Dan's been prating on about finding "common ground" and although it usually seems like "common ground" means "agree with Dan", I thought I'd take a shot. Dan has a list of things that he thinks should be grounds for compromise, so let's see.
" 1. We are in the midst of this pandemic. We have a vaccine now starting to come out. Let's find effective ways to distribute that vaccine. That goal should be something we can all agree upon."
Sure.
"2. The spread of covid is skyrocketing. We don't have to like the measures suggested by medical experts, but we need to cooperate to stop the spread from getting worse. We should be able to agree to this. If you truly don't want to follow the guidelines, that's fine, but then stay home. If you can't wear a mask in a store, stay home. It's your right to not wear a mask if you don't want to, but it's not your right to insist upon going wherever you please without a mask and put other people at risk."
Interesting take that seems to downplay the lack of evidence that masks make a significant difference, that what is portrayed as "wearing a mask", is really closing down significant sectors of the economy and inflicting varying degrees of harm on people beyond COVID.
"For a short time, we can do this. We should be able to agree upon this goal."
If by "short time" you mean "months on end"...
"3. Our economy has taken a big hit this last year. We need to find ways that are safe to get us working again and we can do it. Social isolation and masks are a convenience, but it's also an opportunity to find new ways of doing things. Groceries need to be delivered more. Restaurant food can be delivered. We can be smart about this and create jobs and help one another in the process."
Yes it has. Unfortunately much of the damage is because we've closed down businesses without regard to actual risk. Unfortunately, restaurants can't survive for months on carry out business, small retail can't compete with Amazon, people/businesses who own rental property can't pay their mortgages, taxes, and utilities without rental income. Mental health issues and suicides are increasing. The notion that we can take millions of people and tell them to work for Insta Cart as a way to rebuild the economy is absurd. While, I'm not a fan of excessive government spending in general. The notion that the state or federal government can unilaterally shut down someone's business or take a way their ability to earn a living without compensating them for their loss is incredibly disturbing.
"4. While we're figuring it out, many people are hurting. We need financial aid package and we need it now. This should be an area of common ground. We can disagree upon the exact numbers, but we have to work together to get something out."
Especially now that Biden is POTUS elect, now it's time for Pelosi to negotiate a deal that provides LESS help that various options she's rejected in the past months. In all seriousness, as I said above, the notion that the government can unilaterally take away someone's livelihood without compensation is disturbing.
"5. In Trump's four years, we never really got our infrastructure moving. Experts will tell you that our infrastructure is crumbling. We HAVE to invest in infrastructure and we can find common ground on that."
While I agree that Trump dropped the ball on this, after promising big things, it's disingenuous to make it sound like this is something that just happened in the Trump administration. It's actually one of the few things that government is supposed to spend money on, yet it's been ignored.
"6. Whatever you may feel about the police, the vast majority of the nation would like to see some systemic reform. It's going to HELP police to not to have to be social workers and mental health workers on top of being police. And we have to recognize that we don't want to see our black citizens killed because the police "feared for their lives..." Again, the majority of the nation agrees we need to do something about this. Let's find some common ground."
Yes, let's look to Minneapolis to see the effects of this "reform". Violent crime up significantly, the city telling people to just give criminals what they want, and a complete abandonment of investigating property crimes. Again, on a serious note, there should be some ways to make improvements. Unfortunately, those in power in the cities with the biggest problems, just keep making promises they don't keep so they continue to stay in power. However, when we see cities that are refusing to prosecute certain crimes, and allowing mayhem, it doesn't bode well. FYI, the biggest problem with these experiments is that ultimately people have the freedom to leave the cities where things are bad. This means that things will likely spiral downward as the cities see a loss of population and revenue, and businesses close because people won't patronize them anymore.
"7. Likewise for our drug and prison policies. There are systemic problems with how we've handled this. We need to find some common ground. Conservatives: You all are supposed to be about fiscal responsibility. Providing education and rehabilitation to prisoners results in LOWERING the prison population and increasing their odds of making it on the outside. It is a money saver. We can find common ground there."
I do think that there are some options here that would make sense.
I agree that these things are areas where some "common ground" is possible, I'm just not sure what it would look like. It's especially hard to think that after 4 years of being referred to as a NAZI, racist, fascist, and the like that we should just pretend that none of that happened, and hold hands around the campfire singing Friends are Friends forever.
Commenting ground rules. If you want to dig deeper into any of these specifically, please keep it to one topic per comment.
Thanks
98 comments:
Re: #4. It looks like, maybe, Pelosi has attached a number of conditions that conservatives must agree to (unrelated to the relief bill), before she’ll consider another COVID Bill. That doesn’t really seem like “common ground” to me.
I've addressed all of these, at least in part, at my blog. In most cases, it aligns with what you said. But my main point was, and continues to be, no common ground is possible starting with false premises. Dan's totally into false premises, and like the typical leftist, creates problems and then looks to find ways to apply Band-Aids rather than target that which actually created the problems. I'll use #4 as an example:
The problem isn't the need for assistance. The problem is that there wouldn't be the need if the government didn't interfere with the normal flow of market forces using Covid as it's excuse to do it. Thus, the problem is not the need for assistance created by the interference. The problem is the interference itself. Remove the interference and let people get back to doing what they were doing before the government interfered. At this point, there are way too many who have been harmed out of existence (their businesses, that is). Those people need compensation by the governors who closed them down, not the federal government.
More later.
#3: "Unfortunately much of the damage is because we've closed down businesses without regard to actual risk."
I'm not aware of anybody closing down businesses without regard to actual risk. Did that happen? Where did it happen? What is your proof for that? Every doctor, every Governor, every state leader that I have heard about instituting rules were doing it grudgingly, not because they were ignoring potential costs to the economy, but because, having carefully weighed all the costs, they believe that the expert opinion was this was the best call. Have you seen something other than that happening somewhere?
And the expert opinion I saw them listening to, it was not just medical experts but also economic experts. I heard you economic experts pointing out that we can't have a growing and vibrant economy if our health goes all to hell. These economists that I heard pointed out the obvious, that the economy is a subset of our health and well-being and not the other way around.
Craig... "It's especially hard to think that after 4 years of being referred to as a NAZI, racist, fascist, and the like that we should just pretend that none of that happened..."
Yes, the name calling on all sides has been problematic. And we don't have to ignore that it happened. Trump sure has been attacking anyone who disagrees with him for four years nonstop. And I'm sure it's happened from the left as well as the right. Nonetheless we have to get past that.
First of all, we have to be consistently opposed to those who actually are Nazis and racist and those who Aid and abet them and encourage them. Like Trump. Agreed?
"I'm not aware of anybody closing down businesses without regard to actual risk. Did that happen? Where did it happen?"
Then you aren't paying attention. Yes. New York. The transmission rate attributed to restaurants was less than 2%, but they shut them down anyway.
"Have you seen something other than that happening somewhere?"
New York is probably the best example.
"Yes, the name calling on all sides has been problematic."
Of course, you're the one who expects us to just ignore your 4+ years of name calling, vitriol, and lies, so that we can find "common ground" by agreeing with you. No thanks. If you can't even offer a token apology, then I have no reason to believe that you are serious.
"Trump sure has been attacking anyone who disagrees with him for four years nonstop. And I'm sure it's happened from the left as well as the right. Nonetheless we have to get past that."
1. The "Trump does it so it's OK if I do it" trope is old and tired.
2. Trump isn't trying to shame people into "common ground"
3. People are responsible for their own actions, because someone else did something doesn't give you a pass for your actions.
4. This "I'm sure it's happened on the left" is simply bullshit. Either you're lying, or you intentionally ignore the actions of the left so you can play this bullshit game. Just the other day, Debra Messing said that she hoped that Trump was anally raped in prison. Cathy Griffin posed with Trump's severed head. Multiple people wished death on Trump when he had COVID. The examples of liberals referring to conservative blacks as "Coon, house nigger, Uncle Tom, nappy as hoe", and the like are plentiful. Liberals referring to conservative women as "cunt" abound, and do wishes that people's children are raped and murdered. I've posted the quotes multiple times. You just ignore the things your side does.
"First of all, we have to be consistently opposed to those who actually are Nazis and racist and those who Aid and abet them and encourage them. Like Trump. Agreed?"
What? Are you actually claiming that Trump is a NAZI?
I do agree that we should oppose those who actually are NAZI and racist. Yet, I also agree that they have the same 1st amendment rights as all US citizens and that those rights should not be abridged. Of course, calling people "NAZI, racist, fascist, and those sorts of things when they aren't is simply slander.
Then you aren't paying attention. Yes. New York. The transmission rate attributed to restaurants was less than 2%, but they shut them down anyway.
So, WHO specifically didn't give any regard to actual risk? Are you saying that, because YOU PERSONALLY didn't think the risk was worth implementing these rules, that THEY didn't sufficiently pay attention to YOUR concerns? Or that you know that they looked at your concerns and said, "We don't care about your concerns..."?
I'm guessing that you have no evidence that people actively chose to implement rules with NO concern for how those rules would affect the economy/businesses... just that you disagree with the decision. Is that correct? Or do you have some evidence that people actively opted not to give any consideration to economic impacts?
What? Are you actually claiming that Trump is a NAZI?
No. I'm saying that the racists and Nazis have, themselves, been quite clear that they have been emboldened and empowered by Trump. Trump is, then, an enabler of them, according to the Nazis/racists themselves.
1. The "Trump does it so it's OK if I do it" trope is old and tired.
I'm sorry if you're not understanding me. I literally did not say that and I'm literally NOT saying that, nor suggesting it.
