I will prove to you how much more morally depraved black people are than whites. Have a black person walk around in a white neighborhood. Will he be robbed or beaten? Will white youth come up to him and taunt him? Will one hair on his head be disturbed in any way whatsoever? Of course not. White culture puts an emphasis on acting decently toward others. But let's reverse it- a white in a black neighborhood. Do I even need to finish the thought? Black culture emphasizes that whites are vermin.
This is my problem with black people. They call us racist. The black on white crime rate is 1000 TIMES the white on black crime rate. Blacks youth are rude, mean and cruel toward whites (try being white and walking around the West Side of Chicago. Those fucking assholes will rob you and/or beat you just because you're white and they hate whites!). Blacks do all these evil and hateful things toward whites and then turn around and say "Give me this and that white America." Fuck you Black America!
Micheal Wibon hates white people, IMHO. Yeah watch that pathetic show he's on you can always predict his answer. If the guy is black he'll side with him. If there is a white guy, he'll say that guy is wrong or should get fired.
Wilbon is a militant black guy as far as I'm concerned. He sickens me.
@temp5111 You sir are clearly an idiot! Its sad that people like you have a means to display their opinions. However, its what makes our nation so great. But you should refrain from speaking on such topics because its clear that you dont watch PTI and you are possibly a rush fan, who sides with his bigotry and ignorance!
Gotta disagree. Did you see his reaction when Bernard Hopkins pretty much called Donovan McNabb a "House Nigga"? Granted, neither B-Hop or McNabb are white but still.
What is ironic is that every owner in the NFL except for the Steelers is literally a Republican and probably (definitely) hold the same social views as Limbaugh.
And yet they denied Limbaugh as not good enough to be one of them...
Hey, you filthy Paddy. Your ancestors were nearly wiped out during the potato famine. But some survived by eating the dead bodies of the ones who starved, and also by eating the shit of those who were still alive.
Now, it's an Iriish tradition. Every St. Patrick's Day, the Irish Micks all get together and drink Guinness and eat shit.
The Irish are nothing but scum. The English were right kill so many of them. The Irish are lower than rats.
Rush is a bigot, look at his comments on Donovan Mcnabb and the media wanting to make a black quarterback accepted, what a joke that was BUTTTTTTT..........
I find it interesting that Wilbon calls him a bigot but cannot name a single solitary offensive thing that Rush said to offend him!! Personally, i believe he's just buying into the media bs and i doubt he ever listened to his program. They're probably both Bigots but since rush is white he will get the worse end of it.
@irishsean2 Please shut up and fact check, your leader Rush Limbaugh is a bigot, which Im pretty sure u also fall in line with. He is a racist ass hole who should be banned from radio because his hatred, is one of the primary reasons that our society is splintered. You need to shut your mouth and never stand up for this individual
"I can't sit and tell you the specifics of what he said" - and it was after that statement where Wilbon loses all credibility. If you are going to make a claim, you better have the evidence ready to back it up.
@Rainsdad Top 'O The Mornin' To Ya! I wish you many more! I sure do! My point is, it is ALWAYS known about how much a "athlete" makes, it should be known how much of a person of limbaugh's ilk is making and he preaches HATE!!!
@NYCNorthNJ777 dont listen to him much but most every thing i have heard from him has been truth, sometimes the truth can be hurtful and misconstrued as hate but it remains truth, and like athletes if they werent worth seeing they wouldnt make as much money, in the same case with Rush if he didnt have as many listeners he wouldnt make as much money. Kinda a supply and demand type thing, now Bill Maher there is a guy who preaches hate, and lives with wealth how much who cares good for him tho
What made you suggest that Wilbon is a hardcore racist? Racist means that you have the believe that a certain group or race are inherently inferior to another race. By him suggesting that Limbaugh maybe bigoted or racist and is reviled by blacks doesn't suggest that whites are an inferior race in regards to blacks.
Rush is funny playing the victim. He is a racist and a bigot. Then when the same hate is set on his door step he can't stand it. Oh well, to bad. He got what he deserves. Those who defend him feel free.
44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too,
it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have [a]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your [b]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
I love how Wilbon starts off this interview saying he never listens to Rush's show, yet later on he says he has a list of the top 300 racist things Rush has said. HOW WOULD HE KNOW?! That's like me saying "I have never watched 'The Big Bang Theory', but let me give you a recap of the first 4 seasons.". Wilbon is just another misinformed liberal reporter who just happens to work in the arena of sports. A liberal bigot is a liberal bigot.
You can claim that science and progress are inextricably linked, but here's the flaw: relative to their time period, Nazi Germany was more scientifically advanced than we are today. They essentially built the modern world. Science doesn't always result in progress; and history is fill with examples. A great book to read is Yevgeny Zamyatin's "WE" -- a dystopian novel that inspired Orwell's "1984".
@elements1985 Umm actualy I never claimed that science and progress are inextricably linked but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Again you make a worthless point using Nazi Germany, science doesn't always result in progress, but most progress is the result of scientific progress,. If it weren't for science we'd still be believing the Earth is the center of the universe like the bible says.
@DDeCouto You repesent identity politics at its worst: taking a side without understanding it. I can tell just from our exchange that you've got a limited education and no knowledge of history. Not once have you mentioned a great conservative thinker like Edmund Burke, Jose Ortega y Gassett, or even Freud. Instead you point to rednecks to make yourself feel smart. Too bad you've never been challenged in your life.
@elements1985 I have no knowledge of history? You're the one who used LIBERAL Rebulicans to make a point that conservatives aren't racist lol. You've been putting you're own little biased twist on history since you're first comments and you've even argued against common knowledge. Republicans usually fall into two catagories, 10% well educated bussiness owners and the other 90% are uneducated, working class, religious, red necks who vote against their own interest and reject evolution.
@DDeCouto It's clear that you've built the racist straw-man up -- let's now see some data to back up that conservatives are inherently racist. Because they didn't vote for Obama? What a joker. Every time you throw out the term racist your pigment just turns one shade whiter than it already is.
@elements1985 Umm I'm not white I'm half black half white(a conservatives worst nightmare lol jk jk), but anyway. I don't call conservatives racist because they didn't vote for Obama, although theres a youtube video I like you watch titled "McCain's Racist Mob - Where Do They Get These Ideas From?" please watch it in it's entirety. Psycology studies have shown that people who have high social dominance orientation scores are far more likely to be conseravtive and prejudice.
I haven't twisted history one bit. Your narrative of progressives being the engines of all things good, conservatives the purveyors of all things evil, is just dumb. Identity politics at its worst. Let's not forget: Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin -- these were all men who claimed to be, albeit in their own respective ways, champions of "progress". That term is now as cheap as the hope and change mantras that the president exhausted during his campaign. You can't even define what progress is.
@elements1985 So bad things have been done in the name of progress, so what? What does that have to do with who's actualty made the most real progress. All the highlights of american progress have been from Liberals. Freedom of Relgion is a cassic liberal idea. Liberals ended slavery, liberals ended segregation, and liberals are responsible for most of the progress women have made. These things are common knowledge and their taught in any American history class, it's not "identity politics".
@elements1985 I went to college in South Carolina for a year. That's conservative country, the average IQ down there is around 90. Dumb fucks scared that Obama is gonna turn us into "communist" lol, he's a "terrorist" lol, a bunch of retards worked up by the usual scare tactics of the right. Liberals end slavery and segregation and are responsible for nearly all the the progress we've made the last century, who gives a flying fuck if you can loosely link classic liberism of the 1700's to racism.
@elements1985 Lets not forget that the days of classic liberism was a very racist time period. So obviously theres going to be racism on both sides. The difference is conservatives are STILL racist like these tea party dickheads.
@elements1985 Okay we get it, you don't value individual thought. Since liberals are naturally more intelligent, perhaps we all should consider adopting progressive ideology to thereby increase are IQ's. Identity politics of the lowest kind. Wait a minute: working class, uneducated, religious.... sounds like you're targeting a segment of the black population as well.
@elements1985 The IQ gap has very little to do with actual idealogy and has more to do with the fact that the north has much higher standards of education than the south, on averge we are 2 grades ahead of the south, what they learn in 7th grade we learn in 5th. I never said liberals are smarter because their liberal I said their smarter because as a whole their better educated and I used the 10 point IQ gap to make that point.
@DDeCouto But that's still bullshit. Liberals are not more learned. On a 10 point scale, most are educated to about a 6.5-8 and carry themselves as if they're 11's.
@elements1985 Where's you're proof that anything Iv'e said is bullshit? Numerous studies have shown the IQ gap between liberals and conservatives, why don't you do you're own fucking research. It's extremely stupid to assume to diffrent groups of people that are usualy from different parts of the country would have the same exact average IQ. Then you come back with you're own personal opinion on you're 1 to 10 scale lol.
@elements1985 That certainly does include a segment of the black people. Black people have more than their fair share of bible thumping, evolution denying retards. Whats you're point?
@DDeCouto Again, you can rail on religion -- a popular thing to do amongst people looking to sound smart -- but here's a little story: one early morning I was walking through Philadelphia, and happened to pass through one of the roughest, poorest sections near Temple U. Despite being broke, these black residents were in suits and dresses on their way to church services. With very little, these people still had dignity. That's a story with a meaning ivory tower leftists just can't understand.
@elements1985 Yet another example of someone using what small amount of good religion does to defend the HUGE amount of harm it's done. It's ironic you claim liberals act more intellegent. Conservatives are so arrogant even the uneducated high school dropouts are willing to debate evolution. I can't tell you how many times Iv'e heard "my grandfather wasn't a monkey" LMAO.
