist explanation for how black culture makes black men more violent.
No. I believe civilian ownership of firearms should be severely curtailed. Most types of commercially available guns are intended specifically for killing human beings and there’s no legitimate reason law-abiding people need to have them, and getting those weapons off the street would solve most of the “problem” with police shootings in a way that wringing our hands about how awful it is that the police shoot first ever would.
No, I would not.
Blacks didn’t have to engage in violent uprisings to gain their rights. The history of civil-rights related violence in this country is overwhelmingly on the part of white racists violating the law to keep blacks from asserting their rights. If you assert that it’s OK to break the law for no other reason than that you personally believe that law is immoral or unjust, then you’re legitimizing it for everyone - you’re saying that the KKKers who lynched black people were just standing up for what they believed was right by doling out the justice that the immoral government refused to deliver, you’re saying the Confederates were right to stand up against the federal government’s unjust attempt to deprive them of their property rights, you’re saying that ISIS is right to fight back against the Mideast governments that fail to give due deference to the laws of God as they understand Him.
A moot point, given that you prefer to rule out any means by which they might do so, given the starting point of their being unable to vote and the laws rejecting their claim to have any rights.
And yet, slavery was still abolished through the democratic process, in spite of violent uprisings by people who opposed the government’s immoral attempt to violate their property rights.
The ending of slavery was in large part due to (technically illegal) actions of slaves, former slaves, and other black people. Harriet Tubman violated the law many times in helping lead slaves to freedom. Smapti argues that such action is wrong.
If such action is right, then the Confederates were also right to secede and go to war with the US government, because both actions are predicated on the same concept - that it’s OK to break any law that you personally decide is immoral. Were the Confederates right?
No, it’s okay (and, indeed, morally required) to break any law that enslaves people or supports the enslavement of people. I understand that you’re constitutionally unable to determine what is right and wrong without looking at the law, but that’s a problem for you and you alone – most human beings aren’t so damaged.
We’ll add this one to the list – in addition to believing that the morally correct behavior for slaves is to obey their masters, Smapti believes Harriet Tubman’s actions to help free slaves were wrong.
Morally required by whom? On what basis are you making this declaration of objective morality? Where is your proof that such a thing is morally required?
By human decency. I know this concept is alien to you, but that’s just you. Most people get it. I’m sorry that you’re so damaged that you can’t.
So you can prove that “human decency” is universal, objective, and obligates all of mankind to a specific and standardized moral code? Philosophers around the world have only been trying to do that for the entire history of human civilization, so the fact that you’ve finally cracked the code, and are here to grace us with its wisdom rather than accepting your Nobel Peace Prize, is actually quite astounding.
Have at it, then.
I don’t need to. You’re the only one here who doesn’t get it.
Of course you do. The fact that the Civil War ever happened in the first place proves that not “everyone” automatically agrees “slavery is bad” as some inherent law of the universe. The only time you get to declare that you don’t need to prove something in order to know that it’s true is when you’re standing at a pulpit.
I’m saying that everyone in this thread but you understands why Harriet Tubman was right to do what she did. Everyone here understands human decency but you, and I don’t think you are capable of it, so I won’t waste my time trying to explain it.
What you don’t understand is that the logic you are using to declare that Harriet Tubman was right is the same logic that the pro-slavery side used to argue that they were right, and they doubtless believed that they were “decent” people just as much as you do. You refuse to accept that because you’re terrified by the underpinning implication that the universe does not revolve around what you personally believe is right and wrong and you can’t accept that the implications of your beliefs can also justify things that you don’t believe in.
I know that my understanding of the world can be used to justify things I disagree with. I don’t pretend that it doesn’t, because I know that the world is what it is whether I choose to like it or not. You don’t appear to be capable of understanding that philosophical nuance.
If “human decency” were universal and demanded that slavery was wrong, then slavery would never have been practiced in the history of mankind. Did the Confederates and their sympathizers, to a man, lack “human decency”? Slavery has been practiced by many cultures for thousands of years - did every single one of those people lack “human decency”? At what point did humans discover decency? How universal can human decency be if the majority of the human race over the majority of its history has not possessed it?
For whatever trauma you suffered that so damaged you, I’m very sorry. But you should recognize that you are broken as a person, and that the philosophy you now cling to would cause you to do many terrible things, and be an utter monster of a human, in many circumstances that were common through human history. You should recognize this so you can flee from a philosophy which would have made you a loyal accomplice in the worst moral crimes in human history.
I could say the exact same thing to you. Your philosophy enabled the KKK, the Confederacy, ISIS, and any number of other groups that have made the world a worse place.
The difference is that I admit that my understanding of the world can be used to justify things I don’t like. You prefer to hide behind special pleadings and vaguely defined appeals to “human decency” to explain away the uncomfortable side of your worldview.