Understand?
Craig... 4. This "I'm sure it's happened on the left" is simply bullshit. Either you're lying, or you intentionally ignore the actions of the left so you can play this bullshit game. Just the other day, Debra Messing said that she hoped that Trump was anally raped in prison
I am, of course, aware that there are people (regular people, entertainers, comedians, etc) who do and say extreme things that are awful.
I'm talking about what leaders are saying. I don't pay much attention to the extremely vile, racist, misogynist, awful comments of regular folks in comments and various places around the internet and in person. These are people making vile comments for shock value, in some cases, and to blow off steam, in other cases, and to gin up violence, in some cases. It's awful, and not to be encouraged. But those are not our leaders.
I'm MUCH more concerned about actual leaders saying awful, dangerous things, like Trump's repeated assaults on the election process and on the media. That's what I'm focusing on because THESE people are our leaders.
Craig... so that we can find "common ground" by agreeing with you.
As I have said, I'm LITERALLY NOT asking you/suggesting you MUST agree with ME. I'm pointing to reality and asking if you understand that is the reality and we can find common agreeing with that reality. IF you don't understand the reality I'm speaking of, THEN you can say, "I don't understand how that is reality..." and we can go from there.
For instance: The reality is that there is no data that shows "the media" is "an enemy of the people." It is an empty charge, in part, because there's nothing to address - it's so vague and worthless and untargeted, lacking any specifics - that there's just no There, there. And in part because the terms/details aren't defined/clarified. WHICH media? WHO? WHAT did they do that made them an "enemy of the people?" WHAT do you mean by "enemy of the people..."? The reality is that there's just nothing to respond to. It's literally an empty and meaningless charge. That's reality.
Now, if you can agree with that reality, then we have found common ground. If you somehow think there is some OTHER reality, then you can make that case.
Right?
"
So, WHO specifically didn't give any regard to actual risk?"
The government of NY.
"Are you saying that, because YOU PERSONALLY didn't think the risk was worth implementing these rules, that THEY didn't sufficiently pay attention to YOUR concerns?"
No, I'm saying that because they implemented a "solution" that was more harmful than the problem it was allegedly correcting. Virtually all of the "experts" and "science" tells us that the risk of schools meeting in person is negligible, yet the schools are still not meeting in person. The damage (or potential damage) being done to our students, doesn't appear to be given much thought in the headlong rush to implement a top down, one size fits all, externally mandated "solution" geared toward some undefined goal. It's interesting to see that the more mask mandates, and lock-downs, the higher the numbers of cases gets. Makes one wonder why.
"Or that you know that they looked at your concerns and said, "We don't care about your concerns..."?'
Less that than, putting the concerns of the people who's lives are being devastated by these lock downs behind everything else while pursuing policies that don't appear to be working.
"No. I'm saying that the racists and Nazis have, themselves, been quite clear that they have been emboldened and empowered by Trump. Trump is, then, an enabler of them, according to the Nazis/racists themselves."
1. Then you misspoke, and should apologize.
2. Are you suggesting that Trump is intentionally choosing to "enable" these people?
"Understand?"
I understand that you're earlier words appear to contradict this recent comment.
Craig... "No, I'm saying that because they implemented a "solution" that was more harmful than the problem it was allegedly correcting. Virtually all of the "experts" and "science" tells us that the risk of schools meeting in person is negligible, yet the schools are still not meeting in person."
That's amazing. Please offer your proof that the experts advising and making these decisions did not take this into account? Do you think they just missed the expert advice that you've seen? What is your evidence for this?
And how do you know what they implemented was more harmful than what would have happened if they hadn't implemented those rules?
Please, cite some expert opinion, if you have experts who are knowledgeable on this. Or, if this is just your opinion, please make that clear.
For the record, I know experts can be found on all sides of these questions. What I'm wanting to see is your evidence that the experts and leaders making these decisions didn't care about the potential ramifications and made these decisions without consideration of possible ramifications.
That would be negligent, if it's true. But you haven't offered anything to show me this is factual and happened in the real world. The leaders I know who have made these decisions did so AFTER considering all the ramifications, as best they could. I see no sign of intentionally implementing rules "without regard."
Source, please.
"I am, of course, aware that there are people (regular people, entertainers, comedians, etc) who do and say extreme things that are awful."
Really, you deem to choose to ignore them and stay silent.
"I'm talking about what leaders are saying."
1. You might pay attention to what some leaders, say some of the time.
2. Your notion that "leaders" are only certain elected officials seems naive at best.
" don't pay much attention to the extremely vile, racist, misogynist, awful comments of regular folks in comments and various places around the internet and in person. These are people making vile comments for shock value, in some cases, and to blow off steam, in other cases, and to gin up violence, in some cases. It's awful, and not to be encouraged. But those are not our leaders."
Really, are you suggesting that people with 10's of millions of followers aren't leaders? That society doesn't affect politics? That these people don't have enough influence to concern you? What a bizarre, shortsighted, naive, perspective. Of course, the fact that you don't apply your subjective standards to both sides equally already.
"'m MUCH more concerned about actual leaders saying awful, dangerous things, like Trump's repeated assaults on the election process and on the media. That's what I'm focusing on because THESE people are our leaders."
Again, what a bizarre, shortsighted way to look at things.
So, when people like Bill Gates, Oprah, Warren Buffet, The Clintons, The Obamas, etc speak publicly, you just ignore them because they aren't "leaders"? Are you really suggesting that people who have tremendous amounts of influence over 10's of millions of "followers" aren't leaders?
Craig... "1. Then you misspoke, and should apologize"
No. You misread. I AM sorry you read into my words something I didn't say. But I literally didn't say that. I'm sorry I was not clearer.
Craig... "2. Are you suggesting that Trump is intentionally choosing to "enable" these people?"
I don't know if he's doing it intentionally or not. I care that he's doing it, at all. I SUSPECT and think the evidence shows that he is a man that is glad to stir up these sorts of emotions in racist types because it serves his interests. He has always been a shock jock type of guy who believes in keeping things stirred up and riling up the base as his modus operandi. And racists are part of his base. As they will tell you, gladly.
"As I have said, I'm LITERALLY NOT asking you/suggesting you MUST agree with ME. I'm pointing to reality and asking if you understand that is the reality and we can find common agreeing with that reality."
Of course we're talking about "reality" as you perceive/define it, and defining that "common ground" can only be achieved by 100% agreeing with your perception of "reality".
"Right?"
So, if I agree 100% with your perception of "reality" then you'll allow me to share your "common ground". No thinks. I've seen how you define reality, and I have no desire to share common ground with anyone who is so certain that their version of reality is the only possible option and that everyone else must agree with them 100% or be denied access to this notion of "common ground".
"No. You misread."
Of course you did, it's "reality".
"And racists are part of his base."
As we saw last election, racists are part of everyone's base. Feel free to pretend otherwise if you like. Maybe you missed the big news when one of the most prominent racists in the country announced that he was supporting Biden.
"That's amazing. Please offer your proof that the experts advising and making these decisions did not take this into account?"
Exhibit A, they chose to destroy thousands of people's livelihoods contrary to the evidence.
"Do you think they just missed the expert advice that you've seen? What is your evidence for this?""
It's interesting that you demand evidence for my opinions, yet don't provide evidence for your claims.
"And how do you know what they implemented was more harmful than what would have happened if they hadn't implemented those rules?'
Really, economically damaging thousands of people is better than a 1.4% risk of spreading COVID? I guess common ground doesn't include space for those who disagree with you.
"Or, if this is just your opinion, please make that clear."
I've never said it was anything other than my opinion. But me expressing my opinion certainly got me excluded from even the discussion of "common ground"?
"Source, please."
The unintentional irony of you spending multiple comments trying t hide from proving your simple, direct, measurable, testable, falsifiable claim, while demanding that I provide ironclad evidence to bolster my opinion is absolutely hilarious. The fact that you acknowledge that there are "experts" on multiple sides of this indicates that you know that I can find "experts", if I wanted to invest the time. That acknowledgement further undermines your idiotic insistence that we blindly follow the "experts".
Craig... "Of course we're talking about "reality" as you perceive/define it, and defining that "common ground" can only be achieved by 100% agreeing with your perception of "reality"."
If I say my car is blue, that IS the reality as I know it. Now, if you want to challenge that and say, "I have it on good faith that your car is actually orange and glows in the dark and can fly to the moon," it's reasonable for me to say, No, and to dismiss it, IF you don't provide some proof.
If you say, "I saw the photo of your car on your blog and it was clearly more of a teal green color," THEN I can respond to that comment. To say, for instance, "You're right, in that photo, it does look slightly green, but the color was off in that photo..." and we're finding common ground. See?
Blah, blah, blah. The fact that all your examples of “common ground” “reality” are not factoids like the color of your car seems to have escaped you.
Craig... "Exhibit A, they chose to destroy thousands of people's livelihoods contrary to the evidence."
Wow. That IS terrible. What is your evidence for this? Why do you think they chose to destroy people's lives like that? Are they just evil? Where is your data?
Really, you’re really suggesting that closing every restaurant in the city isn’t going to negatively affect thousands of people? Are you really suggesting that the NYC government was unaware of the costs of their choices? That they were surprised by the fact that they put thousands of people out of work and destroyed people’s livelihoods?
Craig... "you’re really suggesting that closing every restaurant in the city isn’t going to negatively affect..."