@DDeCouto If you're looking to engage in a war of identity politics, I'm not interested. The assertion that religion has largely been the catalyst of all things backwards and evil is moronic: the planet was nearly destroyed in the aftermath of both World Wars I & II. Guess what? Religion had nothing to do with either. And moreover, the destruction caused by way of hard secular societies like Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, etc. trounces anything corrupt religious sects have done.
@elements1985 "trounces anything corrupt religious sects have done", really? Have you heard of the crusades? btw Hilter was a devout catholtic, the Nazi's wore "god is on our side" on their belt buckles. For the last fucking time I never said liberals are INHERENTY more intellegent, I said as a whole they are better educated.
@DDeCouto Nazism was pagan in essence -- more in mysticism and Romanticism with respect to nature than a belief in God. Moreover, two intellectuals who inspired Nazi ideology -- Nietzsche and Darwin -- were both atheists. If Hitler was such a devout RC, then why were Catholics burned in gas chambers strictly on the basis of being Catholic? Totalitarian regimes are threatened by religion. Democracy cannot exist without religion. This was something Tocqueville understood.
@elements1985 Democracy can certainly exist without religion. France actualty is one the best examples of democracy, people there aren't sheep like in America where we swallow everything our government tells us, they go out and protest at anything they disagree with.
@DDeCouto You didn't just mention France, did you -- the country which, only one generation ago, served as a puppet to Nazi government after the president accepted defeat? Vichy France is a reminder that France should never be championed as some democratic ideal.
@elements1985 I meant the surge of athiesm in France not the emergance of secularism, when secularism emerged the vast majority of people were religious, athiest were a huge minority in western Europe until the late 20th century.
@elements1985 You fail to see the big picture, the big picture is that religion has been the worst enemy of scientific progress. 40% of Americans reject evolution, thats an embarassing statistic, and the vast majority of those retards are conservative. How many fucking statistics are you just going to ignore. You stilll haven't adressed half my points, like the behavior of the McCain supporters in that vid, or how conservatives currently and historically opposed progress of black people.
@DDeCouto First off, evolution isn't such a slam dunk. On a micro-level it's indisputable; but on a macro-scale, the book is by no means closed. TIME magazine, for example, released an cover article on "epigenetics" -- a new theory whose implications are that genes can be changed and altered through our decisions. That very idea challenges the very basic tenets of evolutionary theory at its core. But in science, today's theories often become outmoded. No way is the God debate over.
@elements1985 Creationism "theory" is nothing more than attacks on geology, astronomy, biology, thermodynamics, and other sciences. Evolution is rock solid on a macro scale, fossils records clearly show a transition between species over millions of years, even earlier humans have completely different skulls than modern day humans, I could go on and on. Don't believe any bullshit articles you read that are put out there by the relgious right.
@DDeCouto Your depiction of the fossil records is a little exaggerated: they don't line up in a perfect order from earliest species to homo sapiens. There are significant leaps of faith required between fossils. And moreover, name one example in which we've actually seen a species evolve on a macro level? These aren't just people on the religious right challenging Darwin, but many scientists as well. The narrative of science is: today's accepted theories are often outmoded tomorrow....
@elements1985 Athiesm is a lack of a belief, so it's ridiculous to hold athiesm accountable fo any attrocies commited by someone who happened to be athiest. like holding asantaclausism accountable for attrocities commited by someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus. Religion on the other hand is a diffrent story, as we've seen attrocities commited in the name of religion. And now it seems you're just reaching for straws by bringing up Darwin in a Hilter discussion.
@DDeCouto Yes, atheism is a lack of belief -- but that's the point. Throughout the 20th century, various ideologies -- all of which impacted by atheist thinkers, from Marx to Nietzsche -- supplanted, or attempted to supplant, religion in the public and private spheres. The very void left by hard secularization -- culturally, socially, morally -- were inevitably filled by totalitarian regimes. Religiously it's called believing in false gods and prophets. Still happening today, BTW.
@elements1985 Iv'e held replicas of early human skulls in the Boston Science Museum, the look nothing like modern day humans. if that's not evidence for macro evolution I don't know what is. Whats the alterantive? That god created numerous sets of humans that looked completely different and then killed them off and created a new set? That makes absolutely no sense, don't let religious fairy tales cloud you're reasoning.
@DDeCouto Here's the difference between us.... Your intellectual methodology is: such and such group is smart, so if I align my own thinking with it, I too can therefore be smart. That very pattern -- which is very common amongst atheists -- is shallow, insecure, and extremely vein. Hence how condescending those people often are. I'm an independent.
@elements19850 I believe that such and such a group is MORE LIKELY to be better educated, not smart. If you think I'm biased toward the catorgies that I fit in you're wrong, I have no problem saying that black people, a catagory THAT I FIT IN, as a whole are less educat. And generalizing people isn't really a liberal quality, most liberals are so politically correct they pretend to be oblivious to race.
@DDeCouto Look at the historical facts: American democracy is near broken. You or I have no power. We have no choice but to bend over and take whatever our garbage politicians, Republican an Democrat, give us. It's disgusting. At the same time, secularism has never been as strong in the US. If you think that's coincidental, then perhaps its you that needs the educating.
@elements1985 I find it ironic that this country was founded on the idea of a secular government yet America turns out to be the most religious industrialzed country with a government thats extremely bias towards Christianity, another example of America failing to live up to it's constitution. In France they care more about a politicians policies than whether or not you believe in a 2,000 year old book. In America a politician can't get elected unless he's openly Christian. .
@DDeCouto And I agree that religion can encompass a segment of ignorant, uneducated people. The problem is that many don't seem to understand that faith requires study and effort. That very classical understanding of education -- i.e., discipline and rigor at the expense of self-esteeem -- is where religion and science have intersected within the conservative framework. The student-as-teacher/self-esteem building philosophy has destroyed education; and has corroded the sciences as well.
@elements1985 Thank you for telling me I'm insecure and the product of indentity politics for the 10th time, you seem to know me like the back of you're hand. I've already learned that genes can be atlered by the decisions we make in our lifetimes in my human biology class, it's a new theory that facinates me. It doesn't contradict evolution in any way shape or form. In fact it's actualty futher evidence for natural selection.
@elements1985 In the middle east they behead homosexuals. Why don't we? After all the bible tells us to. They reason we don't is because we simply don't take our religious books as seriously due to secular influence. If you look at modern day morality, we don't believe in slaverly anymore, we believe in the equality of women. These are things which are enitrely recent in human history and have no basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are the result of reasoning and common sense.
@DDeCouto Again, false history on your end. Women's right's certainly have legitimate bases in Christianity: within the Catholic Church, for example, Mary is revered. Marriage is defined by Jesus as an equal partnership in which man and woman become one flesh. Moreover, the story of the Jews' flight from Egypt was equally an indictment against slavery. Cherry picking.
@elements1985 Exactly, cherry picking. Religion is used to enslave black people using the passages that condone slaverly, then all of a sudden it's gets credit for ending slaverly and segregation by cherry picking other morals. Then the old morals become outdated and society says "we don't believe that part of the bible anymore". That's what makes the whole idea of getting morals from a religious book arbitrary.
@DDeCouto The problem with atheists -- and theists, BTW -- is understanding that religion requires study. You've likely never systematically read the Bible, so therefore I find it disingenuous and intellectually backwards to pretend on this forum that you know something about it (beyond what, say, secondary (non-religious) sources have told you. You wouldn't lecture a mathematician on math if you've never studied it. Why pretend to be a Bible scholar when you're an atheist? Kinda fake.
@elements1985 I systematicaly read the bible for years in my cathlotic school, and discussed any passages I didn't understand with my Priest Father K each day for years. American athiest are rarely born into secular homes, most are former Christians who studied the book a little closer than most Christians studied it, and came to the conclusion that it's not the word of God. Whether a diety created the universe is an entirely diffrent discussion, but the Judeo-Christian God is a fairy tale.
@DDeCouto Studied it with a priest at what level? Middle school/high school? The Bible contains much symbolism, but fairy tale it is not. Intellectually Christianity is the most advanced moral system/religion this world has ever known, or will ever know. It's so contrary to man that it therefore cannot be man-made.
@elements1985 Yes stoning people to death is a very complex moral that humans couldn't have possibly come up with. You're just another dillusional Christian.
@DDeCouto Funny you mention that, considering Jesus himself stopped the stoning of a woman -- famously saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone". Yeah, you know your Bible alright.
Christianity is just a big breeding-program, since they knew that there's safety in numbers, and so they organized their religion for quantity over quality. That's why the greatest civilizations perished thousands of years ago with Greece and Rome, and now we have great multitudes of morons LOL
@SovereignStatesman Breeding program? That doesn't even make sense. Good one. We're as secular as we've ever been, yet we Western Civilization is near it's end. Coincidence? I think not.
@SovereignStatesman If you're trying to start some catty YouTube exchange, then take a hike. I have no time for you. But if you're looking to present an argument worth considering, then be a man and do it.
@SovereignStatesman Where's the contradiction? You're arguing that modern Western Civilization is crumbling -- like the Greco and Roman Empires of the past -- because of Christianity/religion. Considering how secular we are now, that correlation is nonsense.
@elements1985 Ok I'm in the mood to try to explain this to you one more time. Epigenetics says our may affects ours genes. It's completely possible that our enviornment dictates our actions, and our actions affect our genes. Disprove what I just said. And it's just becuase Darwin personaly believed in determinism doesn't mean free will and evolution are incompatible anyway.
