African American "culture"

[Rob]

Good for you for admitting it!  As I have said before, there is no objective morality, but what I am tired of is whites who oppress blacks and other poor, and then expect not to be hated for it.

You got me here! I mean, all this time I hated blacks without admitting it, but you tricked me into making a completely non-sarcastic confession. Bravo!

[opebo]

Good for you for admitting it!  As I have said before, there is no objective morality, but what I am tired of is whites who oppress blacks and other poor, and then expect not to be hated for it.

You got me here! I mean, all this time I hated blacks without admitting it, but you tricked me into making a completely non-sarcastic confession. Bravo!

I understand that you would claim you do not hate blacks.  However you often make statements - such as your defense of the racist Richius - which bely that claim.

[Ebowed]

There is no doubt in my mind that Richius is racist, but you are also racist Opebo, if not more so-- in fact, we all have our prejudices.  For someone who believes in "objective morality," I have to wonder why you speak with such an authoritive slant, like when you claim Richius is a racist.

[opebo]

There is no doubt in my mind that Richius is racist, but you are also racist Opebo, if not more so-- in fact, we all have our prejudices.  For someone who believes in "objective morality," I have to wonder why you speak with such an authoritive slant, like when you claim Richius is a racist.

I don't disbelieve the possibility of defining a term like racist, I just disbelieve the validity of claiming it universally 'good' or 'bad'.

[Rob]

I understand that you would claim you do not hate blacks.  However you often make statements - such as your defense of the racist Richius - which bely that claim.

Okay. Where have I made any "racist" statements?

[Ebowed]

I understand that you would claim you do not hate blacks.  However you often make statements - such as your defense of the racist Richius - which bely that claim.

Okay. Where have I made any "racist" statements?

WHEN YOU SAID YOUR AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE LOL

[Ebowed]

There is no doubt in my mind that Richius is racist, but you are also racist Opebo, if not more so-- in fact, we all have our prejudices.  For someone who believes in "objective morality," I have to wonder why you speak with such an authoritive slant, like when you claim Richius is a racist.

I don't disbelieve the possibility of defining a term like racist, I just disbelieve the validity of claiming it universally 'good' or 'bad'.

So you're only a moral relativist when it interferes with your sex life.  Gotcha.

[opebo]

I don't disbelieve the possibility of defining a term like racist, I just disbelieve the validity of claiming it universally 'good' or 'bad'.

So you're only a moral relativist when it interferes with your sex life.  Gotcha.

No, I am a moral relativist in all things.  As my above statement confirms. 

[DanielX]

I don't disbelieve the possibility of defining a term like racist, I just disbelieve the validity of claiming it universally 'good' or 'bad'.

So you're only a moral relativist when it interferes with your sex life.  Gotcha.

No, I am a moral relativist in all things.  As my above statement confirms. 

If you were a moral relativist in all things, you're officially amoral. Meaning: you will do absolutely anything to benefit yourself, and do not care about others.

My definitions of 'moral' types:

'sacrificial' moral: someone who will do what's good for others without taking into consideration what's good for themself.
'mixed' moral: someone who will do what's good for others, if it doesn't cause a detriment to oneself.
'self-serving' moral: someone who will do what's good for others, if it benefits themself.
'Objectivist' moral: someone who will do things to benefit themself, as long as one respects the rights of others to benefit themselves as well.  (can't think of a better title, and incidentally you really should read Ayn Rand, opebo. You might start to re-think your worldview there. And there's even sex scenes in some of her books ).
amoral: someone who will do things to benefit themselves, and don't give a thought to others.
immoral: someone who will do things to benefit themselves, sometimes actively seeking to cause a detriment to others. Basically a psychopath.

I'm somewhere between 'self-serving' and 'objectivist' in that regard. Probably the ideal is some mix of 'mixed', 'self-serving' and 'objectivist'. Sacrificial is just silly, and amoral/immoral can be bad.
 

[opebo]

incidentally you really should read Ayn Rand, opebo. You might start to re-think your worldview there. And there's even sex scenes in some of her books ).

I read all of Rand's writings in my early teenage years. 

[DanielX]

incidentally you really should read Ayn Rand, opebo. You might start to re-think your worldview there. And there's even sex scenes in some of her books ).

I read all of Rand's writings in my early teenage years. 