No. Of course it's going to negatively affect people. That's what every leader and expert I've heard have all said. The question was not whether or not it was going to negatively affect people, the question was if NOT implementing these rules was going to negatively affect even more people.
You see, you're making a claim of intentional harm and lives being intentionally destroyed ("they chose to destroy..."), as if the people making these decisions wer either malignantly stupid or actually evil.
But I've seen no data to suggest at all if they were deliberately ignoring any data. Rather, they weighed risks and harms it made the decisions they thought for most necessary for protecting the public at large.
Look, if you have no data to support the claim that they implemented rules "without regard," and that's just your hunch, then say so. But maybe you shouldn't make a claim like that of intentional evil if you can't support it.
The proof is the choice they made which destroyed livelihoods. They chose, without evidence to support it...only fear at best...that mass casualties would result for allowing businesses to function normally.
Returning to your initial claim...
"Unfortunately much of the damage is because we've closed down businesses
without regard to actual risk."
and your subsequent claims, like this...
"they chose to destroy thousands of people's livelihoods contrary to the evidence."
What I'm asking (in seeking common understanding and common ground) is do you have any evidence for these claims?
It SOUNDS like you're saying that these are some evil leaders who don't care about data, and that they're CHOOSING to implement policies they know will destroy livelihoods, as if they were evil and just didn't care about destroying livelihoods/causing harm.
IS that what you're saying?
I'm just trying to rightly understand what you're saying. It's a reasonable question seeking clarity of your position.
If so, where is your evidence of their intention to cause harm?
Or do you not have any evidence and it's just your guess and an unsupported accusation (not dissimilar to the accusation that "the media" is "an enemy of the people" that SOME people make... not sure if you do or not)?
Again, I'm seeking understanding of your position and the data (or lack thereof) on which you are making these rather hard-to-believe claims.
Good rules. Agreed?
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/4-tips-for-talking-to-people-you-disagree-with?utm_source=pocket-newtab
"What I'm asking (in seeking common understanding and common ground) is do you have any evidence for these claims?"
Do you mean evidence like an ever increasing number of restaurants closing because of the fact that they were shut down? The reality is that some governors made the intentional choice to shut down businesses without understanding or taking into account the collateral damage or the actual risk. They further chose to do this with no plans to compensate or support the victims of their choices. Again, at least Walz has finally admitted this fact. It's interesting that people get pissed when governments invoke eminent domain. The usual reason is because of the fact that we understand, and see in the constitution, that the government can't just take things from people. If the government "needs" a piece of property, we expect them to pay market value for that property. Yet, when the government takes the businesses and livelihoods of thousands of citizens, they apparently have given little thought to the consequences of their actions. We're left to conclude that many of the governors have absolutely no idea of what is involved in running a business. This is likely because so few politicians (especially on the left) have had significant work experience in the private sector, and because of the myth that all business owners are rich. But it's ok, all the folks put out of work by the government can start delivering groceries for Insta Cart, or food for Door Dash.
"IS that what you're saying?"
I suspect that it's more ignorance of how business works, the myth that all business owners are rich, and being more interested in appearing like they're doing something regardless of how effective it is, than evil. But I'd argue that armed tactical police units raiding religious gatherings in private homes sure looks evil.
"If so, where is your evidence of their intention to cause harm?"
!. Maybe they didn't intend to cause harm. so much as they didn't care how much harm they caused as long as it looked like they were doing something.
2. Or, they were negligent in thinking that they could shut down thousands of business without thinking through any means to compensate the business owners.
3. They were definitely negligent in assuming that someone else (the feds) would bail them out.
But, as I said and you ignored it's my opinion, colored by the massive failures of state and local government up here since May.
I saw your 4 tips, and I'd suggest that if those things are important to you that you adopt them forthwith. All I see is you demanding that others adopt these tips, while you don't.
I'll point to #2 as an example. You ask an absurd amount of questions, you ask the same question multiple times in the same comment, yet you virtually never give any hint that you read or understand the answers. You just claim the answers aren't there, or bitch about them without any specificity. Of course, this doesn't address the fact that you've left multiple treads full of unanswered questions over the recent past.
I'll be glad to consider some changes, if you set the example.
Craig... so much as they didn't care how much harm they caused
some governors made the intentional choice to shut down businesses without understanding or taking into account the collateral damage or the actual risk.
Okay. Where's your evidence of this? Where is your evidence that they did not have an understanding or take into account the collateral damage? All the people I've seen making these decisions expressed great concern about the harm to the economy, AND YET, they were listening to the medical and economic experts who have been saying that they NEED to do this FOR the economy, because the longterm harm to both the health of humans and the economy would be greater without taking these sorts of steps.
Look, I'm FINE with it if you have no evidence of this either intentional harm or a failure to take into account charge that you are making, that it's just a guess on your part. I'm just asking you to admit you have no evidence if you have no evidence to support your claims.
And I am trying to follow the four steps. I'm asking questions seeking clarity and understanding of your position. IF you have evidence that leaders and experts are deliberately causing harm, present that evidence and I will JOIN WITH YOU in opposing these actions of these leaders. That would be common ground and of course I would join with you if people were deliberately taking actions to cause harm.
But I'm not going to join with you if you're just rumor-mongering and spreading slander, right? And so, I'm asking questions.
Likewise, I'm staying calm. I'm weighing what you say and expressing concern IF your words are factual, while at the same time, politely asking questions seeking understanding. I'm not assuming bad intent on your part, just seeking clarity. I'm asking you politely to make your argument an waiting for an answer, respectfully.
Where you say, "it's my opinion," does that mean you HAVE no evidence that these people are deliberately causing harm or deliberately ignoring data?
If so and if you have no evidence that they are doing any of these bad things, could it not also be the case that they ARE weighing all the evidence (both medical and economic) and making the best decision they know how, based upon the advice of experts being given to them? Could that not also be the case?
because of the myth that all business owners are rich.
Just fyi: I'm unaware of this myth. Of course, most small business owners are just that, small business owners, not wealthy, often just barely getting by. I'm well aware, for instance, that most restaurant owners don't make it. Heck, I have been a small business owner (VERY small, for a very short time) and I have had side hustles that are, themselves, small businesses.
The same is true for many folks I know. I just don't know that this myth exists. Maybe many people think that most BIG business owners are rich, but that's because they are, right?
Anyway, just fyi. I'm not operating under this mythical myth.
Re: "Myth" of rich businesses...
Ironically, perhaps, the reason I'm well aware that small businesses are not wealthy is that I read the media and they report on that fact/reality all the time in a myriad of ways. So, maybe we can find some common ground in trusting and supporting the media when they report the facts about the travails of small businesses and recognize the great public service media provides in covering these facts/this reality.
I was just listening to the so-called Enemy of the State talking about small businesses. They're interviewing Bernie Sanders talking about how much hurt small businesses are facing right now and the need for 330 billion dollars in this next stimulus package specifically for small businesses. Can we find some common ground in supporting that step?
Note: my asking you that question is not me trying to force you into agreeing with me. It is a question meant to understand your position on this support for small businesses.
"I'm just asking you to admit you have no evidence if you have no evidence to support your claims."
1. What part of me saying that this is my opinion did you not understand?
2. If you aren't going to support your claims, why should anyone else?
"And I am trying to follow the four steps."
I'm sure you think that you are.
"Where you say, "it's my opinion"
I mean it's my opinion, based on conversations with people affected.
"Can we find some common ground in supporting that step?"
1. I've been quite specific multiple times that forcing businesses to close without compensating them is a drastic overreach of government.
2. I've also been quite clear that if the states are making the rules, and the states haven't dealt with the carnage of their rules, then it's the states problem. Not the Feds.
3. I pointed out Bernie's criticism of Pelosi for refusing to even negotiate on larger plans proposed by Trump, and instead trying to pass a much smaller plan because she thinks it'll benefit Biden.
4. If you'd paid attention to what I've said previously, you'd know the answer to this.
5. I'll point out that it took Walz @8 months to even propose any relief on the state level, and now that it's getting done, he's trying to downplay the fact that he's ignored this for months.
6. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what my answer is, because you'll likely ignore it, or re frame it to suit your needs.
Re the myth of the rich business owner.
Maybe you should be listening to the folks who support raising the minimum wage to $15/hr plus.
Craig... "1. What part of me saying that this is my opinion did you not understand?"
Well, I just don't understand the habit of people making serious claims of malfeasance that they can't support. It seems a direction of decency and morality and reason. I was giving you a benefit of the doubt (as the four tips suggest) that you wouldn't engage in such irrational and immoral practices and just up and admit to it.
I'm sorry you're comfortable doing that towards people you know nothing about.
Re: I should listen to the people who support raising the minimum wage.
Okay. Like this fella?
"What minimum wage hikes mean for small businesses
It's not uncommon to hear that minimum wage increases have disastrous consequences, particularly for small businesses. However, economic research into the impact of minimum wage hikes on small businesses suggests that not only are increases not harmful, they might even be beneficial.
Research from the Fiscal Policy Institute examined three years of small business activity in states that increased the minimum wage above federal standards as well as states that did not. These were some of the researchers' findings:
From 1998 to 2001, the number of small business establishments grew at a rate of 3.1% in states with higher minimum wages, compared with a rate of 1.6% in states with lower minimum wages.
Employment grew 1.5% more quickly in states with higher minimum wages.
Annual payroll and average payroll per worker increased more quickly in states with higher minimum wages.
Based on this data, the notion that minimum wage hikes kill small businesses and reduce job opportunities appears false."
https://www.businessnewsdaily.com/8984-increased-minimum-wage.html
Or this report?