@elements1985 The whole story of Jesus is immoral. The idea that God was so angry at us he was going to kill us all, but he couldn't just forgive us, somebody had to be tortured, so instead he sends is son down to get torturted to death for our sins. LOL why couldn't he just forgive us? The bible describes God as being all knowing, which means he knew full well how we would behave when he created us, the idea that hes going to kill us for acting exactly how he knew we would act is ridiculous.
@elements1985 How about beheading homosexuals? Is that something humans couldn't have come up with? Let me hear you're rationalizing for this one, and if manage to come up with something I've got a hundred more. Even the good morals of the Bible had been thought of by previous religions and previous philosophies hundreds of years before the Bible was written. Give me a few morals of the Bible that are exclusive Christian morals that only a magical deity could have given to us.
@elements1985 The bible also says to kill people for working on the sabbath, to kill sorcerers, to kill people for commiting adultery, to kill children for cursing at their parents, to kill non believers, to kill followers of other religions, and to kill the chidren of sinners. Of coarse I could go on and on but I'll stop their and see what you have to say to this.
@DDeCouto A shallow dimension of your argument is implying that raw IQ defines intelligence. Much of our lives -- economically, politically, socially, and culturally -- ultimately come down to values and systems of values. IQ is certainly a measure of intelligence, but because it ignores value, it's therefore incomplete. Most of the Left's disasters in history (Mao, Lenin, etc.) have been in assuming that intelligence wholly trumps value.
@elements1985 I actualty went out of my way on three occasions to say IQ relects education more than it reflects actual intellegence, because IQ test only measure crystalized intellegence and not fluid inttelgence. But apparantly you completely ignored me. If you're going to argue with me please pay closer attention to my post.
@DDeCouto But again, IQ doesn't measure values. Values are an integral aspect of one's education. So therefore an IQ test isn't the best measure of education.
@DDeCouto Evolution is fundamentally determinist in essence. Any new take on genetics which accounts for free choice and the impact of free choice on our genes is therefore anti-Darwinian in essence.
@elements1985 Well it's debatable whether evoltuion is determinist or not. But I'll just go along with it for the sake of the arguement. Epigenitics says decisions affect you're genes, those decsions could be the result of free will OR the enviornment dictating you're choices. Theres absolutely no reason determinsim and epigenetics can't co-exist. BTW Christans believe in an all knowing God, if he knows the future, he knows what you're going to do before you do it. So you have ho free will.
@DDeCouto See, this is why people like myself take your scientism as nothing but a charade. Here you have a theory in epigentics which directly and indirectly shakes many of Darwin's core tenets -- determinism vs. free-will -- yet instead of going with the data, new evidence, you stick to that which promotes your own ideology.
That's what I call a fraud.
Explain to me how free will and determinism can co-exist under the umbrella of genetics and biology. This should be good.
@elements1985 What are you suggesting? That epigentics is actualty an arguement for or against free will. How is epigentics any different from the study that found what you eat affects you're body, it says NOTHING about whether or not you're actions are dictated by the enviorment or not. The fact that you can't grasp this extemely simple concept shows you're just another idiot posing as an intellectual on youtube. You're not worth my time this will be my last reply.
@DDeCouto Epigenetics invokes free will. The very essence, and novel concept, behind this theory is that we possess agency independent of both the environment and our genes. With regard to eating: we eat because we're genetically predisposed to; but we can decide what we eat, when we eat, how much we eat based upon a conscious choice. That's something evolution never accounted for. If it did, point it out and I'll cross -reference in my "Origin of Species" book beside me.
@elements1985 " we possess agency independent of both the environment and our genes." Epigenitics does not say this, you're a liar. Give me a link that shows me where epigenitics says this.
In the bible, if you care to read it, slavery was punishment for a CRIME-- and if you care to read the 13th Amendment, we have that too.
And we DO have slavery in the form of various civil "duties" which are clear violations of man's supposed "inalienable" right to liberty. The USA is an illegal empire which suppresses the truth to rule over us.
@SovereignStatesman It also condones the enslavment of people from foreign lands and even tells you how much to pay. It also condones sexual slaverly. The bible was the number one thing used to jusitfy slavery in the U.S.
No, that would be slavery itself, since slavery was instituted under the BRITISH, and too many states already had economic dependency on it. Likewise, the first slaves in the colonies were WHITE and DOMESTIC, while African slaves weren't brought in until 10 years later.
Likewise, slavery was a GLOBAL practice at the time; it's just typical hypocrisy of liberal selective outrage that singles out one land or culture.
@SovereignStatesman You're completely off topic I have no idea why you're rambing about who the first slaves were in the U.S, I simply stated that the Bible was used to condone it, it's seems you wanna drag this into a liberal vs conservative debate and I'm just not in the mood for it. . Slavery isn't just a punisment for a crime in the bible, so you were wrong.
@SovereignStatesman You're so fucking stupid you're just going to ignore numerous other examples of the bible condoning slavery when the person has commited no crime. Levictus 25:44-46 condones child slavery, what crimes have chidren commited? It condones fathers selling their daughters into sexual slavery, it condones buying slaves from foreign lands regardless of whether or not they have commited a crime. So you fuck off you off you typical Christian retard and stop wasting my fucking time.
Yeah, slavery was a GLOBAL PRACTICE you stupid moron. Purchasing slaves is not the same as ENSLAVING people.
You're one of those uneducated idiots who goes around spouting EVERYTHING out of context, and then when someone corrects you then you have the audacity to INSULT them.
@SovereignStatesman Wow you're a fucking idiot. I said we don't believe in slavery anymore, and when say slavery I mean buying people as slaves, and that has no basis in Biblical or Qauranic scripture. Thats a true fucking statement that you have not disproved. Whats kind of slavery the bible does or does not condone is fucking irrelevant, what matters is that NOWHERE in the bible does it CONDEMN slavery. You're just another fucking internet retard jumping into someone else's converstaion .
@SovereignStatesman I'll give you one last chance to reply to the actual subject matter. Does the Bible condemn slavery or does it condone it? If you come back rambling about what color the first American slaves were I'm done talking with you're retarded Christian ass.
@SovereignStatesman I give examples of the bible condoning slavery other than for punisment for a crime. And you come back rambling about who instituted slavery first, and what color the first U.S. slaves were. WTF???
@SovereignStatesman You're irrelevant point isn't over my head. My point is over you're head. The Bible only condones slavery it doesn't condemn it, THAT was my point. You're so incredibly fucking stupid to use what kinds of slavery the Bible condones as some kind of arguement against my statement. Not mention that the Bible condones numerous kinds of slavery other than slavery as punishment. Just keep talking and making yourself look like a fool you dumb Christian.
@DDeCouto Don't think you won anything because I haven't responded. It's just that when you blew up like a child, went on your hiatus, then returned looking to engage, you looked like a real pussy. Not worth my time.
@elements1985 Don't think you've won because you're stupidity frustrated me. I've adressed all you're points. You've been ignoring my points this entire discussion, I've made the better points on conservatives being more racist. You completely made up you're own version of epigenetics. And you're religion arguement was also garbage.
@elements1985 You've been stereotyping me this whole disscussion. You've assumed I'm white, you've put words in my mouth, you've claimed I use religion to make my self look smarter, you've claimed I somehow don't value individual thought because I use reliable IQ averages to make a point. it's ridiculous you would even apply the term "identity politics" to someone like myself. I form my opinions through my own observations not what I'm told, my athiesm is evidence of that.
@DDeCouto Any study used to show that liberals are inherently more intelligent than conservative is science wielded for political ends; and therefore not science. Atheists like you are all the same: intellectually insecure people who to cling to science to sound smart to their peers. The modern atheist is the apex of ugly identity politics. Unfortunately most don't understand that their disbelief is grounded more in Marxism than science.
@elements1985 The world isn't 7,000 years old and dinosaurs and humans didn't co-exist like the Flintstones, so that basicaly ends the debate. After years of watching evolutionary biologists debate creationist I realized that creationist hardly ever argue FOR creationism, instead they just argue against evolution. They say things like "you can't trust radio carbon dating isn't always accurate", "you can't trust radio metric dating", "you can't trust fossil records" "you can't trust DNA" etc etc.
@elements1985 Yet another reason I consider them racist is that after liberals finally got the retards to end segregation, they oppose affirmative action, hate crime bills, and racial qoutas. All things which are designed too help clean up the mess that 400+ years of racism has created. These dickheads oppose anything that could benift black people in any way
@DDeCouto I certainly agree with Rush, even though I don't support his show. The point is, I know talent when I see it. I know intelligence when I see it. I know character when I see it. Skin color doesn't matter: anyone can have those traits. But to the media: don't make me accept someone as great just because you've got a racial agenda. I know great a QB, but I'm sorry, McNabb just isn't one.
@elements1985 Theres numerous overated QB's both black and white, take Tony Romo for example, Toney Romo gets more media attention than McNabb and he hasn't even taken his team to a superbowl like McNabb has. What makes you think Donovan McNabb is overated because the media somehow has an "agenda" to make black QB's look better(even though McNabb is probably the most criticized pro bowl QB Iv'e ever seen). Conservatives can't get enough of pointing out double standards that black people enjoy.
@elements1985 As a pats fan I agree at one point in time McNabb was overated. Back when we played them into the superbowl people had the nerve to actualy compare him to Brady. But Since then he's completely fell off, NOBODY even thinks to compare him to Brady, Manning, Breez, Rothlisbuger(also overated), Rivers, etc. etc. He's rated exactly how he should be. And these days I would go as far as to say he's under appreciated considering how many times he's taken his team to the playoffs.
@DDeCouto Why do you think so many progressives are against the American forefathers and are intent on changing the Constitution? It's because of that analysis of Classic Liberalism: that deep within the Cosmopolitan world-view of the Enlightenment lied deep racism; and now, in the post-slavery era, it is therefore outmoded. This explains the anti-Western, anti-science, postmodern sentiment of so many on the Left; and the union with Islam (who also disdain Western values).
