Sign In

Mrebo

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
20-Mar-2011
Last activity
24-Sep-2018
Posts
4762

Post History

Post
#1241416
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

One of the main reasons that MLK seemed so moderate to white America was the militancy of people like Malcolm X. How could you possibly disagree that there is a widespread problem of police brutality? I’m on the fence about self-defense when unjustly assaulted by police. I do believe that it’s morally acceptable to defend yourself but I think it would mostly just make things worse for the victim.

Also, are you opposed to the American Revolution? How is the flag not just a symbol of violence to you? Washington should’ve just gone on hunger strike according to your logic.

If we want to talk about war or self defense (from actual or imminent violence) we can do that. Even then there will be disagreement (as there is about use of nuclear weapons in WWII). Punching supposed Nazis (a term used in a rather loosely goosey fashion nowadays) is another matter. That being punched (though I never thought that was meant to be the outer limit or allowable violence against supposed Nazis) is a small kind of violence doesn’t make it okay, even if one were to have the privilege to punch Dom as he suggests.

Warb, I only have a half-eaten bag of marshmallows with which I defend my stamp collection. Actually I don’t have a stamp collection. Nor a gun. And the marshmallow bag is now empty.

Post
#1241164
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

Collipso: supporting violence against people who hold controversial/offensive/wrong views is wrong.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples now and throughout history of violence being necessary to defeat dangerous people. I’m generally opposed to violence, but it’s not bad 100% of the time.

Jeebus had a good response.

There are “plenty of examples” of bad acts arguably being justified by the result. Whether they were “necessary” is generally only arguable. And I wager engaging in violence to defeat “dangerous people” more likely made things worse most of the time. There are the times when not engaging in violence was tremendously effective, most notably as led by Gandhi and by MLK Jr, which weighs heavily against the idea that violence is “necessary.”

I disagree that there is a “widespread problem” of police brutality but the logic above could be deployed in defense of police brutality. Sometimes the police make mistakes, the argument would go, but a violent approach is necessary to stop dangerous people. I don’t find a list of examples terribly convincing - for either of your arguments - and they only feed confirmation bias.

Post
#1241073
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

In midst of typing this, I see Wook has posted. Glad to see they are taking it seriously, as what you say about it does make sense Warb. I think it’s good that people can discuss controversial/offensive/wrong views. Yet sometimes people express themselves so ridiculously I don’t take it seriously and wouldn’t post there even if I were more active nowadays.

Collipso: supporting violence against people who hold controversial/offensive/wrong views is wrong.

Post
#1238012
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Calling atheism a religion is stupid. Theism is not a religion either. Most religions are obviously theistic, and few are atheistic, but lacking a belief in a god or gods is in no way a religious stance.

You’re at least somewhat wrong. Atheism has been been treated as religion by the courts. The courts don’t really want to decide what exactly what constitutes a religion but they have said that beliefs concerning a deity (pro or con) are protected as free exercise of religion. You’re right in the sense that even the courts have not declared atheism itself to be a religion.

In a case where prisoners claimed a religious right to have an atheist study group, the court wrote:

The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns.

A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), nor must it be a mainstream faith.

Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.

We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).

I’m not sure if I agree with all that or not. A whole lot of things can be asserted as religion under that analysis that may not belong. And yet, it provides protections for people to pursue beliefs concerning matters that are in the religious realm.

[Promise I’ll be more “out of pocket” soon.]

Post
#1237555
Topic
Random Thoughts
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

As there is a socially (and legally!) defined concept of marriage, judging is inherent in that. Whether one advocates a looser or stricter definition is based on many subjective factors. How or whether we judge others for not abiding social norms or our own personal values is a separate and related matter with no obvious resolution.

People judge everything. I judge everything. The key is to not value other people’s opinions.

Stalemate!

Handman is right that most people, including those taking a very pro- view of marriage as an institution, are understanding when marriages don’t work out.

Obviously not in this thread.

There is a difference between judging in a general way based on principles and judging individual cases.

Post
#1237537
Topic
Random Thoughts
Time

As there is a socially (and legally!) defined concept of marriage, judging is inherent in that. Whether one advocates a looser or stricter definition is based on many subjective factors. How or whether we judge others for not abiding social norms or our own personal values is a separate and related matter with no obvious resolution.

Handman is right that most people, including those taking a very pro- view of marriage as an institution, are understanding when marriages don’t work out.

Post
#1237139
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

flametitan said:

Mrebo said:

I think the anti- “thoughts and prayers” meme is more tired than the condolences people offer. Complaining about expressions of sympathy gets zero traction in trying to convince people of policy views.

Here’s the thing: People (aside from mfm) are generally fine with prayer and condolences. What people are complaining about is that the people who have the power to do something about it (politicians) refuse to do something about it. “Thoughts and Prayers,” is a non-answer designed to pacify the masses, rather than anything sincere.

Politicians express condolences when tragedies are in the news. There are sincere differences of opinion on whether a shooting indicates a policy change is needed. The idea that politicians don’t feel sorrow for the victims and/or secretly agree with the call for more gun control is not true.

The anti-thoughts/prayers meme was effective in binding gun control to a narrative that prevents real dialogue. Some don’t care about persuading others or are convinced it’s futile. That’s where our society has headed on most issues. Something happens and we recite the usual mantras and impugn the other side.