"Looking for another sign of a strong economy? Nearly half of states in the U.S. just raised their minimum wage, and most small business owners reacted with a shrug. In the latest CNBC|SurveyMonkey Small Business Survey for the first quarter 2020, small business owners across the country report sustained optimism at the start of 2020, and only a minority report a negative business impact resulting from the increased minimum wages.
In fact, in this quarter’s survey, 57% of all small business owners say these minimum wage increases will have no impact at all on their business in 2020, indicating that they can absorb the cost of the wage increase, sustain any loss in profits and find ways to raise revenue to compensate for the increase on their balance sheets. Or perhaps many were always paying their workers above the minimum wage even before the change was made."
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/20/minimum-wage-increases-arent-a-job-killer-small-business-survey.html
The point being, like with your concern for leaders who institute data-driven restrictions to deal with the Covid concerns, the people who advocate this policy are not blind to the concerns of small businesses, nor are they uncaring. They're looking at the data and weighing all factors, the stagnation of wage growth, increasing economic divisions between the rich and the poor, and the practical, how will it work out in the real world?
I'm sure there are uneducated folks (on all sides) making irrational claims like "They're just rich people trying to keep their wealth and oppress workers!" and making that as a sweeping generalization. But the people who research this and promote these actions are not those people.
Fair enough?
Craig... ""And I am trying to follow the four steps."
I'm sure you think that you are. "
No, I literally am. I just showed you how, step by step, I'm following each point of advice: Asking questions to clarify positions, remaining calm, not assuming evil intent on your part and asking you to make your argument, as well as being willing to make my own arguments.
How am I not doing that, in this conversation here and now? (Note, that's a reasonable question, respectfully and calmly asked, seeking clarification to a vague and unsupported charge... and after making my argument - twice, now - showing specifically how I'm following those four tips). If you see some point where I'm not doing this, by all means, help me out and point it out. If you can't, then maybe you shouldn't make the dismissive suggestion.
Common ground opportunity:
"An ex-captain in the Houston Police Department was arrested Tuesday for allegedly running a man off the road and assaulting him in an attempt to prove a bizarre voter-fraud conspiracy pushed by a right-wing organization.
The suspect, Mark Anthony Aguirre, told police he was part of a group of private citizens investigating claims of the massive fraud allegedly funded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and involving election ballots forged by Hispanic children. He said the plot was underway in Harris County, Texas, prior to the Nov. 3 election.
Aguirre said he was working for the group Liberty Center for God and Country when, on Oct. 19, he pulled a gun on a man who he believed was the mastermind of the scheme. His victim, identified as "DL" in the police affidavit, is an air-conditioner repairman. Authorities found no evidence that he was involved in any fraud scheme claimed by Aguirre."
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/16/946995614/ex-houston-police-officer-charged-in-attack-over-bogus-election-fraud-plot?utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR1ebUjUS_4A0Aq2ra1JlGGMvkGooHZ83JEh-tUbodUVYl0nbGtN-RmAs-E
The common ground I think good and rational people can come to is that Trump MUST stop promoting these false claims and conspiracy theories of a "stolen election." It's quite potentially dangerous and destabilizing to a free republic.
Join us in condemning this action?
Join us in condemning "the Liberty Center for God and Freedom" in this stupid conspiracy theory?
Join us in calling this CRAZY conspiracy theory (read the whole story) promoted by "the Liberty Center"... join us in calling it clearly crazy and dangerous?
Join us in condemning Trump for promoting this false claim (that the election was stolen)... STILL!?
Are you a freaking idiot, what part of “I’ve already condemned Trump for continuing to spew this nonsense” don’t you understand.
Of course my condemnation isn’t partisan, so there that. Impressive job dredging up one nut who lost at and trying to pretend like it means more than it does.
"The common ground I think good and rational people can come to is that Trump MUST stop promoting these false claims and conspiracy theories of a "stolen election." It's quite potentially dangerous and destabilizing to a free republic."
Except that half the nation, including a reported 30% of Democrat voters, believe that the election was rigged against Trump and in favor of Biden. Doesn't sound like common ground when half the nation disagrees with you. What's truly dangerous and destabilizing is voter/election fraud so commonly and routinely perpetrated by the Democratic Party. (I won't say it never happens at the hands of a right-winger, but it isn't SOP as it is for Dems) I totally condemn the Dems in their constant attempts to steal elections.
"Join us in condemning "the Liberty Center for God and Freedom" in this stupid conspiracy theory?"<
Voter/election fraud is no "theory". It's a reality that is too common place, particularly on behalf of an perpetrated by Democrats. They're legendary for such behavior.
I will, however, condemn their selection of this former cop, as he's proved himself to have been less than they hoped as regards uncovering evidence of fraud.
"Join us in condemning Trump for promoting this false claim (that the election was stolen)... STILL!?"
I will never join with the likes of you and those with whom you may be aligning yourself to do much of anything. You're not honest. The claim of voter/election fraud is not a false claim at all, nor that the election was stolen. That evidence is rejected without review doesn't mean the evidence isn't legitimate and solid.
Let's look at some bad, leftist NPR reporting which supports the claim of the leftist media being the enemy of the people. From your link:
""His alleged investigation was backward from the start — first alleging a crime had occurred and then trying to prove it happened," Ogg said."
This is pretty much how criminal investigations work. A crime is alleged and investigations proceed to collect evidence that either proves or disproves the crime occurred. There's nothing backward about it and NPR says nothing about the flaw in Ogg's statement. This gives readers a false impression regarding that statement, and leads them to poorly understand how things are done.
"Claims of voter fraud during this year's election — by President Trump, Aguirre and others — have been debunked."
Very few, if any, have been debunked. The vast majority of claims have not been given the time of day...rejected without legitimate review. So this is another lie to deceive the sheep who rely on NPR for information.
"The Houston Chronicle says Aguirre was fired from the police department in 2003 after a controversial raid at a Houston Kmart parking lot."
It's a common practice to further malign the character of a subject by presenting a single negative from the subject's history as is that single point is representative of the subject's entire life or career. You did this with James O'Keefe and his attempt to expose the bias of WaPo. It must be a requirement of lefty media and journalism "students".
"Liberty Center for God and Country's Facebook page says the organization's goal "is to provide the bold and courageous leadership necessary to restore our nation to its Godly heritage by following the strategy that our pilgrim forefathers gave us.""
(Oh my gosh! Burn 'em! BURN 'em!) This sounds like something that should inspire people to support the group. Why it was presented in the article one can only surmise. But it's not uncommon for leftist media to disparage people of faith...unless the people they're promoting also align with leftist dogma.
Marshal... "Very few, if any, have been debunked. The vast majority of claims have not been given the time of day."
Since Craig is letting this nonsense go unaddressed: Marshal, just THINK about what you're saying. You appear to be saying that YOU (and the useful idiots who agree with Trump) are seeing claims of voter fraud all over the place and that they haven't been debunked. AND YET, at the same time, Trump's lawyers and advocates who are actually appearing in court, they're not presenting these "proofs" of voter fraud. Trump has raised MILLIONS from his useful idiots to investigate these claims and find "proof," and yet, Trump's own lawyers are not presenting it in court.
Just ask yourself: WHY is that happening? Is it because Trump's lawyers are too stupid to see what you see? Is it because they see and are too stupid to use this data? Is it because they are part of the vast leftwing conspiracy to "steal" the election?
OR, is it because there's NOTHING TO all (most) of these allegations and NONE of it adds up to widespread voter fraud, as even Barr has said?
The reason that Trump's lawyers are saying, in court, "We have NO PROOF of widespread fraud" and the reason they're getting kicked out of court summarily is because there's just nothing to them. IF they had legitimate real data, they'd present it. But professional lawyers can't make these stupidly false claims in court and not get in trouble, so they're admitting, in court, that they have nothing.
IF they had proof, they WOULD be presenting it. They have nothing.
You have nothing.
The election wasn't stolen (can you at least say that out loud, Craig?). There is no widespread voter fraud.
Unless you believe in aliens (you know, who wiped the memory of people and stole the election), a complete criminal amount of ineptitude in Trump and his team or conspiracy theories, there's just no other explanation.
Here is another chance to find some common ground. Trump just gave pardons to a convicted killer worked with Blackwater and killed innocent people, innocent children in Iraq. That is just an evil, evil act for Trump to be pardoning. Can you condemn Trump for his abuse of his pardon power?
It’s interesting that finding “common ground” virtually always involves you demanding that others condemn people for doing things that you don’t like.
Presidential pardon power is virtually unlimited and this notion that I must condemn Trump for these pardons. After virtually every president since Carter pardoning people I don’t think should have been pardoned, I’ve chosen to simply accept reality. The reality is that I don’t have the amount of information that POTUS has, and that I’m not going to play this bullshit game.
Finally, as someone who is incredibly grateful for the grace and mercy I’ve received from God, I tend to gravitate towards mercy. If Trump chooses to use his constitutional power to show mercy to people I don’t like, it’s pointless for me to bear my head against this wall.
FYI, I suggested two things that would show that you were really interested in common ground and you chose to ignore both of them. So, cut out this bullshit about common ground.
"that I don't like..."??
Like, I "don't like" when a paramilitary force representing the US engages in mass murder of innocent adults and children? Like, "I don't like strawberry ice cream..."?
This SHOULD be an easy way to find common ground. Just come out strongly against murdering children AND pardoning convicted killers.