@elements1985 Now you're just straight up lying. Black people were considered biologicaly inferior, inherently less intellegent, and there were numerous pseudo science attempts (by the right) to show blacks were somewhere in between monkeys and humans. The bottom line is the right fought for slavery, thats all I really need to say. Did you seriously just call the left anti science? The left is pro science while conservative reatards still argue over evolution. Conservatives have lower IQ's btw.
@DDeCouto Blacks were regarded as biologically inferior beginning in the 19th century, but prior to that, their inferiority was based upon their scientific backwardness. And yes, I did say anti-science within Left: from feminists to radical blacks, many regard science as merely an instrument of the white man. The conservative/IQ argument is something only a Michael Moore watching loser would make. You're free to have your own opinions, but you don't know your history.
@elements1985 You can take any idealogy and find a way to make it racist or anti science or whatever, but overall liberals are about progress and conservatives are about holding onto to old ways. The red states are the ones who oppose evolution, stem cell research, and scientific progress in general because of that ridiclous book of fairy tales. And IQ test measure crystalized intellegence, so liberals are obviously better educated than a bunch of redneck hillbilly's.
@DDeCouto Your analysis of Classic Liberalism is wrong -- the link with racism isn't loose, but definitive (and I'm not anti-Enligthenment; it's just fact). In the 18th & 19th centuries, blacks weren't regarded as inferior because of genes or biology -- they were so because they were deemed scientifically backwards and therefore inherently "childlike". Immanual Kant wrote about this, and he was by no means a conservative.
Oh please DK.....Blacks didn't commit crimes or have 70% single-parent rates during slavery, segregation, or Jim Crow. It was only when benevolent bleeding heart liberals and left-wing black politicians recognized that putting blacks on the welfare and entitlement plantation would ensure blacks voted 90%-plus for the Democratic Party that the black family went to pot. My comment wasn't racist. It was an historical fact. That you refuse to acknowledge it shows the problem with liberals.
@zl1vette427 "benevolent bleeding heart liberals" we perfer just liberal. anyway, it wasnt until recently that they got equal rights, so many r still living in poverty, or in the streets. and some of them, understandably, still have some hate for white men in their hearts. in, say, 40 years, if we treat them well, once more get to go to college, they will on average be as rich as whites, and fathers will stop leaving their kids, and then, the crime rate will be evened out
@dkguydkguy "In 40 years, if WE treat them well...." Not to make this a political issue, but do you realize that Liberals/Democrats have been the biggest oppressors of blacks throughout Western history, right?. From the Enlightenment's "blacks are children" to modern eugenics by way of abortion -- which is literal, not a play on words -- the Left has codified blacks as second class citizens. And it's funny your solution is to reaffirm the black family, when the Left hates the institution.
@elements1985 Democrats were right wing consveratives and Republicans were left wing liberals back in the days of slavery. Anyone who knows anything about American history knows that. Back then the south voted Democrat and the north voted Republican, conservatives have always been racists. Liberals are responsible for ending slavery and segregation. Conservatism is racist by nature, while Liberals are about change Conservatives are about holding on to old ways.
@DDeCouto You do realize that it was classic liberalism that started modern racism, right? Pick up a copy of the "Portable Enlightenment Reader", and browse the back. You'll be surprised. And the old ways/new ways is far too simplistic a. Remember, building a rural economy off free/slave labor was at one time considered (economic) progress or a new method of production. The quest for novelty by the Left is form consumerism.
@elements1985 So basicaly all the points you made to show Republicans aren't racists were things they did when they were liberal. You're like a fucking con artist or something you should be a politician. If you go far left you get communism, and the whole idea of communsim is perfect eqaully (although communism never works). If you go far right you get facists, a bunch of nationlist, xenophobic, racists who beleive in the supremecy of a certain race.
I can tell you've taken all of 7 minutes to read political philosophy. Communism doesn't ever promise equality -- it calls for one group to win (proletariat), another to lose (bourgeois). And fascism isn't necessarily to the Right -- let's not forget that it was, amongst other things, a cultural critique of capitalism; and has historically been linked to socialism. Your definition of fascism might also include some pro-Black movements, so I'd be careful.
@DDeCouto No, my point is that the Left has also been responsible for some racially damning things as well. For example, abortion -- which is a cause many liberals champion -- has historically been linked to population control and eugenics, which fundamentally targeted blacks in order to keep the black population low.
@elements1985 Classic Liberalism was against slavery from the start. Classic conservtives didn't believe in freedom of religion. Not believing in freedom of Religion is inherently racistbecause you're basicaly saying who cares what these foriegn people believe, what my race/culture believes is better and should be forced upon everyone who lives in this country. So right from the start convervatives have been intolerant. All youv'e done is loosely link liberal policies with racism.
@dkguydkguy Forget the first black president -- he's half white and frankly a disgrace. You can have 'em. The civil rights movement -- let's not forget that MLK was a registered Republican.
And for good reason: Republicans generally value individualism. Many blacks that have abandoned the shackles of stereotypes find that philosophy appealing.
But if you think I'm going to play the Republicans good/Democrats bad game you're mistaken. I'm an independent.
@elements1985 "he's half white and frankly a disgrace" the only thing im disappointed in obama in is not being liberal enough. "let's not forget that MLK was a registered Republican.'' thats because of its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, and generations later, the tradition passed on. there were also a lot of southern democrats at that time, and many were afraid because technically, the crated the kkk. his voting record was probably mostly democratic, or at least liberal
@dkguydkguy And for the record, Kennedy was a good president. Amongst other things, he helped this country ward off Marxism -- some of the same Marxism that the current Left has infiltrated our system with.
@splicedenergy Marxism, or the philosophy behind Communism, was developed by Karl Marx in the 19th century. It was a historical analysis of class conflict -- focused primarily along the oppressor/oppressed narrative, and the means of production -- and explained not only where History has been, but where it's going and where it ends: the "dictatorship of the proletariat" by way of revolution.
@splicedenergy It saw History as following succinct stages: feudalism --> capitalism --> communism. And that's a key point: Marxism isn't just a philosophy, it's a narrative of History. So contrary to popular belief, Marx didn't wholly hate capitalism: he saw it as a necessary developmental stage towards communism. Many on the left now disavow the revolutionary brand of Marxism, and instead believe in reformist Marxism (a la Herbert Marcuse).
@elements1985 "And for the record, Kennedy was a good president" my point exactly. "some of the same Marxism that the current Left has infiltrated our system with" what r u talking about, im a liberal, but im no commy at all
@zl1vette427 No doubt black families are in deep crisis. But so aren't white ones. Out of wedlock pregnancies, casual sexual relations -- it's not a racial issue, but a societal one. I just find it ironic that Leftists believe in corroding the the family institution on the one hand -- which is fundamentally a Marxist tenet -- yet believe that re-affirming the father figure and buttoning up black families will solve deeper social issue within the lower/middle class on the other. Cause and effect
I will prove to you how much more morally depraved black people are than whites. Have a black person walk around in a white neighborhood. Will he be robbed or beaten? Will white youth come up to him and taunt him? Will one hair on his head be disturbed in any way whatsoever? Of course not. White culture puts an emphasis on acting decently toward others. But let's reverse it- a white in a black neighborhood. Do I even need to finish the thought? Black culture emphasizes that whites are vermin.
MrCope456 1 week ago
This is my problem with black people. They call us racist. The black on white crime rate is 1000 TIMES the white on black crime rate. Blacks youth are rude, mean and cruel toward whites (try being white and walking around the West Side of Chicago. Those fucking assholes will rob you and/or beat you just because you're white and they hate whites!). Blacks do all these evil and hateful things toward whites and then turn around and say "Give me this and that white America." Fuck you Black America!
MrCope456 1 week ago
People are still arguing over this old topic?
Davidhgi 3 weeks ago
Who cares!!!
BOXCHEVYBOY350 1 month ago
I still think Rush is a tad racist.
youngd05200 1 month ago
Black people are so fucking hateful!!!!
MrCope456 1 month ago
@MrCope456 Said without a hint of irony... You're almost as much of a neocon caricature as your buttbuddy limbaugh
steveo2937 2 weeks ago
Wow. Do you realize how racist it is to proclaim all blacks do something (universally hate), like they are incapable of individual actions?
dbsommers1 1 month ago
Liberal Tactics 101: If you can't argue just call somebody racist
Redeye1524 2 months ago 4
@Redeye1524 Conservative Tactics 101: If you can't argue just call somebody socialist.
NightmareTeeVee 3 weeks ago
@NightmareTeeVee Actually the LA times called Obama a socialist.
Please try to keep up
Redeye1524 3 weeks ago
Micheal Wibon hates white people, IMHO. Yeah watch that pathetic show he's on you can always predict his answer. If the guy is black he'll side with him. If there is a white guy, he'll say that guy is wrong or should get fired.
Wilbon is a militant black guy as far as I'm concerned. He sickens me.
temp5111 2 months ago
@temp5111 You sir are clearly an idiot! Its sad that people like you have a means to display their opinions. However, its what makes our nation so great. But you should refrain from speaking on such topics because its clear that you dont watch PTI and you are possibly a rush fan, who sides with his bigotry and ignorance!
charlesmustang 2 months ago
@temp5111 but his wife is white though?
DaPlusSizeDiva 1 month ago
@temp5111
Gotta disagree. Did you see his reaction when Bernard Hopkins pretty much called Donovan McNabb a "House Nigga"? Granted, neither B-Hop or McNabb are white but still.
