Which country is/was more free?

[opebo]

There's so many shades of Black that it's really, really arbitrary to declare just some of them as "African."

But the fellow who is very, very pink, and is standing over the very black looking fellows with a whip in his hand is hardly 'African'.

[Lunar]

There's so many shades of Black that it's really, really arbitrary to declare just some of them as "African."

But the fellow who is very, very pink, and is standing over the very black looking fellows with a whip in his hand is hardly 'African'.

Africa is a continent.  Thus, 'African' cannot be considered a race.  It seems like you think huge chunks of North Africa aren't 'African' either.

I consider myself American, despite the fact that my ancestors were conquerors.  Richius's ancestors probably weren't even that, mostly farmers.

I don't know if I should be even responding to your posts.  You seem to just post random crap that is completely contradictory to your views just to provoke a reaction.

[opebo]

There's so many shades of Black that it's really, really arbitrary to declare just some of them as "African."

But the fellow who is very, very pink, and is standing over the very black looking fellows with a whip in his hand is hardly 'African'.

Africa is a continent.  Thus, 'African' cannot be considered a race.  It seems like you think huge chunks of North Africa aren't 'African' either.

No, more Arab/Muslim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, well your murderous ancestors killed nearly all they encountered, making their 'possession' of this continent a bit more indisputable.  Richius's lazy ancestors merely parasited themselves upon slaves, so when those slaves threw them off, they were rejected by the continent they had briefly ruled over. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how anything I post is contradictory to my views.

[Ebowed]

I don't see how anything I post is contradictory to my views.

How about this:

They're way too worried about unimportant things like the top tax rate and not enough about things like legalization of drugs and prostitution, preservation of abortion, etc.  In other words they prioritize economic issues way too much over social issues.

This is priceless.  I remember the day that you were criticizing the state of West Virginia for voting social issues over economic issues.

Well of course - because they vote the wrong way on social issues.  They prize oppressing gays, women, etc. over their own economic interests.

So basically you're a hypocrite.  You claim not to believe in morals or ultimate truth, that everything is relative and that freedom comes from making up your own standards.  But West Virginia votes "the wrong way."

After some prodding he gave your usual b.s.: "I mean they vote in a way I don't like - to impose their subjective preferences on other people's personal lives."  Let me say, dear opebo, that the fact remains that whether or not they're imposing subjective preferences on other people's personal lives is a matter of opinion, i.e. not a moral absolute.  It's quite typical, really.  Say your crazy opinions as if they were fact, get caught in a trap, say that it was just your opinion, and then give another "fact," all while throwing your moral relativism all over the place.  Being a moral relativist takes a lot of work, as I can see, and opebo hasn't quite mastered it.  In fact, I've never met anyone who has.  Consider a typical conversation between me and a moral relativist like this:

Moral Relativist: There are no absolutes.  Everything is a matter of opinion.

Me: Well, that's just your opinion OR There are no absolutes?  Absolutely?

Moral Relativist: *silence*.

Face it, there is a right and wrong.  Many people may not have a problem with many things, but you're one of the few crazies that doesn't believe murder or rape are immoral.

[Ebowed]

There's so many shades of Black that it's really, really arbitrary to declare just some of them as "African."

But the fellow who is very, very pink, and is standing over the very black looking fellows with a whip in his hand is hardly 'African'.

Africa is a continent.  Thus, 'African' cannot be considered a race.  It seems like you think huge chunks of North Africa aren't 'African' either.

No, more Arab/Muslim.

Islam isn't a race either.

[A18]

There is a huge difference between moral relativism, and the actual belief that there is no truth.

[Ebowed]

There is a huge difference between moral relativism, and the actual belief that there is no truth.

The idea that there is no truth is a contradiction in itself that it says there is no truth, which is a statement that intends to be true when in fact, if there is no truth, it cannot be true.  I imagine people who don't believe in truth must have their heads spinning in circles.  By the way, I don't see much difference between the two beliefs; obviously you need to be pretty crazy to believe either.

[A18]

The idea that there is no truth is a contradiction in itself that it says there is no truth, which is a statement that intends to be true when in fact, if there is no truth, it cannot be true.

I understand that, which is why the distinction is important. Morality is not a matter of truth, but feeling, sense, and perception. I believe there are certain morals that we all have within us deep down, but then you get a guy like opebo, and it makes you question even that.