We DON'T have to blindly accept atrocities, just because it's somehow "legal" by a maniac willing to thusly abuse the laws. Good Lord, come on, man!
Hell, I condemned Clinton for using the pardon power for pardoning his pals, and they hadn't engaged in mass murder! You can't join with other moderate voices in condemning this abuse of power? Calling for a change in policy so people can't just randomly pardon convicted mass killers for no good reason?
Craig... "I suggested two things that would show that you were really interested in common ground and you chose to ignore both of them..."
Not so much ignored them as didn't and don't see them. I just went back and reread and didn't see anything like that. If you would like to point them out again, I'd be glad to let you know if I can agree that we can find some common ground. But don't be mysterious about it just make it clear. Making things clear is part of trying to find common ground. Correct?
When you choose or fail to understand my comments and decide to respond with something that ignores the point I made, it makes me wonder why I bother.
1. I stopped getting worked up about presidents legally using their constitutionally given pardon power for things I don’t like.
2. I suspect that you haven’t actually read the primary source documents regarding this decision and are operating more from your emotional dislike for Trump and your visceral despising of anyone who engages in military force, than from a fair evenhanded examination of all of the evidence.
3. I find your demands that I get mad at the things that make you mad, in the same way you get mad, a disturbing and bizarre example of “common ground”
I know, I know, your memory isn’t what it used to be and you just chose to skip the comment where I clearly and directly made two specific suggestions that would demonstrate your interest in actual common ground as opposed to the pale imitation you demand. Then after ignoring them initially, you ignored multiple references to them in multiple follow up comments.
No mystery, it’s very clear, it’s also clear that I’m not going to do for you what you’re too lazy to do for yourself.
I think you’ve confused “change of policy” with “amend the constitution”.
Craig... "I stopped getting worked up about presidents legally..."
This sounds a whole lot like you're saying you don't give a damn about justice, as long as it's legal. But I don't think that lowly of you. Tell me it's not true. Tell me you do care about Justice, and that you agree that just because something is legal doesn't make it just.
Can you not agree that pardoning a man who committed mass murder is just evil and wrong and should not be? Come on. You must agree with this. Yes? We can't find Common Ground if you won't answer reasonable questions. And we need to try to find some common ground.
Constitutional policies ARE policies.
I stopped caring what things “sound like” to you ages ago. How things “sound” to you is so often at odds with reality, that I just stopped caring.
Can you not understand that you trying to badger people into conformity is a losing strategy?
The fact that you don’t see the irony in this idiotic “don’t answer questions” trope after acknowledging that you ignored, and don’t care enough to find out what I asked of you tells me all I need to know about what “common ground” means in your ideological gulag.
I’m good.
The unlimited pardon power is written into the constitution, and can only be changed by amending the constitution.
Yes, Craig, that IS how the Constitution works.
I'm not trying to badger you into anything. I would just think that if nothing else, we could agree that slaughtering innocent adults and children is a devilish crime and so is pardoning those who do it, barring any extenuating circumstances.
I'd also think it would be easy to find common ground on recognizing that there is a long and ugly history of the oppression of gay folk, women and racial minorities.
I guess I'm mistaken.
Do you realize how hard that is for many (most?) people to understand, that you can't admit these basic human decencies? It's puzzling and makes it hard to want to understand you. Still, I try.
No one can say I'm not trying.
As to my alleged not answering of questions, you DO recognize, don't you, that you have dodged more reasonable questions than I have, almost certainly?
But you probably don't understand or see that, either. Fair enough. I don't see that I've not answered many of your questions. Perhaps you can see that and understand we're both thinking the same thing and both thinking, "Ah, but the record shows I'm right, if anyone just looked..."
If nothing else, we can certainly see in these last two threads, it is you who is not answering questions, not me. Agreed?
No, you’re not trying to badger me into anything except agreeing with your biased, fact and source free version of something and acknowledging that all gays are victims of some persecution sometime in the past.
Yes, we can definitely see over the past month or two, including these last two threads, that you’re still not answering questions, haven’t proven multiple claims, and don’t care enough about common ground to have even bothered to read my two suggestions about how you can show that you’re serious.
Just one more bullshit claim that you don’t even attempt to prove. Making bullshit claims is easier that even making the most minimal attempt to prove them.
FYI, after I answer/address a question once, I’m unlikely to answer it again no matter how many times you repeat yourself. If you have a specific issue with my answer/response, then points out the specific problems and the relationship to the specific question, instead of just copy/pasting the same crap.
As far as slaughtering innocent women and children, my research suggests conflicting reports and sketchy trials that may not have led to a proper verdict in the first place for these Blackwater guys. It's hard to find much detail on an incident from 2007 and I'm hoping to find more analyses to review. One response to Trump's pardon for these guys suggests his desire to judge differently those who are in violent situations when the result of actions taken seem really bad to those of us comfortably at home where we never encounter what military...and cops, too, for that matter...encounter with some regularity. The four maintained their innocence the entire time.
What's especially obvious here is that the grace-embracer can't seem to embrace grace extended to these guys because of who's extending it. It's just one more thing Dan exploits to attack the man he hates so vociferously. I really don't recall Dan getting his panties so wadded up when his boy Obama pardoned an unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorist. Maybe he can link to the lengthy post of his where he did that.
Craig.. "you’re not trying to badger me into anything except agreeing with your biased, fact and source free version of something and acknowledging that all gays are victims of some persecution sometime in the past..."
Okay. Here's your chance to help me find some common ground with you. What I said was that it's clearly wrong Massacre innocent adults and children. As happened in the Blackwater case.
If there's something that you see is being biased and that story, in my claim? What is it? I don't see anything biased. I would think that we all could agree that those Blackwater agents were wrong to kill innocent people in Iraq.
Is there something non factual in that claim? What is it, I don't see anything non-factual. It's true, I didn't provide a source. It was a pretty big item in the news when it happened, when the men were convicted, and when Trump pardoned them. Are you having a problem simply because you're not aware of the story? I can certainly provide a link.
If you tell me what is biased, what is fact free, I can acknowledge what you're saying and make changes. But the claim itself doesn't tell me anything. Doesn't that make sense?
The other thing I said, the other claim I made was that historically, women, black people, lgbtq people have been horribly oppressed by primarily white men. What is mistaken in that comment? What is biased? What is not factual? Again, I did not provide links because I sort of assumed that adults are aware of the historical oppression of these groups of people.
Part of finding common ground is you feeling free to specifically tell me what I'm getting wrong, rather than making a vague accusation of being biased or lacking facts. How about it? What is biased? What is non factual?
Okay, I just went through all these comments and as is the case in the other post, I have answered way more of your questions and you have mine. There may be (MAY be) a handful of your questions that I did not answer, at least not directly. There are more of mine that you did not answer. Just observable reality.
"Okay. Here's your chance to help me find some common ground with you."
This notion that "common ground" based on agreeing with the various premises you continue to spew is something that is desirable, or a goal to be pursued, is laughable. I have no desire to achieve "common ground" with someone who behaves, acts, and treats people the way you've treated me. I have no aspirations to do so.
"What I said was that it's clearly wrong Massacre innocent adults and children."
Actually, that's not exactly what you said. Of course, as a general principle, I agree that it's wrong to harm the innocent in any way. It's wrong to kill them, it's wrong to end their lives, it's wrong to burn their homes and businesses, etc.
"As happened in the Blackwater case."
As Art pointed out, your assertion that this is an indisputable fact is not as cut and dried as your pretend that it is. The problem you seem to have is that you want to impute intent or premeditation where it might not exist. As we've seen in the response to the Floyd case, imputing intent or malice without evidence results in all sorts on problems. As Art mentioned, it's easy to second guess those in danger from the comfort of our living rooms is problematic at best. As we've seen in all too many examples of the modern Middle East conflict, this sort of asymmetric conflict commonly sees those traditionally considered to be noncombatants who will take advantage of that perception to harm those they consider enemies. As I've said, I'm unwilling to join you on your limb of self righteous, condemnation, because I don't have enough information to leap to that sort of conclusion.
"If there's something that you see is being biased and that story, in my claim?"
1. You.
2. The fact that you haven't really offered any "story" other than your recounting of events as you perceive them.
3. Your use of the term "devilish".
4. Your well known bias against any sort of use of force.
5. Your lack of any "unbiased" sourcing.
"What is it? I don't see anything biased. I would think that we all could agree that those Blackwater agents were wrong to kill innocent people in Iraq."
Other than the above.
1. Please prove that those killed were "innocent". That they were not, and had not engaged in support for or acts of terrorism.
2. Strangely enough, the Hussein regime killed hundreds of thousands of "innocent" Iraqis, Iranians, and others, yet you've always seemed insistent that the use of military force to remove that regime was illegitimate at best.
3. Are you suggesting that ending the lives of innocent people is always "devilish", and the you get this worked up every time someone "gets away" with ending innocent life?
"Is there something non factual in that claim? What is it, I don't see anything non-factual."
Of course you don't. You also don't seem to understand that "I don't see..." (especially when looked at in the context of addressing one's own claims), isn't actually an objective standard. Further, your omission of any actual details doesn't really enhance the "whole truth" aspect of your comments.
"It's true, I didn't provide a source. It was a pretty big item in the news when it happened, when the men were convicted, and when Trump pardoned them. Are you having a problem simply because you're not aware of the story? I can certainly provide a link."
Interesting justification for not providing a source, perhaps you should consider applying this standard to people other than yourself. What's especially interesting is that, per your history, it's likely that any link you provided would be from a source that shares your biases.