Darksteez 1 month ago
What is ironic is that every owner in the NFL except for the Steelers is literally a Republican and probably (definitely) hold the same social views as Limbaugh.
And yet they denied Limbaugh as not good enough to be one of them...
mdd07c 2 months ago
@irishsean2
Hey, you filthy Paddy. Your ancestors were nearly wiped out during the potato famine. But some survived by eating the dead bodies of the ones who starved, and also by eating the shit of those who were still alive.
Now, it's an Iriish tradition. Every St. Patrick's Day, the Irish Micks all get together and drink Guinness and eat shit.
The Irish are nothing but scum. The English were right kill so many of them. The Irish are lower than rats.
FUCK ALL IRISH SCUM.
AmericanPatriot2008 3 months ago
Comment removed
AmericanPatriot2008 3 months ago
Rush is a bigot, look at his comments on Donovan Mcnabb and the media wanting to make a black quarterback accepted, what a joke that was BUTTTTTTT..........
I find it interesting that Wilbon calls him a bigot but cannot name a single solitary offensive thing that Rush said to offend him!! Personally, i believe he's just buying into the media bs and i doubt he ever listened to his program. They're probably both Bigots but since rush is white he will get the worse end of it.
thorn35 3 months ago
I heard Rush was so distraught by Wilbon's comments he needed an entire bottle of Oxycontin to feel better. Poor guy.
frankelee 4 months ago
@frankelee again kind sir check your sources lol
Rainsdad 4 months ago
Yes Wilbon hes hated in the Black communities because he exposes Black and thier racist ways!!
irishsean2 4 months ago
@irishsean2 Please shut up and fact check, your leader Rush Limbaugh is a bigot, which Im pretty sure u also fall in line with. He is a racist ass hole who should be banned from radio because his hatred, is one of the primary reasons that our society is splintered. You need to shut your mouth and never stand up for this individual
charlesmustang 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@irishsean2 most blacks are not racist
2014gaga 3 months ago
wow, michael wilbon needs to just admit that he propagated a lie and apologize for it
jdcasey9 4 months ago
this guy thats interviewing michael wilbon is a fucking douche bag i want to punch his fucking face
23oscarmania 4 months ago
RUSH LIMBAUGH IS A RACIST PIECE OF SHIT
GrandChamp211 4 months ago 2
@GrandChamp211 no nigger Wilbon is the racist ! grow the fuck up!
irishsean2 4 months ago
"I can't sit and tell you the specifics of what he said" - and it was after that statement where Wilbon loses all credibility. If you are going to make a claim, you better have the evidence ready to back it up.
aceupsleeve3 4 months ago 2
Are any of you aware that limbaugh makes $40 Million per year? ( 10 yr $400 million )
NYCNorthNJ777 4 months ago
@NYCNorthNJ777 good for him i would like to see every one in America be successful instead of whining about what every one else has, dont you?
Rainsdad 4 months ago
@Rainsdad Top 'O The Mornin' To Ya! I wish you many more! I sure do! My point is, it is ALWAYS known about how much a "athlete" makes, it should be known how much of a person of limbaugh's ilk is making and he preaches HATE!!!
NYCNorthNJ777 4 months ago
@NYCNorthNJ777 dont listen to him much but most every thing i have heard from him has been truth, sometimes the truth can be hurtful and misconstrued as hate but it remains truth, and like athletes if they werent worth seeing they wouldnt make as much money, in the same case with Rush if he didnt have as many listeners he wouldnt make as much money. Kinda a supply and demand type thing, now Bill Maher there is a guy who preaches hate, and lives with wealth how much who cares good for him tho
Rainsdad 3 months ago
What made you suggest that Wilbon is a hardcore racist? Racist means that you have the believe that a certain group or race are inherently inferior to another race. By him suggesting that Limbaugh maybe bigoted or racist and is reviled by blacks doesn't suggest that whites are an inferior race in regards to blacks.
Mr40acresandamule 4 months ago
Rush is funny playing the victim. He is a racist and a bigot. Then when the same hate is set on his door step he can't stand it. Oh well, to bad. He got what he deserves. Those who defend him feel free.
jandrew121 4 months ago
Rush Limbaugh go on the corner of 5th. and Vine and score your Oxycotin. Once you score you won't have to worry about anyone.
ztellers27 4 months ago
Leviticus 25:44-46
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too,
methos33723 5 months ago
it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have [a]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your [b]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
methos33723 5 months ago
Rush isnt a racist he has a black guy who is his producer on his show, say what you want but rush goes to the bank and gets over 50 million yearly
jttalkshow1 5 months ago
@jttalkshow1 Ironically, the same liberals who cry racism have no blacks working for them.
StoogeWatcher 5 months ago
I love how Wilbon starts off this interview saying he never listens to Rush's show, yet later on he says he has a list of the top 300 racist things Rush has said. HOW WOULD HE KNOW?! That's like me saying "I have never watched 'The Big Bang Theory', but let me give you a recap of the first 4 seasons.". Wilbon is just another misinformed liberal reporter who just happens to work in the arena of sports. A liberal bigot is a liberal bigot.
jcating 5 months ago
Michael wilbon repeatedly defends african american players in the wrong on PTI. Kind of makes me sick, but other than that he's ok.
neumei626 6 months ago
You can claim that science and progress are inextricably linked, but here's the flaw: relative to their time period, Nazi Germany was more scientifically advanced than we are today. They essentially built the modern world. Science doesn't always result in progress; and history is fill with examples. A great book to read is Yevgeny Zamyatin's "WE" -- a dystopian novel that inspired Orwell's "1984".
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Umm actualy I never claimed that science and progress are inextricably linked but thanks for putting words in my mouth. Again you make a worthless point using Nazi Germany, science doesn't always result in progress, but most progress is the result of scientific progress,. If it weren't for science we'd still be believing the Earth is the center of the universe like the bible says.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto You repesent identity politics at its worst: taking a side without understanding it. I can tell just from our exchange that you've got a limited education and no knowledge of history. Not once have you mentioned a great conservative thinker like Edmund Burke, Jose Ortega y Gassett, or even Freud. Instead you point to rednecks to make yourself feel smart. Too bad you've never been challenged in your life.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 I have no knowledge of history? You're the one who used LIBERAL Rebulicans to make a point that conservatives aren't racist lol. You've been putting you're own little biased twist on history since you're first comments and you've even argued against common knowledge. Republicans usually fall into two catagories, 10% well educated bussiness owners and the other 90% are uneducated, working class, religious, red necks who vote against their own interest and reject evolution.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto It's clear that you've built the racist straw-man up -- let's now see some data to back up that conservatives are inherently racist. Because they didn't vote for Obama? What a joker. Every time you throw out the term racist your pigment just turns one shade whiter than it already is.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Umm I'm not white I'm half black half white(a conservatives worst nightmare lol jk jk), but anyway. I don't call conservatives racist because they didn't vote for Obama, although theres a youtube video I like you watch titled "McCain's Racist Mob - Where Do They Get These Ideas From?" please watch it in it's entirety. Psycology studies have shown that people who have high social dominance orientation scores are far more likely to be conseravtive and prejudice.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
I haven't twisted history one bit. Your narrative of progressives being the engines of all things good, conservatives the purveyors of all things evil, is just dumb. Identity politics at its worst. Let's not forget: Mao, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin -- these were all men who claimed to be, albeit in their own respective ways, champions of "progress". That term is now as cheap as the hope and change mantras that the president exhausted during his campaign. You can't even define what progress is.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 So bad things have been done in the name of progress, so what? What does that have to do with who's actualty made the most real progress. All the highlights of american progress have been from Liberals. Freedom of Relgion is a cassic liberal idea. Liberals ended slavery, liberals ended segregation, and liberals are responsible for most of the progress women have made. These things are common knowledge and their taught in any American history class, it's not "identity politics".
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@elements1985 I went to college in South Carolina for a year. That's conservative country, the average IQ down there is around 90. Dumb fucks scared that Obama is gonna turn us into "communist" lol, he's a "terrorist" lol, a bunch of retards worked up by the usual scare tactics of the right. Liberals end slavery and segregation and are responsible for nearly all the the progress we've made the last century, who gives a flying fuck if you can loosely link classic liberism of the 1700's to racism.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@elements1985 Lets not forget that the days of classic liberism was a very racist time period. So obviously theres going to be racism on both sides. The difference is conservatives are STILL racist like these tea party dickheads.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@elements1985 Okay we get it, you don't value individual thought. Since liberals are naturally more intelligent, perhaps we all should consider adopting progressive ideology to thereby increase are IQ's. Identity politics of the lowest kind. Wait a minute: working class, uneducated, religious.... sounds like you're targeting a segment of the black population as well.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 The IQ gap has very little to do with actual idealogy and has more to do with the fact that the north has much higher standards of education than the south, on averge we are 2 grades ahead of the south, what they learn in 7th grade we learn in 5th. I never said liberals are smarter because their liberal I said their smarter because as a whole their better educated and I used the 10 point IQ gap to make that point.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto But that's still bullshit. Liberals are not more learned. On a 10 point scale, most are educated to about a 6.5-8 and carry themselves as if they're 11's.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Where's you're proof that anything Iv'e said is bullshit? Numerous studies have shown the IQ gap between liberals and conservatives, why don't you do you're own fucking research. It's extremely stupid to assume to diffrent groups of people that are usualy from different parts of the country would have the same exact average IQ. Then you come back with you're own personal opinion on you're 1 to 10 scale lol.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto And BTW, I researched your beloved Social Dominance Theory: a total Marxist invention. Junk science.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 That certainly does include a segment of the black people. Black people have more than their fair share of bible thumping, evolution denying retards. Whats you're point?