[Gabu]

There is a huge difference between moral relativism, and the actual belief that there is no truth.

The idea that there is no truth is a contradiction in itself that it says there is no truth, which is a statement that intends to be true when in fact, if there is no truth, it cannot be true.  I imagine people who don't believe in truth must have their heads spinning in circles.  By the way, I don't see much difference between the two beliefs; obviously you need to be pretty crazy to believe either.

Personally, my scientific opinion on it is that there is a fundamental truth to everything (I see no logic in this not being the case - everything must be something, or else there would be nothing), but that it may well be impossible to ever know if what we have is indeed that truth.

I also don't feel that the chance of that impossibility should impede us from trying, however, an idea which would be lost on opebo.

[Richard]

Ah, well your murderous ancestors killed nearly all they encountered, making their 'possession' of this continent a bit more indisputable.  Richius's lazy ancestors merely parasited themselves upon slaves, so when those slaves threw them off, they were rejected by the continent they had briefly ruled over. 

Actually, the Afrikaners never had slaves.  They were a very private and segregated people.  They traded with the Zulus and Xhosas, and thats about it.  The English whites in South Africa were slave owners.  They also started killing off the blacks.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

yes, the Afrikaners and the blacks got along fine until the British came around. The British caused all the problems.

[opebo]

Let me say, dear opebo, that the fact remains that whether or not they're imposing subjective preferences on other people's personal lives is a matter of opinion, i.e. not a moral absolute.

No, that is a factual absolute, not a moral absolute.

[Ebowed]

Let me say, dear opebo, that the fact remains that whether or not they're imposing subjective preferences on other people's personal lives is a matter of opinion, i.e. not a moral absolute.

No, that is a factual absolute, not a moral absolute.

So the idea that West Virginia votes on the wrong issues is a factual absolute?  Sounds more like an opinion.

[opebo]

Let me say, dear opebo, that the fact remains that whether or not they're imposing subjective preferences on other people's personal lives is a matter of opinion, i.e. not a moral absolute.

No, that is a factual absolute, not a moral absolute.

So the idea that West Virginia votes on the wrong issues is a factual absolute?  Sounds more like an opinion.

Why do you apply statements I made about one thing to completely unrelated things.  Yes, I have opinions.  Is that OK with you?

The fact that West Virginians are voting to impose their subjective preferences upon other's personal lives is factually correct.  My dislike of that is of course subjective.

You seem to be obsessed with semantics, and I'm the first to admit my statements are not always perfectly worded and clear.  Who's are?  Sometimes when I say 'wrong' I mean I don't like it, and sometimes I mean it is factually wrong.  Lastly, I occasionally mean that I think the person's reasoning or priorities are actually self-destructive, as in the case of the poors in WV prioritizing making gays and secularists miserable rather than themselves better off - obviously they're free to do that, I'm just criticising them.  I'll try to be more clear in future.

[Ebowed]

As you said in the other thread, my semantic policing has "bourne fruit", and why not?  I have nothing better to do.  I think we can both agree that this forum is addictive as hell.

Now, the idea that West Virginia voters want to control other people's personal lives is a bit nonsense if you state this as fact; why is this, their alleged opposition to abortion and gay marriage?  First of all, you do not need a marriage license to participate in gay sex in West Virginia, just like any other kind of sex, and abortion is a matter of life, not choice, so I don't see how they're oppressing women by being opposed to killing women (and men) who aren't born yet.

[opebo]

Now, the idea that West Virginia voters want to control other people's personal lives is a bit nonsense if you state this as fact; why is this, their alleged opposition to abortion and gay marriage?  First of all, you do not need a marriage license to participate in gay sex in West Virginia, just like any other kind of sex, and abortion is a matter of life, not choice, so I don't see how they're oppressing women by being opposed to killing women (and men) who aren't born yet.

But the mere fact that you care about other's personal activities that have no effect upon you shows you are an intolerant.  Besides, we weren't talking about gay sex, we were talking about marriage.

Obviously opposition to abortion and gay marriage are attempts to control other people's personal lives.

[Ebowed]

As I stated, this is not the case with abortion.  I've never met an anti-abortion person who's reason for their position is because they want to "oppress" women.

As for gay marriage, who cares anyway.  It's one of the most boring political issues out there.  migrendel is opposed to gay marriage (obviously for different reasons than West Virginians) but you can't call him intolerant, can you?