"If you tell me what is biased, what is fact free, I can acknowledge what you're saying and make changes. But the claim itself doesn't tell me anything. Doesn't that make sense?"
Done.
"The other thing I said, the other claim I made was that historically, women, black people, lgbtq people have been horribly oppressed by primarily white men."
This is a fascinating claim. As I look at history, I see the vast preponderance of history focusing on societies and in locations where "white men" (in the 21st century sense of the term) weren't in power. I'd suggest that it would take quite the revision of history, geography, and anthropology to suggest that "white men" have been the primary oppressors of people throughout the entire history of the entire world, is a claim that needs to be defined and proven rather than blindly accepted.
For example, if we break out China as an example, we see a society that has existed since @1250 BC, we see a society that has been oppressive since the very beginning of it's existence through this very day. Yet strangely, there weer literally zero "white men" in sight. This notion that "white men" have brought something new (in their relatively brief period of "control") to oppression, is historically and sociologically absurd.
"What is mistaken in that comment? What is biased? What is not factual? Again, I did not provide links because I sort of assumed that adults are aware of the historical oppression of these groups of people."
As I pointed out, context to start with. Balance, data, definitions, metrics, as a few others. The problem is that you start with an assumption that you believe to be true, and don't bother to prove the truth of your assumption. It's not that what you say isn't "true" in some sense, it's more of a lie by omission situation. Again, it's easy to claim that nothing is biased, because you've offered nothing. Nothing except yourself, and you're clearly biased. Ultimately the problem isn't the assertion that some "white men" have oppressed others, as it is when you ignore that preponderance of historical oppression from virtually every society in history.
"Part of finding common ground is you feeling free to specifically tell me what I'm getting wrong, rather than making a vague accusation of being biased or lacking facts. How about it? What is biased? What is non factual?"
Again, when you start with the flawed premise that finding "common ground" with you is desirable, every conclusion that you draw from the false premise is going to be flawed.
Craig... "The problem is that you start with an assumption that you believe to be true, and don't bother to prove the truth of your assumption."
Yes, it's true that I assume killing multiple innocent people is wrong. But I am also assuming you AGREE that it's wrong and I don't need to make the case that it's wrong.
Do I?
Or are you saying that my "assumption" that these men who were convicted in a court of law of killing innocent people is a false assumption? Well, all I know is what is reported. I also assume that the Son of Sam was a serial killer and that was wrong, too. Are you suggesting I need to make a case to "prove" a case where killers were convicted of their crimes?
Are you saying you don't believe that the judge and jury made the right call on that case? How would I know that?
Do you understand how this is confusing (and remains confusing, since you're still being vague)?
Here's the presuppositions I'm operating under:
1. That these men were convicted of killing innocent people.
2. That the news that reported this conviction was factual.
3. That you and I and all reasonable people are opposed to killing innocent people.
If you are holding that these convictions were false or wrong, how would I know that?
Craig... It's not that what you say isn't "true" in some sense, it's more of a lie by omission situation."
? What does that mean? WHAT "lie by omission..."? What have I omitted??
This isn't making any sense.
Craig... " it's easy to claim that nothing is biased, because you've offered nothing. Nothing except yourself, and you're clearly biased. "
?
What does any of that mean?
I've referred to a well-known news story... that some Blackwater operatives killed multiple innocent people... is that a "biased" claim or a "nothing" claim? Because it seems quite clear and not biased to me. WHAT is biased? I'm just reporting the news as its been reported.
I'm referencing this story in which these men were found guilty in a court of law and convicted by a jury of their peers... is that biased and, if so, how? I'm just reporting the news as it was reported. is it "nothing" somehow? If so, how?
Please, try and find some common ground... just explain what it is specifically that I've done wrong (in your mind, anyway) so I can understand what you're talking about.
cont'd...
Craig... Ultimately the problem isn't the assertion that some "white men" have oppressed others, as it is when you ignore that preponderance of historical oppression from virtually every society in history.
I don't know what you mean here, either. What am I ignoring?
Are you trying to suggest that black people have oppressed white people in something like a comparable manner? That LGBTQ folk have oppressed straight folk in a comparable manner?
You do know, don't you, that, as a class, white men have NEVER been oppressed in our nation's history? So, I'm just not clear what this comment from you is supposed to mean. Please clarify.
Craig... when you start with the flawed premise that finding "common ground" with you is desirable
Oh, so you have no desire to find common ground with me? Well, that's on you. I'm reaching out in a good faith effort, answering questions in a good faith effort. Giving it a shot with you and Marshal... all in a good faith effort. If you are determined to NOT find common ground, then that's your choice.
But you can't say that I haven't tried. I would suggest that it would be a good and rational and holy thing to try to find common ground, as a nation and that it will begin with attempts at doing so at the individual level... between folks like you and folks like me. Think about it! What IF you and I could find some common ground, some things to agree upon. What a good beginning that would be... a good model for others.
I'm saying it should be quite easy to find SOME common ground and well worth it. But I certainly can't make you.
"Yes, it's true that I assume killing multiple innocent people is wrong. But I am also assuming you AGREE that it's wrong and I don't need to make the case that it's wrong."
No, you assume that in this specific situation that you are able to categorically and objectively determine the relative "innocence" or "guilt": of the dead as well as the motivation of those who allegedly killed them.
"Do I?"
Need to stop assuming that your assumptions are beyond questioning, probably.
"Or are you saying that my "assumption" that these men who were convicted in a court of law of killing innocent people is a false assumption?"
As you are quick to point out when it benefits you, being convicted in a court of law isn't always equal to actually being guilty of what one is convicted of. In this case, you clearly seem to be assuming that the "court of law" in question was 100% correct in everything that it did and decided, and that all of the prosecution evidence was 100% true and accurate, while assuming that all of the defense was 100% inaccurate. The problem is that you can't bitch about the flaws in our justice system on the one hand, then unquestioningly accept the results of a trial when it fits your biases.
"Well, all I know is what is reported."
Which isn't the same as knowing the truth, or that all that was reported is all the information available on the topic.
"I also assume that the Son of Sam was a serial killer and that was wrong, too. Are you suggesting I need to make a case to "prove" a case where killers were convicted of their crimes?"
No.
"Are you saying you don't believe that the judge and jury made the right call on that case? How would I know that?"
No. I'm saying that I don't have enough evidence to simply accept your assumption that the judge/jury in this case were flawlessly correct. I'm also saying that you've offered nothing that would compel me to agree with your assumptions about the case.
"Do you understand how this is confusing (and remains confusing, since you're still being vague)?"
Given the fact that the above question makes no sense and is vague, I can't answer it.
"Here's the presuppositions I'm operating under:"
"1. That these men were convicted of killing innocent people.
2. That the news that reported this conviction was factual.
3. That you and I and all reasonable people are opposed to killing innocent people."
1. The problem is that you are assuming that the process that led to their conviction was flawless and above reproach. From what I've seen, it was concerns about the prosecution and how it was handled that led to the pardons. Unfortunately POTUS doesn't have the option to order a new trial, so he went with what he had. Are you really suggesting that if these people were unfairly and unjustly convicted that you would rather them be falsely convicted/imprisoned than be pardoned? You leap is in assuming that the the result of the trial, invalidates the questions about the justice of the trial.
2. It's more like you are assuming that the news reported was 100% complete, 100% factual, and 100% unbiased.
3. I agree with the principle. I question your assumptions that those you assume are guilty are 100% guilty, and with your presumption of the 100% innocence of the victims. I question your presumptions about the motives of those convicted as well.
"If you are holding that these convictions were false or wrong, how would I know that?"
I'd suggest that reading and remembering what I've written is a good place to start. I'd also suggest that my questioning your assumptions about something doesn't automatically mean that I'm agreeing with the antithesis of your assumptions. All it means is that you haven't provided any compelling reason to uncritically agree with your assumptions, and that there might be other alternatives to your assumptions. Acknowledging the reality that you aren't convincing and that other possibilities exist, isn't the same as making a positive case for any of the specific alternatives. It probably doesn't help that you frequently seem to try to add things to what I say that aren't really there.
"If you are holding that these convictions were false or wrong, how would I know that?"
I'd start with the fact that I said that I didn't have enough information to take a firm stance. Then I'd acknowledge that if I haven't made a particular argument of claim, that you probably wouldn't know that I had.
Craig... It's not that what you say isn't "true" in some sense, it's more of a lie by omission situation."
? What does that mean? WHAT "lie by omission..."? What have I omitted??
This isn't making any sense.
Craig... " it's easy to claim that nothing is biased, because you've offered nothing. Nothing except yourself, and you're clearly biased. "
?
What does any of that mean?
"Here's the presuppositions I'm operating under:
1. That these men were convicted of killing innocent people.
2. That the news that reported this conviction was factual.
3. That you and I and all reasonable people are opposed to killing innocent people.
If you are holding that these convictions were false or wrong, how would I know that?"
I don't see how any of this matters in the least. More important is exploiting this situation in a manner that suggests the pardoning of these men by Trump is evidence of Trump being evil. I don't know about Craig, but I'm not at all convinced Dan's problem with the Blackwater issue has anything to do with innocent people being killed. No. It's all about how can Dan collect evidence to validate his hatred for Trump.
"You do know, don't you, that, as a class, white men have NEVER been oppressed in our nation's history?"
Tell that to the Irish and the Italians.