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Again, you can rail on religion -- a popular thing to do amongst people looking to sound smart -- but here's a little story: one early morning I was walking through Philadelphia, and happened to pass through one of the roughest, poorest sections near Temple U. Despite being broke, these black residents were in suits and dresses on their way to church services. With very little, these people still had dignity. That's a story with a meaning ivory tower leftists just can't understand.
elements1985 6 months ago
Comment removed
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@elements1985 Yet another example of someone using what small amount of good religion does to defend the HUGE amount of harm it's done. It's ironic you claim liberals act more intellegent. Conservatives are so arrogant even the uneducated high school dropouts are willing to debate evolution. I can't tell you how many times Iv'e heard "my grandfather wasn't a monkey" LMAO.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto If you're looking to engage in a war of identity politics, I'm not interested. The assertion that religion has largely been the catalyst of all things backwards and evil is moronic: the planet was nearly destroyed in the aftermath of both World Wars I & II. Guess what? Religion had nothing to do with either. And moreover, the destruction caused by way of hard secular societies like Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, etc. trounces anything corrupt religious sects have done.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 "trounces anything corrupt religious sects have done", really? Have you heard of the crusades? btw Hilter was a devout catholtic, the Nazi's wore "god is on our side" on their belt buckles. For the last fucking time I never said liberals are INHERENTY more intellegent, I said as a whole they are better educated.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Nazism was pagan in essence -- more in mysticism and Romanticism with respect to nature than a belief in God. Moreover, two intellectuals who inspired Nazi ideology -- Nietzsche and Darwin -- were both atheists. If Hitler was such a devout RC, then why were Catholics burned in gas chambers strictly on the basis of being Catholic? Totalitarian regimes are threatened by religion. Democracy cannot exist without religion. This was something Tocqueville understood.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Democracy can certainly exist without religion. France actualty is one the best examples of democracy, people there aren't sheep like in America where we swallow everything our government tells us, they go out and protest at anything they disagree with.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto You didn't just mention France, did you -- the country which, only one generation ago, served as a puppet to Nazi government after the president accepted defeat? Vichy France is a reminder that France should never be championed as some democratic ideal.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Thats was decades before the surgance of secularism.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto No, it was not decades before the emergence of secularism. That began in the late 19th century not the 1960's.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 I meant the surge of athiesm in France not the emergance of secularism, when secularism emerged the vast majority of people were religious, athiest were a huge minority in western Europe until the late 20th century.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@elements1985 You fail to see the big picture, the big picture is that religion has been the worst enemy of scientific progress. 40% of Americans reject evolution, thats an embarassing statistic, and the vast majority of those retards are conservative. How many fucking statistics are you just going to ignore. You stilll haven't adressed half my points, like the behavior of the McCain supporters in that vid, or how conservatives currently and historically opposed progress of black people.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto First off, evolution isn't such a slam dunk. On a micro-level it's indisputable; but on a macro-scale, the book is by no means closed. TIME magazine, for example, released an cover article on "epigenetics" -- a new theory whose implications are that genes can be changed and altered through our decisions. That very idea challenges the very basic tenets of evolutionary theory at its core. But in science, today's theories often become outmoded. No way is the God debate over.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Creationism "theory" is nothing more than attacks on geology, astronomy, biology, thermodynamics, and other sciences. Evolution is rock solid on a macro scale, fossils records clearly show a transition between species over millions of years, even earlier humans have completely different skulls than modern day humans, I could go on and on. Don't believe any bullshit articles you read that are put out there by the relgious right.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Your depiction of the fossil records is a little exaggerated: they don't line up in a perfect order from earliest species to homo sapiens. There are significant leaps of faith required between fossils. And moreover, name one example in which we've actually seen a species evolve on a macro level? These aren't just people on the religious right challenging Darwin, but many scientists as well. The narrative of science is: today's accepted theories are often outmoded tomorrow....
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Athiesm is a lack of a belief, so it's ridiculous to hold athiesm accountable fo any attrocies commited by someone who happened to be athiest. like holding asantaclausism accountable for attrocities commited by someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus. Religion on the other hand is a diffrent story, as we've seen attrocities commited in the name of religion. And now it seems you're just reaching for straws by bringing up Darwin in a Hilter discussion.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Yes, atheism is a lack of belief -- but that's the point. Throughout the 20th century, various ideologies -- all of which impacted by atheist thinkers, from Marx to Nietzsche -- supplanted, or attempted to supplant, religion in the public and private spheres. The very void left by hard secularization -- culturally, socially, morally -- were inevitably filled by totalitarian regimes. Religiously it's called believing in false gods and prophets. Still happening today, BTW.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Iv'e held replicas of early human skulls in the Boston Science Museum, the look nothing like modern day humans. if that's not evidence for macro evolution I don't know what is. Whats the alterantive? That god created numerous sets of humans that looked completely different and then killed them off and created a new set? That makes absolutely no sense, don't let religious fairy tales cloud you're reasoning.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Here's the difference between us.... Your intellectual methodology is: such and such group is smart, so if I align my own thinking with it, I too can therefore be smart. That very pattern -- which is very common amongst atheists -- is shallow, insecure, and extremely vein. Hence how condescending those people often are. I'm an independent.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements19850 I believe that such and such a group is MORE LIKELY to be better educated, not smart. If you think I'm biased toward the catorgies that I fit in you're wrong, I have no problem saying that black people, a catagory THAT I FIT IN, as a whole are less educat. And generalizing people isn't really a liberal quality, most liberals are so politically correct they pretend to be oblivious to race.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
Comment removed
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@elements1985 I never said Religion was the source of all things evil. You continue to put words in my mouth to make you're point sound better.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Look at the historical facts: American democracy is near broken. You or I have no power. We have no choice but to bend over and take whatever our garbage politicians, Republican an Democrat, give us. It's disgusting. At the same time, secularism has never been as strong in the US. If you think that's coincidental, then perhaps its you that needs the educating.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 I find it ironic that this country was founded on the idea of a secular government yet America turns out to be the most religious industrialzed country with a government thats extremely bias towards Christianity, another example of America failing to live up to it's constitution. In France they care more about a politicians policies than whether or not you believe in a 2,000 year old book. In America a politician can't get elected unless he's openly Christian. .
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto And I agree that religion can encompass a segment of ignorant, uneducated people. The problem is that many don't seem to understand that faith requires study and effort. That very classical understanding of education -- i.e., discipline and rigor at the expense of self-esteeem -- is where religion and science have intersected within the conservative framework. The student-as-teacher/self-esteem building philosophy has destroyed education; and has corroded the sciences as well.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Thank you for telling me I'm insecure and the product of indentity politics for the 10th time, you seem to know me like the back of you're hand. I've already learned that genes can be atlered by the decisions we make in our lifetimes in my human biology class, it's a new theory that facinates me. It doesn't contradict evolution in any way shape or form. In fact it's actualty futher evidence for natural selection.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@elements1985 I'm truely baffled at how you think epigenetics challenges evolutionary theory. Baffled.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@elements1985 In the middle east they behead homosexuals. Why don't we? After all the bible tells us to. They reason we don't is because we simply don't take our religious books as seriously due to secular influence. If you look at modern day morality, we don't believe in slaverly anymore, we believe in the equality of women. These are things which are enitrely recent in human history and have no basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are the result of reasoning and common sense.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Again, false history on your end. Women's right's certainly have legitimate bases in Christianity: within the Catholic Church, for example, Mary is revered. Marriage is defined by Jesus as an equal partnership in which man and woman become one flesh. Moreover, the story of the Jews' flight from Egypt was equally an indictment against slavery. Cherry picking.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Exactly, cherry picking. Religion is used to enslave black people using the passages that condone slaverly, then all of a sudden it's gets credit for ending slaverly and segregation by cherry picking other morals. Then the old morals become outdated and society says "we don't believe that part of the bible anymore". That's what makes the whole idea of getting morals from a religious book arbitrary.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto The problem with atheists -- and theists, BTW -- is understanding that religion requires study. You've likely never systematically read the Bible, so therefore I find it disingenuous and intellectually backwards to pretend on this forum that you know something about it (beyond what, say, secondary (non-religious) sources have told you. You wouldn't lecture a mathematician on math if you've never studied it. Why pretend to be a Bible scholar when you're an atheist? Kinda fake.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 I systematicaly read the bible for years in my cathlotic school, and discussed any passages I didn't understand with my Priest Father K each day for years. American athiest are rarely born into secular homes, most are former Christians who studied the book a little closer than most Christians studied it, and came to the conclusion that it's not the word of God. Whether a diety created the universe is an entirely diffrent discussion, but the Judeo-Christian God is a fairy tale.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Studied it with a priest at what level? Middle school/high school? The Bible contains much symbolism, but fairy tale it is not. Intellectually Christianity is the most advanced moral system/religion this world has ever known, or will ever know. It's so contrary to man that it therefore cannot be man-made.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Yes stoning people to death is a very complex moral that humans couldn't have possibly come up with. You're just another dillusional Christian.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Funny you mention that, considering Jesus himself stopped the stoning of a woman -- famously saying "he who is without sin cast the first stone". Yeah, you know your Bible alright.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985
Christianity is just a big breeding-program, since they knew that there's safety in numbers, and so they organized their religion for quantity over quality. That's why the greatest civilizations perished thousands of years ago with Greece and Rome, and now we have great multitudes of morons LOL
SovereignStatesman 6 months ago
@SovereignStatesman Breeding program? That doesn't even make sense. Good one. We're as secular as we've ever been, yet we Western Civilization is near it's end. Coincidence? I think not.
elements1985 5 months ago
@elements1985
You just contradicted yourself... but that's not surprising.since you can't even construct a proper sentence.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman If you're trying to start some catty YouTube exchange, then take a hike. I have no time for you. But if you're looking to present an argument worth considering, then be a man and do it.
elements1985 5 months ago
@elements1985
What, you just contradicted your own argument. I don't know why don't see that.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman Where's the contradiction? You're arguing that modern Western Civilization is crumbling -- like the Greco and Roman Empires of the past -- because of Christianity/religion. Considering how secular we are now, that correlation is nonsense.
elements1985 5 months ago
@elements1985
I didn't argue that at all; you're twisting my words through sheer stupidity, and so clearly this is over your head.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman You claimed that I contradicted myself, yet, after 3 posts, you can't specify how.