[opebo]

As I stated, this is not the case with abortion.  I've never met an anti-abortion person who's reason for their position is because they want to "oppress" women.

Their intention is irrelvant.   They are meddling, based on what they believe to be 'objective morality', and not based on any effect abortions have upon them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with migrendel that marriages of any kind are rather distasteful, but I'm deeply offended that any class of people is treated unequally based on the fiction of objective morality.

[Ebowed]

As I stated, this is not the case with abortion.  I've never met an anti-abortion person who's reason for their position is because they want to "oppress" women.

Their intention is irrelvant.   They are meddling, based on what they believe to be 'objective morality', and not based on any effect abortions have upon them.

This is only your opinion, yet you continue to state it as fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You compare marriage to slavery, yet you want to expand it?  If I were you I'd want to get rid of all forms of it, not vote yes on gay marriage and then go and yell about how bad marriage is to begin with.

[dazzleman]

yes, the Afrikaners and the blacks got along fine until the British came around. The British caused all the problems.

I'm not sure I can buy into this.  The British may have accelerated the problems, but I think they would have developed anyway as the society matured.  It's a little (though not exactly) like saying that blacks and whites in Boston got along great before forced busing.  They got along better than they did afterward, mostly because there was no little to no contact.  But that doesn't mean that the two groups together comprised a functioning society.

[Richard]

yes, the Afrikaners and the blacks got along fine until the British came around. The British caused all the problems.

I'm not sure I can buy into this.  The British may have accelerated the problems, but I think they would have developed anyway as the society matured.  It's a little (though not exactly) like saying that blacks and whites in Boston got along great before forced busing.  They got along better than they did afterward, mostly because there was no little to no contact.  But that doesn't mean that the two groups together comprised a functioning society.

He is right.  South Africa has gold, diamonds, platinum, and other minerals.  Lots of it.  The British wanted it.

The Transvaal, Natal, and the Orange Free State were purchased from the black people by the Afrikaners.  It belongs to them.  The British came, and things went to hell.

[dazzleman]

yes, the Afrikaners and the blacks got along fine until the British came around. The British caused all the problems.

I'm not sure I can buy into this.  The British may have accelerated the problems, but I think they would have developed anyway as the society matured.  It's a little (though not exactly) like saying that blacks and whites in Boston got along great before forced busing.  They got along better than they did afterward, mostly because there was no little to no contact.  But that doesn't mean that the two groups together comprised a functioning society.

He is right.  South Africa has gold, diamonds, platinum, and other minerals.  Lots of it.  The British wanted it.

The Transvaal, Natal, and the Orange Free State were purchased from the black people by the Afrikaners.  It belongs to them.  The British came, and things went to hell.

I'm not saying the British didn't contribute to the problem.  I'm sure they did.  I just don't believe they caused the whole problem, and that problems between Afrikaners and black South Africans would not have ultimately occurred even without the British.

[opebo]

As I stated, this is not the case with abortion.  I've never met an anti-abortion person who's reason for their position is because they want to "oppress" women.

Their intention is irrelvant.   They are meddling, based on what they believe to be 'objective morality', and not based on any effect abortions have upon them.

This is only your opinion, yet you continue to state it as fact.

No, it is what they give as a rational for their behaviours.  They think abortion is 'wrong'.  Enough said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You compare marriage to slavery, yet you want to expand it?  If I were you I'd want to get rid of all forms of it, not vote yes on gay marriage and then go and yell about how bad marriage is to begin with.
[/quote]

Where did I compare marriage to slavery?  Not in the above post.  I said it was 'distasteful'.  But just because I dislike something, why should I want other's not to have access to it?  I'm not an intolerant.  Let them be married, I just wouldn't care for such a miserable lifestyle.

[Ebowed]

You have implied that marriage and slavery are similar many times before, if not outright stated so.  Also, I think rape is 'wrong.'  Am I subjecting my personal preferences over people's lives?

[opebo]

You have implied that marriage and slavery are similar many times before, if not outright stated so.  Also, I think rape is 'wrong.'  Am I subjecting my personal preferences over people's lives?

Yes.  A more appropriate way of approaching the issue of use of force of one citizen upon another is not to say it is 'objectively wrong', but rather that all (or most) citizens subjectively wish to be free of such attacks on their person, and the State engages in a social contract with them, promising to attempt to prevent such infringements.