Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[bankshot1]

I withdraw my phrase "peck at each other. "  Banks is clearly the pecker in this chat.   (sorry,  couldn't resist)

I found Josh's reply neither self-righteous or bleating.   He expanded his critique for you,  Banks,  with some context of the moral views at that period.   He presents the FFs as a mixed bag,  which is hardly news to anyone who's studied history.   That he declines to engage in hagiography seems sensible.

I found Josh's response mostly lacking and irrelevant and did not address my points, but rather sluffed them off, with his statements that I thought slavery was not known then (clearly not true) or the implication I approved of it (also not true).

But you act as if the issues of slavery were unknown at the time, when they were not. Slavery was known to be wrong in 1777 and 1787 and all the years in the middle.

and his irrelevant point of Tom Jefferson's jungle fever.

I didn't say you didn't know slavery was known, just that you seemed to think that I was judging from 21st century morality, which you did and do.

And 6 children is hardly "jungle fever."

Nor is it even slightly irrelevant!

I question the Founding Fathers' morality. Jefferson's treatment of his slaves is quite relevant.

But you've decided to go whole hog on ignoring that their morality was questionable in your ardent desire to engage in purposeless attacks.

Have at it. I'm done with you for the time being - your attempt at "the ends justify the means" and "they were busy" are duly noted.

Josh-Morality takes many shapes not just the ones you have recently awoken to.

And there are moral trade-offs that are politically necessary and perhaps unavoidable, but may be needed to create a greater good.

That's true today and it was true in the 1776.

I'm sorry you are so disillusioned by the moral failings of our founding father's.

I look forward to your critique of the 10 Commandments and the irresponsiblity of Moses.

[josh]

I agree they deserve to stand.

[josh]

I look forward to your critique of the 10 Commandments and the irresponsiblity of Moses.

Still waiting for your response to when I addressed this the first time you threw your red herring out there.

1) 613 commandments, not 10.

2) Which "ten commandments" do you mean?

Happy to discuss them. Ostensibly, Moses was irrelevant, but Mosaic law perhaps is not.

[bankshot1]

I look forward to your critique of the 10 Commandments and the irresponsiblity of Moses.

Still waiting for your response to when I addressed this the first time you threw your red herring out there.

1) 613 commandments, not 10.

2) Which "ten commandments" do you mean?

Happy to discuss them. Ostensibly, Moses was irrelevant, but Mosaic law perhaps is not.

Which 10 Commandments do you think I was referred to? Moses wasn't a clue?

OY!

LMAO

And Josh whether it 10 or 613, I was mocking you, it was rhetorical and really didn't need a response.

But if you want to assess 613, that would be fine, it will keep you busy.

[josh]

Which 10 Commandments do you think I was referred to? Moses wasn't a clue?

Your ignorance matches your own self-righteousness.

[bankshot1]

Which 10 Commandments do you think I was referred to? Moses wasn't a clue?

Your ignorance matches your own self-righteousness.

I'm so disappointed in you Josh, by today's standards or those of 1776.

You don't handle reasoned criticism very well, spelled out several times for you, and your only impotent response, is a limp insult.

LMAOx

[josh]

Which 10 Commandments do you think I was referred to? Moses wasn't a clue?

Your ignorance matches your own self-righteousness.

I'm so disappointed in you Josh, by today's standards or those of 1776.

You don't handle reasoned criticism very well, spelled out several times for you, and your only impotent response, is a limp insult.

LMAOx

Why do you suppose I asked you which Ten Commandments, Banks?

Do you think it was a random bit of garbage flung out without thought?

Could there have been a reason for it other than to tweak you?

I now understand that you have no interest in actually considering the Ten Commandments any more than you have given serious consideration to the morality of the Founding Fathers (collectively or individually).

Oh well.

Live in ignorance or not. Nothing I can do about it.

Maybe you should join Napoleon on Sealand. Pigs of a feather and all that.

[bankshot1]

Josh

My assumption was you wanted to change the subject.

If you want to discuss 613 laws of the Torah go ahead, but I'm not sure what that has to do with your disappointment in our founding father's morality and the trade-offs they had to make as they fashioned a new country.

As I said, I assumed it was a dodge, just like the one with you now trying to tie me to Utley.

Guilt by association?

LMAO

that's pretty transparent and very weak.

As I said you don't take reasoned criticism very well.

[josh]

zzzz

[bambu.]

That Chinese foreign ministry guy who spent too much time on my tv screen tossing barbs last year...bobbed up again yesterday...smugly basically saying that China was indeed punishing Australia with its trade bans and the excuses like there were things wrong with the products were fake.
Der, we already knew that.

[josh]

Reed Fromer asked a question in White People. DOING Something. 