Craig... "1. The problem is that you are assuming that the process that led to their conviction was flawless and above reproach. From what I've seen, it was concerns about the prosecution"
So, you have some evidence that this conviction is not valid, or was a set-up or something? I'm not familiar with that evidence. By all means, show me the evidence. I'm not assuming anything, I just have NO evidence that there was some major flaw in the conviction of these men who, by all accounts DID the crime they are charged with.
It sounds a lot like you're willing to give a pass to those associated with the military that you don't seem willing to give to BLM advocates, but if you have data that shows a kangaroo court or some conspiracy to unjustly convict these men who are, actually, innocent, by all means, present your data.
Generally speaking, if someone has been convicted, I tend to trust the system IF there is no evidence of malfeasance or suggestion of racism or other outstanding factors.
Do you have such evidence? If so, I'm on your side. If not, then I stand by the suggestion that it's wrong to kill innocent people.
“So, you have some evidence that this conviction is not valid, or was a set-up or something?”
No, I’d heard that the reason Trump decided to pardon was problems with the prosecution. I’m not POTUS, I haven’t seen the evidence
“I'm not familiar with that evidence. By all means, show me the evidence. I'm not assuming anything, I just have NO evidence that there was some major flaw in the conviction of these men who, by all accounts DID the crime they are charged with.“
If you’re not familiar with/haven’t seen the evidence, then (by definition) you’re making assumptions about it. In our justice system if the prosecution “cheats”, then sometimes the only remedy is to allow people to go free. It’s almost like you’re suggesting that some actions should be punished even if it means that the prosecution doesn’t follow the rules.
“It sounds a lot like you're willing to give a pass to those associated with the military that you don't seem willing to give to BLM advocates, but if you have data that shows a kangaroo court or some conspiracy to unjustly convict these men who are, actually, innocent, by all means, present your data.”
Yes, I’m less willing to pass judgement on actions by those in the military when in the heat of battle. The notion that you or I can pass judgement on the actions of people in imminent danger, when decisions are made in spilt seconds, under stress that we’ve never experienced, seems reasonable. BLM and it’s followers are just following their playbook. If you think destroying the livelihood, or ability to access necessary services of those you claim to represent is a good plan, just say so.
“Generally speaking, if someone has been convicted, I tend to trust the system IF there is no evidence of malfeasance or suggestion of racism or other outstanding factors.“
Sure you do. You probably believe the “hands up don’t shoot” nonsense also.
“Do you have such evidence? If so, I'm on your side. If not, then I stand by the suggestion that it's wrong to kill innocent people.“
Again, do you not read? FYI, of course it’s wrong to end the lives of innocent people, just like it’s wrong to burn their businesses and loot their neighborhoods, the difference is that the law acknowledges different levels of culpability, and provides a system to determine those things. If, as it sounds like, the prosecution broke the rules then that sometimes means that the “guilty” don’t get punished as much as you’d like.
Of course, you’ve also provided no evidence that these were “innocent” people.
Dan,
Your last comment just shows how differently we react to hearing a story (third hand in my case), without a lot of actual evidence.
You choose to uncritically accept what you’ve heard as 100% true, and start referring to people as “devilish”, then bitch at anyone who doesn’t share your outrage.
I choose to acknowledge that I’ve heard very little, don’t have enough information to go on, and that I lean towards mercy. Given that I decline to join your lynch mob. Given that I point out possible reasons that might make sense.
Maybe you should hunt them down and punish them yourself?
FYI, what was the punishment exactly?
Craig... "I’d heard that the reason Trump decided to pardon was problems with the prosecution. I’m not POTUS, I haven’t seen the evidence..."
?
So, you know this happened. You know that trial was held in a jury of their peers found them guilty. And you know that Trump chose to Pardon them. And you know the Trump is a deviant, a liar, erratic-acting and utterly corrupt. And you're choosing to trust Trump with no evidence over a jury, with no evidence that they did anything wrong?
Nope, that would be incorrect. It’s more about my lack of trust in you, and my annoyance at your constant idiotic things I have to agree with you on to find “common ground” than any trust in Trump. Although I do believe that he has much more accurate information at his disposal to inform his decision than you do.
You have this problem in assuming that my disagreement with you, means that I 100% agree with Trump. Maybe you should just accept disagreeing with you as simply that. Stop reading things into my disagreement that aren’t there.
sigh. But I didn't say you were agreeing with Trump.
This is way too hard.
I would think that all rational people could agree that pardoning mass murderers is wrong and would be glad to say so. I thought it would be an easy thing to agree upon.
Or the reality of the oppression of minority groups... just agreeing that this was wrong.
I thought that would be easy enough to find common ground.
If you disagree with those, I shall still be opposed to mass murders and pardoning those who do it, in general and specifically, in this case.
I shall still recognize the reality of the oppression of minority groups. If you're not aware of the circumstances, you can certainly say so. I don't criticize those who are not aware of reality for not knowing about real world events and history... we all have areas where we are unaware of certain stories.
But I will encourage you to read up on these issues, IF you are not aware of them.
Peace and Merry Christmas.
Just that I must agree with you. Because that’s what this is all about.
Fortunately what you think about all rational (by your definition) people is just one more example of you giving your opinions more weight than they deserve.
But you keep on casting reality as if it must align with your opinions.
sigh. I have never said that you must agree with me.
I've been quite clear that I'm trying to find common ground and offering what I think are softball, EASY issues to agree upon. I would think that we could agree that the Blackwater murders were clearly wrong enough that we could agree that it was wrong AND that a pardon for those murders were wrong.
I never said you "must agree" with me. I just didn't. I just truly thought that would be an easy thing to agree upon.
Same for the reality of the history of oppression of women, LGBTQ and black folk in our nation's history. You don't HAVE to recognize that reality, but it is a reality. You don't have to agree with me about that reality, but I can't see how it's anything but reality.
Again, peace, and Merry Christmas.
"So, you know this happened. You know that trial was held in a jury of their peers found them guilty. "
Really? The Blackwater guys had trials by jury? Why do I think you have no idea of whether or not that's true? I don't have any idea, so why don't you just help us all out and link to something that gives details. In the meantime, I'll post this:
https://redstate.com/streiff/2020/12/24/299739-n299739
Again, Dan's just looking for another way to disparage Trump, and he'll use anything that so much as hints Trump did wrong without ever lifting a finger to verify it, just like we'd expect a leftist journalism student to do. It's another reason why the leftist media is the enemy of the people.
"And you know the Trump is a deviant," (like the hair sniffing sexual assailant of Tara Reade for whom Dan cast his vote) "a liar," (like the plagiarizing, chronic liar for whom Dan voted) "erratic-acting" (like the doddering old fool that verbally attacks voters because they ask tough questions for whom Dan cast his vote) "and utterly corrupt" (like the guy who along with his family has been running an international pay for play scheme to enrich himself for whom Dan cast his vote).
" And you're choosing to trust Trump with no evidence over a jury, with no evidence that they did anything wrong?"
This is funny. Dan pretending we're doing anything more than keeping an open mind BECAUSE we're lacking details, while he chooses to indict Trump for doing something for which Dan has absolutely no evidence.
When it comes to pardons, especially the presidential kind, remorse, repentance, rehabilitation can outweigh the crime alleged to have been committed, particularly when 13 years have passed. That is to say, even an actual guilty person can be pardoned justifiably. But when Dan's boy Obumble pardons and unrepentant terrorist who is said to have refused to renounce violence in order to win release under Bill Clinton. And Dan dares criticize Trump!
But then, Dan doesn't know anything about the Blackwater case, yet makes sure he refers to them as "mass murderers" in order to hype up the issue so as to further demonize Trump. This is a guy who calls himself a Christian!
Blah, blah, blah,..,
Strangely the only areas you seem interested in finding “common ground” on are the areas where you set the parameters of what the “right” position is and those where you’ve established the correct position.
This notion that I care about finding “common ground” under the circumstances you keep trying to impose is your fantasy, not mine.
“ Same for the reality of the history of oppression of women, LGBTQ and black folk in our nation's history. You don't HAVE to recognize that reality, but it is a reality. You don't have to agree with me about that reality, but I can't see how it's anything but reality.”
You don’t say that people “must” agree with you, you just demand that everyone acknowledge “reality” as you define it. It’s a distinction without a difference.
I finally found what appears to be a fairly unbiased article about this case. It appears that three things are true.
1. The primary question at trial was regarding the start of the firefight. If the convoy was ambushed, then that changes everything about the narrative. Therefore that’s the question that must be answered. Clearly Dan doesn’t even understand that, and can’t answer that question definitively.
2. Everything I’ve seen describes this as a “firefight”, (If I need to explain what this term means, let me know). Therefore, the use of the terms “massacre” or “slaughter” are literally, factually incorrect and provocative.
3. There was not, in fact, one trial. There have been multiple trials, verdicts overturned and more. To cast this as something simple or cut and dried is not accurate.
Given those apparent truths, and the fact that I haven’t gone back to look at the actual trial information, I feel confident that Dan is misrepresenting (intentionality or not) the nature of the situation.
Given that, it’s hard to take his claims about reality seriously or to set aside the suspicion that he and his sources are allowing their biases to sway their emotions and how they’ve responded.
We’re not going to solve this here, because it’s way more complex than it’s been presented by Dan.
Craig... "You don’t say that people “must” agree with you, you just demand that everyone acknowledge “reality” as you define it. "
When I'm talking about reality (as in the reality of slavery or the reality of the moon landing or the reality of the holocaust or the reality of the oppression, demonization, marginalization and criminalization of homosexuality), I'm speaking of what I think is clearly reality. I refer to it as such because I'm certain of it.