If that isn't characteristic of a troll, then I dunno what is.
elements1985 5 months ago
@elements1985
More like I simply know better than to try to teach a fool.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman Okay, you've got nothing. Get lost.
elements1985 5 months ago
@elements1985 Ok I'm in the mood to try to explain this to you one more time. Epigenetics says our may affects ours genes. It's completely possible that our enviornment dictates our actions, and our actions affect our genes. Disprove what I just said. And it's just becuase Darwin personaly believed in determinism doesn't mean free will and evolution are incompatible anyway.
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@elements1985 The whole story of Jesus is immoral. The idea that God was so angry at us he was going to kill us all, but he couldn't just forgive us, somebody had to be tortured, so instead he sends is son down to get torturted to death for our sins. LOL why couldn't he just forgive us? The bible describes God as being all knowing, which means he knew full well how we would behave when he created us, the idea that hes going to kill us for acting exactly how he knew we would act is ridiculous.
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@elements1985 How about beheading homosexuals? Is that something humans couldn't have come up with? Let me hear you're rationalizing for this one, and if manage to come up with something I've got a hundred more. Even the good morals of the Bible had been thought of by previous religions and previous philosophies hundreds of years before the Bible was written. Give me a few morals of the Bible that are exclusive Christian morals that only a magical deity could have given to us.
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@elements1985 The bible also says to kill people for working on the sabbath, to kill sorcerers, to kill people for commiting adultery, to kill children for cursing at their parents, to kill non believers, to kill followers of other religions, and to kill the chidren of sinners. Of coarse I could go on and on but I'll stop their and see what you have to say to this.
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@DDeCouto
You are SO full of shit.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@DDeCouto A shallow dimension of your argument is implying that raw IQ defines intelligence. Much of our lives -- economically, politically, socially, and culturally -- ultimately come down to values and systems of values. IQ is certainly a measure of intelligence, but because it ignores value, it's therefore incomplete. Most of the Left's disasters in history (Mao, Lenin, etc.) have been in assuming that intelligence wholly trumps value.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 I actualty went out of my way on three occasions to say IQ relects education more than it reflects actual intellegence, because IQ test only measure crystalized intellegence and not fluid inttelgence. But apparantly you completely ignored me. If you're going to argue with me please pay closer attention to my post.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto But again, IQ doesn't measure values. Values are an integral aspect of one's education. So therefore an IQ test isn't the best measure of education.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 You've yet to explain how epigentics condtradicts evolution in anyway. It fits rgiht into natural selection.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Evolution is fundamentally determinist in essence. Any new take on genetics which accounts for free choice and the impact of free choice on our genes is therefore anti-Darwinian in essence.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Well it's debatable whether evoltuion is determinist or not. But I'll just go along with it for the sake of the arguement. Epigenitics says decisions affect you're genes, those decsions could be the result of free will OR the enviornment dictating you're choices. Theres absolutely no reason determinsim and epigenetics can't co-exist. BTW Christans believe in an all knowing God, if he knows the future, he knows what you're going to do before you do it. So you have ho free will.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto See, this is why people like myself take your scientism as nothing but a charade. Here you have a theory in epigentics which directly and indirectly shakes many of Darwin's core tenets -- determinism vs. free-will -- yet instead of going with the data, new evidence, you stick to that which promotes your own ideology.
That's what I call a fraud.
Explain to me how free will and determinism can co-exist under the umbrella of genetics and biology. This should be good.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 What are you suggesting? That epigentics is actualty an arguement for or against free will. How is epigentics any different from the study that found what you eat affects you're body, it says NOTHING about whether or not you're actions are dictated by the enviorment or not. The fact that you can't grasp this extemely simple concept shows you're just another idiot posing as an intellectual on youtube. You're not worth my time this will be my last reply.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Epigenetics invokes free will. The very essence, and novel concept, behind this theory is that we possess agency independent of both the environment and our genes. With regard to eating: we eat because we're genetically predisposed to; but we can decide what we eat, when we eat, how much we eat based upon a conscious choice. That's something evolution never accounted for. If it did, point it out and I'll cross -reference in my "Origin of Species" book beside me.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985
"Epigenetics invokes free will."
Yeah to blame the victim.
SovereignStatesman 6 months ago
@elements1985 " we possess agency independent of both the environment and our genes." Epigenitics does not say this, you're a liar. Give me a link that shows me where epigenitics says this.
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@DDeCouto What a coward. Good luck, joker.
elements1985 6 months ago
@DDeCouto
In the bible, if you care to read it, slavery was punishment for a CRIME-- and if you care to read the 13th Amendment, we have that too.
And we DO have slavery in the form of various civil "duties" which are clear violations of man's supposed "inalienable" right to liberty. The USA is an illegal empire which suppresses the truth to rule over us.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman It also condones the enslavment of people from foreign lands and even tells you how much to pay. It also condones sexual slaverly. The bible was the number one thing used to jusitfy slavery in the U.S.
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@DDeCouto
No, that would be slavery itself, since slavery was instituted under the BRITISH, and too many states already had economic dependency on it. Likewise, the first slaves in the colonies were WHITE and DOMESTIC, while African slaves weren't brought in until 10 years later.
Likewise, slavery was a GLOBAL practice at the time; it's just typical hypocrisy of liberal selective outrage that singles out one land or culture.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman You're completely off topic I have no idea why you're rambing about who the first slaves were in the U.S, I simply stated that the Bible was used to condone it, it's seems you wanna drag this into a liberal vs conservative debate and I'm just not in the mood for it. . Slavery isn't just a punisment for a crime in the bible, so you were wrong.
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@DDeCouto
That's because you're a moron.
Cannan was made into a slave because of his crimes in Genesis 9:27.
So fuck off you typical public-school idiot who gets his ideas from TV soundbytes with zero context.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman You're so fucking stupid you're just going to ignore numerous other examples of the bible condoning slavery when the person has commited no crime. Levictus 25:44-46 condones child slavery, what crimes have chidren commited? It condones fathers selling their daughters into sexual slavery, it condones buying slaves from foreign lands regardless of whether or not they have commited a crime. So you fuck off you off you typical Christian retard and stop wasting my fucking time.
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@DDeCouto
Yeah, slavery was a GLOBAL PRACTICE you stupid moron. Purchasing slaves is not the same as ENSLAVING people.
You're one of those uneducated idiots who goes around spouting EVERYTHING out of context, and then when someone corrects you then you have the audacity to INSULT them.
Fucking internet moron.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman Wow you're a fucking idiot. I said we don't believe in slavery anymore, and when say slavery I mean buying people as slaves, and that has no basis in Biblical or Qauranic scripture. Thats a true fucking statement that you have not disproved. Whats kind of slavery the bible does or does not condone is fucking irrelevant, what matters is that NOWHERE in the bible does it CONDEMN slavery. You're just another fucking internet retard jumping into someone else's converstaion .
DDeCouto 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SovereignStatesman I'll give you one last chance to reply to the actual subject matter. Does the Bible condemn slavery or does it condone it? If you come back rambling about what color the first American slaves were I'm done talking with you're retarded Christian ass.
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman I give examples of the bible condoning slavery other than for punisment for a crime. And you come back rambling about who instituted slavery first, and what color the first U.S. slaves were. WTF???
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@DDeCouto
Yeah I figured it was over your head.
SovereignStatesman 5 months ago
@SovereignStatesman You're irrelevant point isn't over my head. My point is over you're head. The Bible only condones slavery it doesn't condemn it, THAT was my point. You're so incredibly fucking stupid to use what kinds of slavery the Bible condones as some kind of arguement against my statement. Not mention that the Bible condones numerous kinds of slavery other than slavery as punishment. Just keep talking and making yourself look like a fool you dumb Christian.
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@DDeCouto Don't think you won anything because I haven't responded. It's just that when you blew up like a child, went on your hiatus, then returned looking to engage, you looked like a real pussy. Not worth my time.
elements1985 5 months ago
@elements1985 Don't think you've won because you're stupidity frustrated me. I've adressed all you're points. You've been ignoring my points this entire discussion, I've made the better points on conservatives being more racist. You completely made up you're own version of epigenetics. And you're religion arguement was also garbage.