Critical Race Theory can be explained from top to bottom through a single movie dialogue.

In Stanley Nelson’s documentary “The Murder of Emmett Till,” one scene depicts a reporter doing a man-on-the-street interview during the 1955 trial of Till’s killers, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam. He’s talking to a random black man, age 30-35, asking for his take on the court proceedings to that point.
To EVERY QUESTION the reporter asks, the man offers the same response: an innocent shrug, and an amicable, perfunctory “I dunno, sir.”

Does he think the defendants should be found guilty? “I dunno, sir.”

Well, does he think the prosecutors presented enough evidence to show that they committed the crime? “I dunno, sir.”

What does he think the verdict will be? “I dunno, sir.”

How you assimilate this exchange depends entirely on whether you understand its social context. If you watch the scene WITHOUT knowing anything about the surrounding circumstances, your default assumption will have to be that you’re watching and listening to a simpleton. If you’re somehow ignorant to the outside influences weighing on the man’s replies, you’d have to conclude that even these basic questions are well beyond any level of thinking he’s ever had to engage in, and that he simply lacks the sophistication to process the details of a murder trial.

If, on the other hand, you DO know the context, there’s no hint of mystery. You know EXACTLY why the man responds as he does. Because you understand – just as the interview subject himself understands – precisely what the consequences of any OTHER reply will be. (Seeing the film to the point in question certainly aids in this clarity.)

If he says “Yes, I think they’re guilty,” we know beyond any question that his will be the NEXT mangled, barbed wire-laden body fished out of the river.

If he says, “No, I don’t think they’re guilty,” in addition to betraying his own conscience, he’ll become an involuntary poster boy for Bryant and Milam’s defenders: “See that? Even the [censored]s themselves don’t think those two fine gentlemen did anything wrong!”

If he even HINTS at grasping the political dynamics surrounding the case, through some subtle dig like “Well, my opinion doesn’t count for too much around here” or “Well, there’s what I think, and then there’s what the jury thinks,” that could be perceived as a knock on the white community’s honor and integrity, which . . . well, see outcome #1.

In summation, if you know the context, the scene invokes a sense of precarious HORROR, every bit as palpable as someone hiding in terror from an approaching Michael Myers in a “Halloween” sequel. (Worse, actually, because you know the slasher movies are fictional). If you DON’T know the context, it could play as a comic scene featuring a Steppin Fetchit-style doofus.

That’s what Critical Race Theory is, in a nutshell. It’s the fundamental question, DO YOU KNOW THE CONTEXT? Or, more accurately, do you care enough to WANT to know the context?

When you observe evident disparities between the collective outcomes of various races in our nation, are you honest and courageous enough to factor in the outside forces that SHAPED those disparities? Are you willing to ask WHY that man is reduced to meekly degrading his own intelligence in front of the TV cameras? Or do those details – like the matter of his survival depending on it – simply not matter to you?

Because if an inequity that stark and profound doesn’t move you, how much LESS concerned will you be about secondary or residual effects? If that man happens to be a father, will the question of what message he has to convey to his kids about how to get along in the world – and how dramatically it’ll differ from what he could say if he were a white father – even occur to you? Or will you just look at his kids and their white counterparts (who would be of the same generation as many readers of this post) and assume that any imbalance in how their lives turned out boils down strictly to each individual’s respective intelligence, work ethic, or “personal responsibility?”

And then, when some of us have the temerity to suggest that you MIGHT be overlooking certain factors in the mix, will you promptly freak out and accuse us of being “divisive,” practicing “identity politics,” and somehow accusing you of being the original source of the problem?

[facilitatorn]

I understand their morals within the context of the era in which they lived.

It’s cute how teeter on these colossal pillars of misinformation. It’s hilarious when they fall out from under you and spill you flat on your overworked ass.

[josh]

I understand their morals within the context of the era in which they lived.

It’s cute how teeter on these colossal pillars of misinformation. It’s hilarious when they fall out from under you and spill you flat on your overworked ass.

Clinging to vital misperceptions that excuse his conduct.

[josh]

http://www.cnn.com/2021/07/07/politics/rudy-giuliani-suspended-law-washington/index.html

Contingent on the outcome of the NY case and suspension, which means largely cooked.

[josh]

How desperate is Donald J. Trump?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/07/opinions/donald-trump-big-tech-lawsuit-no-chance-alaimo/index.html

He's suing to try to force FB, Twitter, and YouTube to let him back on the airways, claiming their discrimination against him is illegal.

That's pretty desperate.

You know who's pretty stupid?

Whatever lawyers agreed to represent this man who has repeatedly not paid his lawyers, contractors, or whomever else.