Re-read them (all of them, at least the big fiction works). And then  pick up Heinlein (he's got some real odd ideas, and he's a bit subtler). Or go serious economics - read some stuff by Hayek, or possibly 1960's-era Greenspan. Anything to knock some sense into your head .

[opebo]

incidentally you really should read Ayn Rand, opebo. You might start to re-think your worldview there. And there's even sex scenes in some of her books ).

I read all of Rand's writings in my early teenage years. 

Re-read them (all of them, at least the big fiction works). And then  pick up Heinlein (he's got some real odd ideas, and he's a bit subtler). Or go serious economics - read some stuff by Hayek, or possibly 1960's-era Greenspan. Anything to knock some sense into your head .

I understand all that stuff, and it all makes a lot of sense if you are very rich.  Otherwise it is just a way to convince yourself your miserable place in the heirarchy is 'deserved'. 

I am no socialist.  I'm a liberal.  I recognize what Hayek valued about his adoptive homeland (England), and dreaded about the Soviets.  But I think that all this bootstrap and Horatio Alger talk is offensively blatant propaganda, and that if we want a society that isn't full of desperate people living in misery and engaging in violence out of despair, we'd better redistribute a bit.  It is virtually incontrovertible that the quality of life is higher for most people in the moderated redistributionist capitalism of Western Europe than in the United States.

[Sam Spade]

African-American culture used to be quite vibrant and creative.

Then came the aura of victimology and it has turned into garbage. 

The same thing has happened to white American culture, but it different ways and it's not quite as pervasive.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Daniel, you're forgetting that opebo used to be an anarcho-capitalist and was a huge Rand fan.

[opebo]

Daniel, you're forgetting that opebo used to be an anarcho-capitalist and was a huge Rand fan.

In fairness to me, I always thought her writing was over-wrought crap, and I never embraced her view on objective morality.

[DanielX]

incidentally you really should read Ayn Rand, opebo. You might start to re-think your worldview there. And there's even sex scenes in some of her books ).

I read all of Rand's writings in my early teenage years. 

Re-read them (all of them, at least the big fiction works). And then  pick up Heinlein (he's got some real odd ideas, and he's a bit subtler). Or go serious economics - read some stuff by Hayek, or possibly 1960's-era Greenspan. Anything to knock some sense into your head .

I understand all that stuff, and it all makes a lot of sense if you are very rich.  Otherwise it is just a way to convince yourself your miserable place in the heirarchy is 'deserved'. 

Not entirely true. You're thinking from a completely different viewpoint - that people cannot change themselves, except through redistribution. Which comes from a more fundamental flaw in your thinking: that somehow money (or more accuately wealth) is both available in an unchangeable amount (ie, fixed, cannot change save through redistribution), and is indefinite (can be redistributed without negative consequences). Consider this case: a factory owner is forced to pay $15/hour salaries for workers; he cannot afford to do this and make a good profit, and therefore hires fewer (expanding his business less rapidly, and therefore harming the economy in that respect). The people who would get the jobs instead go on welfare; which is payed by the factory owner anyway, and by all his workers. With the 'choice' of a massive labor cost or overtaxation, the factory begins to lose money, and is about to fail. Something must be done (after all, all the factories can't fail at once); ergo, the government steps in, buys the factory, and operates it at a loss. This loss is passed on to taxpayers...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope. You're a socialist. A liberal is either center-left (US definition - and i do mean center-left by a US point of view) or a libertarian (European definition). You're no Michael Badnarik, and you're no Bill Clinton either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You keep on mentioning this Alratio Hoger guy; i told you i never heard of him before you brought him up. Why you dissing him and not, say, Ayn Rand?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Or should we?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I contrevert it. Hell, I question the 'moderated redistributionist' - that's what the United States is now! (Progressive income tax, welfare spending, Medicaid, those aren't redistributionist?)

[opebo]

incidentally you really should read Ayn Rand, opebo. You might start to re-think your worldview there. And there's even sex scenes in some of her books ).

I read all of Rand's writings in my early teenage years. 

Re-read them (all of them, at least the big fiction works). And then  pick up Heinlein (he's got some real odd ideas, and he's a bit subtler). Or go serious economics - read some stuff by Hayek, or possibly 1960's-era Greenspan. Anything to knock some sense into your head .

I understand all that stuff, and it all makes a lot of sense if you are very rich.  Otherwise it is just a way to convince yourself your miserable place in the heirarchy is 'deserved'. 