DDeCouto 5 months ago
Comment removed
DDeCouto 5 months ago
@elements1985 You've been stereotyping me this whole disscussion. You've assumed I'm white, you've put words in my mouth, you've claimed I use religion to make my self look smarter, you've claimed I somehow don't value individual thought because I use reliable IQ averages to make a point. it's ridiculous you would even apply the term "identity politics" to someone like myself. I form my opinions through my own observations not what I'm told, my athiesm is evidence of that.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Any study used to show that liberals are inherently more intelligent than conservative is science wielded for political ends; and therefore not science. Atheists like you are all the same: intellectually insecure people who to cling to science to sound smart to their peers. The modern atheist is the apex of ugly identity politics. Unfortunately most don't understand that their disbelief is grounded more in Marxism than science.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 The world isn't 7,000 years old and dinosaurs and humans didn't co-exist like the Flintstones, so that basicaly ends the debate. After years of watching evolutionary biologists debate creationist I realized that creationist hardly ever argue FOR creationism, instead they just argue against evolution. They say things like "you can't trust radio carbon dating isn't always accurate", "you can't trust radio metric dating", "you can't trust fossil records" "you can't trust DNA" etc etc.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@elements1985 Yet another reason I consider them racist is that after liberals finally got the retards to end segregation, they oppose affirmative action, hate crime bills, and racial qoutas. All things which are designed too help clean up the mess that 400+ years of racism has created. These dickheads oppose anything that could benift black people in any way
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto I certainly agree with Rush, even though I don't support his show. The point is, I know talent when I see it. I know intelligence when I see it. I know character when I see it. Skin color doesn't matter: anyone can have those traits. But to the media: don't make me accept someone as great just because you've got a racial agenda. I know great a QB, but I'm sorry, McNabb just isn't one.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Theres numerous overated QB's both black and white, take Tony Romo for example, Toney Romo gets more media attention than McNabb and he hasn't even taken his team to a superbowl like McNabb has. What makes you think Donovan McNabb is overated because the media somehow has an "agenda" to make black QB's look better(even though McNabb is probably the most criticized pro bowl QB Iv'e ever seen). Conservatives can't get enough of pointing out double standards that black people enjoy.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@elements1985 As a pats fan I agree at one point in time McNabb was overated. Back when we played them into the superbowl people had the nerve to actualy compare him to Brady. But Since then he's completely fell off, NOBODY even thinks to compare him to Brady, Manning, Breez, Rothlisbuger(also overated), Rivers, etc. etc. He's rated exactly how he should be. And these days I would go as far as to say he's under appreciated considering how many times he's taken his team to the playoffs.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Why do you think so many progressives are against the American forefathers and are intent on changing the Constitution? It's because of that analysis of Classic Liberalism: that deep within the Cosmopolitan world-view of the Enlightenment lied deep racism; and now, in the post-slavery era, it is therefore outmoded. This explains the anti-Western, anti-science, postmodern sentiment of so many on the Left; and the union with Islam (who also disdain Western values).
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Now you're just straight up lying. Black people were considered biologicaly inferior, inherently less intellegent, and there were numerous pseudo science attempts (by the right) to show blacks were somewhere in between monkeys and humans. The bottom line is the right fought for slavery, thats all I really need to say. Did you seriously just call the left anti science? The left is pro science while conservative reatards still argue over evolution. Conservatives have lower IQ's btw.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Blacks were regarded as biologically inferior beginning in the 19th century, but prior to that, their inferiority was based upon their scientific backwardness. And yes, I did say anti-science within Left: from feminists to radical blacks, many regard science as merely an instrument of the white man. The conservative/IQ argument is something only a Michael Moore watching loser would make. You're free to have your own opinions, but you don't know your history.
elements1985 6 months ago
Comment removed
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@elements1985 You can take any idealogy and find a way to make it racist or anti science or whatever, but overall liberals are about progress and conservatives are about holding onto to old ways. The red states are the ones who oppose evolution, stem cell research, and scientific progress in general because of that ridiclous book of fairy tales. And IQ test measure crystalized intellegence, so liberals are obviously better educated than a bunch of redneck hillbilly's.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto Your analysis of Classic Liberalism is wrong -- the link with racism isn't loose, but definitive (and I'm not anti-Enligthenment; it's just fact). In the 18th & 19th centuries, blacks weren't regarded as inferior because of genes or biology -- they were so because they were deemed scientifically backwards and therefore inherently "childlike". Immanual Kant wrote about this, and he was by no means a conservative.
elements1985 6 months ago
Oh please DK.....Blacks didn't commit crimes or have 70% single-parent rates during slavery, segregation, or Jim Crow. It was only when benevolent bleeding heart liberals and left-wing black politicians recognized that putting blacks on the welfare and entitlement plantation would ensure blacks voted 90%-plus for the Democratic Party that the black family went to pot. My comment wasn't racist. It was an historical fact. That you refuse to acknowledge it shows the problem with liberals.
zl1vette427 6 months ago
@zl1vette427 "benevolent bleeding heart liberals" we perfer just liberal. anyway, it wasnt until recently that they got equal rights, so many r still living in poverty, or in the streets. and some of them, understandably, still have some hate for white men in their hearts. in, say, 40 years, if we treat them well, once more get to go to college, they will on average be as rich as whites, and fathers will stop leaving their kids, and then, the crime rate will be evened out
dkguydkguy 6 months ago
@dkguydkguy "In 40 years, if WE treat them well...." Not to make this a political issue, but do you realize that Liberals/Democrats have been the biggest oppressors of blacks throughout Western history, right?. From the Enlightenment's "blacks are children" to modern eugenics by way of abortion -- which is literal, not a play on words -- the Left has codified blacks as second class citizens. And it's funny your solution is to reaffirm the black family, when the Left hates the institution.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Democrats were right wing consveratives and Republicans were left wing liberals back in the days of slavery. Anyone who knows anything about American history knows that. Back then the south voted Democrat and the north voted Republican, conservatives have always been racists. Liberals are responsible for ending slavery and segregation. Conservatism is racist by nature, while Liberals are about change Conservatives are about holding on to old ways.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto You do realize that it was classic liberalism that started modern racism, right? Pick up a copy of the "Portable Enlightenment Reader", and browse the back. You'll be surprised. And the old ways/new ways is far too simplistic a. Remember, building a rural economy off free/slave labor was at one time considered (economic) progress or a new method of production. The quest for novelty by the Left is form consumerism.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 So basicaly all the points you made to show Republicans aren't racists were things they did when they were liberal. You're like a fucking con artist or something you should be a politician. If you go far left you get communism, and the whole idea of communsim is perfect eqaully (although communism never works). If you go far right you get facists, a bunch of nationlist, xenophobic, racists who beleive in the supremecy of a certain race.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
I can tell you've taken all of 7 minutes to read political philosophy. Communism doesn't ever promise equality -- it calls for one group to win (proletariat), another to lose (bourgeois). And fascism isn't necessarily to the Right -- let's not forget that it was, amongst other things, a cultural critique of capitalism; and has historically been linked to socialism. Your definition of fascism might also include some pro-Black movements, so I'd be careful.
elements1985 6 months ago
@DDeCouto No, my point is that the Left has also been responsible for some racially damning things as well. For example, abortion -- which is a cause many liberals champion -- has historically been linked to population control and eugenics, which fundamentally targeted blacks in order to keep the black population low.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 Classic Liberalism was against slavery from the start. Classic conservtives didn't believe in freedom of religion. Not believing in freedom of Religion is inherently racistbecause you're basicaly saying who cares what these foriegn people believe, what my race/culture believes is better and should be forced upon everyone who lives in this country. So right from the start convervatives have been intolerant. All youv'e done is loosely link liberal policies with racism.
DDeCouto 6 months ago
@DDeCouto my point exactly, probably couldnt have put it better myself
dkguydkguy 6 months ago
@elements1985 excuse me, what party is our first black president from. and who passed the civil rights act
dkguydkguy 6 months ago
@dkguydkguy Forget the first black president -- he's half white and frankly a disgrace. You can have 'em. The civil rights movement -- let's not forget that MLK was a registered Republican.
And for good reason: Republicans generally value individualism. Many blacks that have abandoned the shackles of stereotypes find that philosophy appealing.
But if you think I'm going to play the Republicans good/Democrats bad game you're mistaken. I'm an independent.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 "he's half white and frankly a disgrace" the only thing im disappointed in obama in is not being liberal enough. "let's not forget that MLK was a registered Republican.'' thats because of its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, and generations later, the tradition passed on. there were also a lot of southern democrats at that time, and many were afraid because technically, the crated the kkk. his voting record was probably mostly democratic, or at least liberal
dkguydkguy 6 months ago
@dkguydkguy And for the record, Kennedy was a good president. Amongst other things, he helped this country ward off Marxism -- some of the same Marxism that the current Left has infiltrated our system with.
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 What is Marxism?
splicedenergy 6 months ago
@splicedenergy Marxism, or the philosophy behind Communism, was developed by Karl Marx in the 19th century. It was a historical analysis of class conflict -- focused primarily along the oppressor/oppressed narrative, and the means of production -- and explained not only where History has been, but where it's going and where it ends: the "dictatorship of the proletariat" by way of revolution.
elements1985 6 months ago
@splicedenergy It saw History as following succinct stages: feudalism --> capitalism --> communism. And that's a key point: Marxism isn't just a philosophy, it's a narrative of History. So contrary to popular belief, Marx didn't wholly hate capitalism: he saw it as a necessary developmental stage towards communism. Many on the left now disavow the revolutionary brand of Marxism, and instead believe in reformist Marxism (a la Herbert Marcuse).
elements1985 6 months ago
@elements1985 "And for the record, Kennedy was a good president" my point exactly. "some of the same Marxism that the current Left has infiltrated our system with" what r u talking about, im a liberal, but im no commy at all
dkguydkguy 6 months ago
@zl1vette427 No doubt black families are in deep crisis. But so aren't white ones. Out of wedlock pregnancies, casual sexual relations -- it's not a racial issue, but a societal one. I just find it ironic that Leftists believe in corroding the the family institution on the one hand -- which is fundamentally a Marxist tenet -- yet believe that re-affirming the father figure and buttoning up black families will solve deeper social issue within the lower/middle class on the other. Cause and effect
elements1985 6 months ago