Not entirely true. You're thinking from a completely different viewpoint - that people cannot change themselves, except through redistribution. Which comes from a more fundamental flaw in your thinking: that somehow money (or more accuately wealth) is both available in an unchangeable amount (ie, fixed, cannot change save through redistribution), and is indefinite (can be redistributed without negative consequences). Consider this case: a factory owner is forced to pay $15/hour salaries for workers; he cannot afford to do this and make a good profit, and therefore hires fewer (expanding his business less rapidly, and therefore harming the economy in that respect). The people who would get the jobs instead go on welfare; which is payed by the factory owner anyway, and by all his workers. With the 'choice' of a massive labor cost or overtaxation, the factory begins to lose money, and is about to fail. Something must be done (after all, all the factories can't fail at once); ergo, the government steps in, buys the factory, and operates it at a loss. This loss is passed on to taxpayers...

What garbage.  In fact the factory was in China long before you or I started our little discussion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope. You're a socialist. A liberal is either center-left (US definition - and i do mean center-left by a US point of view) or a libertarian (European definition). You're no Michael Badnarik, and you're no Bill Clinton either.[/quote]

Nope, I'm a liberal by the american definition.  Bill Clinton was center-right on economic issues.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm dissing anyone who claims the working class can rise to the position of the owning class.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, explain how life for the median person - a worker making $35,000 a year in the US - is better here than for a similar worker in Europe, won't you?

There he has 6-8 weeks vacation, and is completely secure that a comfortable dole awaits him if he should get tired of working or become incapable of work.  His pay is generous and protected by a union, and his health care is of generally higher quality than that in the US, and paid for by taxes.  He is assured of it regardless of his personal ups and downs.   Lastly, his currency is strong and healthy, and he can take his Euros abroad and live like a king during his long, relaxing 8 weeks off.

Here he - a poor without capital - is utterly at the mercy of market forces.  Which one is better off?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL, Chirac is probably more of a socialist than Opebo.

[??????????]

... A continuing legacy of the slavery era is the damage done to Black culture by destroying its roots and superimposing a Western culture upon it.   

More PC rubbish. Quit complaining about your past and lets move forward.

[opebo]

... A continuing legacy of the slavery era is the damage done to Black culture by destroying its roots and superimposing a Western culture upon it.   

More PC rubbish. Quit complaining about your past and lets move forward.

Haha, very convenient for the Southern White, eh?  It is like a muderer saying oh well yes, I killed him, but it was all in the past..  lets move on!

[Ebowed]

... A continuing legacy of the slavery era is the damage done to Black culture by destroying its roots and superimposing a Western culture upon it.   

More PC rubbish. Quit complaining about your past and lets move forward.

Haha, very convenient for the Southern White, eh?  It is like a muderer saying oh well yes, I killed him, but it was all in the past..  lets move on!

I'm surprised that you, Opebo, don't believe in forgiveness, especially considering that StatesRights never killed any blacks-- only white people from centuries before did.  I'd expect a fellow anti-death penalty person to believe in at least some degree of forgiveness, but apparently for you a man who murders should not be put to death, but a man who is distantly related to past murderers should be given unrelenting scrutiny.  You, sir, are a hypocrite.

[Ebowed]

African-American culture used to be quite vibrant and creative.

Then came the aura of victimology and it has turned into garbage.

Quite the generalization.  Again, it's like me saying that white culture is garbage because all it consists of is eating fast food and being obese.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

LOL, Chirac is probably more of a socialist than Opebo.

well according to some Republicans, Chirac is to the left o Kucinich (yes, I have actualy heard this claim before)

[migrendel]

I believe African-American culture has been one of the seminal contributions to our nation's life, and has enriched us and altered our perceptions immeasureably. However, it bothers me that some people can't accept its raw and unvarnished aspects, and consider themselves too refined for it.

I also find it difficult to consider Ayn Rand in any way literary. She was unable to style prose beyond the point of didactic cant, and seemed to confuse selfishness with a coherent philosophical system. At least Nietzsche could turn a phrase and offer a fresh opinion.

[Bono]

How is not African-American? He's a lot more African than American blacks.

His ancestors are from Europe, and he lives in Canada.

So? He was born in Africa. As for him living in Canada- well, that would disqualify all American blacks from being considered "African-American", wouldn't it?

The African part refers to the race. And what is American about Richius?

So berbers aren't african?