IF, however, someone want to say to me, "You know, the moon landing didn't happen..." or, "you know, slavery was actually a good thing, by and large," THEY can then disagree with "reality" as I understand it and make the case that the moon landing didn't really happen, that there was no holocaust, that black people liked slavery and weren't oppressed or that gay folk have not been oppressed.
I'm NOT insisting they agree, I'm just saying I think it's reality, all these things.
Just like you would, I imagine, about the Holocaust or the moon landing. You wouldn't say, would you, "Well, if you are in agreement with what some call the 'Holocaust,' I certainly tend to think that it probably really happened... is that okay with you?" ...you wouldn't phrase it like that, would you? You'd just refer to the Holocaust as a reality, right?
Well, I think that the reality is that black people have been historically oppressed in our nation, that women and gay folk have, as well. It's all the same to me.
Now, you don't have to agree with me. If you have some proof that you think shows that these groups HAVEN'T been historically oppressed, just say so! Then make your case.
I just tend to use "reality" when I think it's so clearly reality that no one can possibly disagree, as with the Holocaust or Slavery or the oppression of these groups, historically.
Do you think I'm mistaken to use reality for those notions?
“ Well, I think that the reality is that black people have been historically oppressed in our nation, that women and gay folk have, as well. It's all the same to me.”
The keys being “I think”, and “it’s all the same to me”. Those aren’t statements of objective truth, but statements of your opinions. If you’d leave it as realizing that you’re expressing an opinion, instead of trying to conflate your opinions about reality with reality, things would be fine. But you don’t, so they aren’t b
“Now, you don't have to agree with me. If you have some proof that you think shows that these groups HAVEN'T been historically oppressed, just say so! Then make your case.“
No, the more important question, as I’m learning from listening to black voices, is whether of not past “oppression” is the only or primary cause of current disparities. The other seemingly important question is the outcomes when the oppression is factored in, compared between different societies. But those are complex, and might show results that don’t fit the narrative. Because they don’t separate race from oppression.
“I just tend to use "reality" when I think it's so clearly reality that no one can possibly disagree, as with the Holocaust or Slavery or the oppression of these groups, historically.“
Yes, when you want to conflate your perception of reality with actual reality.
“Do you think I'm mistaken to use reality for those notions?“
Yes. More accurate would be “my view of reality “.
So then, are you rejecting the notion that we can know anything about reality? That we can say it is a reality that slavery happened, for instance? The thing is, reality is observable. We can certainly put interpretations on reality but black people WERE oppressed without a single bit of doubt in the real world, right?And reasonable people can agree that it was quite disturbingly horrifyingly wrong to do so, to oppress black people in the ways that happened in the US. I believe in calling reality reality. And I fully believe that if anybody can disprove what I'm saying is reality, then they should.
But I'm not going to stop calling it reality that black people have been oppressed in our nation. Because, why would I? (And that's not a rhetorical question).
It seems strange for someone like you to object to identifying reality as reality.
Craig... "Yes. More accurate would be “my view of reality “.
I'm sorry. Are you saying it's only MY view of reality that the Holocaust happened? That it was a great evil?
Are you saying it's only MY view of reality that slavery happened and was a great evil?
???
“ So then, are you rejecting the notion that we can know anything about reality?”
No.
“ That we can say it is a reality that slavery happened, for instance?”
Of course, the problem you have is that you’re moving from the reality that slavery existed in the US, to speculation about the “reality” of the effects in the present day.
“The thing is, reality is observable. We can certainly put interpretations on reality but black people WERE oppressed without a single bit of doubt in the real world, right?”
Yes, they were. Again, they weren’t just oppressed by white people in the US either. But, your moving from the existence of oppression to the effects of oppression.
“And reasonable people can agree that it was quite disturbingly horrifyingly wrong to do so, to oppress black people in the ways that happened in the US. I believe in calling reality reality.”
Again, you’re ignoring the fact that oppression of black people wasn’t limited to the US, that it wasn’t uniform within the US, and ignoring the steps taken to change the past. You’re simplistically asserting that your opinion about slavery and it’s effects are reality because slavery existed in the US. It’s interesting to contrast the ongoing discussion between black sociologists about the topic, with your simplistic take.
“And I fully believe that if anybody can disprove what I'm saying is reality, then they should.“
And I fully believe that disagreeing with your opinions about reality, is a major problem.
“But I'm not going to stop calling it reality that black people have been oppressed in our nation. Because, why would I? (And that's not a rhetorical question).“
Go ahead. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t stick with that simplistic notion.
“It seems strange for someone like you to object to identifying reality as reality.“
It seems strange that you keep thinking that your opinions are reality, but you’re not going to change.
“I'm sorry. Are you saying it's only MY view of reality that the Holocaust happened? That it was a great evil?“
No.
“Are you saying it's only MY view of reality that slavery happened and was a great evil?“
No.
???
I’ll point out the reality that you’d need an objective definition of “evil” that applies universally, for the second part of each of your statements to be “reality “.
You’re still confused about the fact that the existence of something, isn’t the same thing as your opinion about that thing.
Dan,
Anyone with half a brain, acknowledges the existence of slavery. The effects of that reality aren’t quite so cut and dried.
Regardless of the true reality of the oppression of any group...be they because of immutable characteristics such as sex or skin color, or because of the choice to indulge perverse and deviant sexual desires...a greater reality is the absurdity of believing we're in any way obligated to hire or appoint people based on being a member of any group of "oppressed" people. A greater falsehood is in the claim that we're somehow better off for having done so. So false is that assertion that I insist that were we to be tasked with choosing two people of the highest intelligence, with one being of one group and the other another or no such group of "oppressed" people, the right thing to do would be to flip a coin (or use some other more random method), rather than to use being a member of such a group of "oppressed" people a deciding factor. Doing so would make the person not chosen oppressed for holding it against him that he wasn't ever oppressed.
Dan's clearly in favor of oppressing an innocent person in order to make up for past oppression suffered by groups of people not necessarily represented by candidates for selection not actually having experienced oppression themselves...because that makes perfect sense. Yet even if a candidate for selection actually was a victim of oppression or unjust discrimination, that still would not justify using that experience as a reason to select such a person over an otherwise equally qualified person who never did suffer in that way. Those like Dan now make the "oppressed" the privileged and in doing so discriminates against those he considers part of the "oppressor" group, making them the oppressed, and thus victims of unjust discrimination based on their skin color, sex or the fact they don't engage in immoral and disordered sexual practices...and that's just as bad, just as discriminatory and just as evil.
Craig... "acknowledges the existence of slavery. The effects of that reality aren’t quite so cut and dried."
??! I'm sorry. What? The effects of WHAT aren't so cut and dried? I mean, we all do agree that the effects of slavery are just evil, right? No debate there, right?
I don't know what you mean. The effects of what aren'tcut and dried?
The effects of past racism aren’t nearly so cut and dried across the board as you seem to think they are. As I pointed out it’s been interesting to listen in on black sociologists discuss this. While I’m sure you’re also an expert in the present effects of past racism, your simplistic approach doesn’t demonstrate that.
As you probably ignored, I’ll be diving deeper in another post because I’m tired of this going further off track here.
Do you realize how much of an idiotic ashole you appear to be when you ask the same question, 3 times in one comment.
Especially when the answer is a few comments up.
Craig... "Do you realize how much of an idiotic ashole you appear to be when you ask the same question, 3 times in one comment.
Especially when the answer is a few comments up."
I asked, "that slavery happened and was a great evil?“
And you responded, "No."
And you also responded, acknowledges the existence of slavery. The effects of that reality aren’t quite so cut and dried."
I am asking questions because your position is not clear. As you can see in this couplet of your responses. You appear to affirm that slavery is wrong. Then you appear to turn around and say it's not cut and dried. Which is it?
If you write things that I don't understand, then I will ask questions to try to seek clarification. I hope you can see that this is reasonable and respectful and an attempt to understand your position.
Yes, you asked the same questions 3 times in one comment. Did you really think I’d answer it between the first and third time you typed it?
Not to mention the fact that I’d already told you that I was going to expand that discussion elsewhere.
Of course, after looking, you appear to be talking about a comment other than the one where you asked the same question three times.
If you’re asking if every single result of slavery was evil, and we’re all of those results equally evil, then the answer is no.
Kamala Harris is most definitely one result of slavery, are you suggesting that she’s evil?
Craig... "If you’re asking if every single result of slavery was evil, and we’re all of those results equally evil, then the answer is no."
Wow. Just wow. That is amazing. No wonder we're having some difficulties communicating. I was assuming that every rational, moral, non-racist could easily agree that all instances of slavery are evil. Wow.
Okay, can you offer an instance of slavery that ISN'T evil? That is, is there some instance where owning another innocent human being and forcing them into labor against their will is NOT an affront to the notion of human liberty?
Just a reminder: The legal definition of slavery:
A slave is a person owned by someone and slavery is the state of being under the control of someone where a person is forced to work for another. A slave is considered as a property of another as the one controlling them purchases them or owns them from their birth.
Wow.
Craig... "If you’re asking if every single result of slavery was evil..."
I'm asking the very simple and I think easy-to-answer question: Do you agree that slavery is ALWAYS evil?
I'm NOT asking if there might be some fall out from slavery that can be taken as good.
The way you're not answering my question and answering instead this OTHER question is sort of like me asking: Do you agree rape is always a great evil?
And you responding with, "Are you asking me if the child that results from rape is evil...? No."
No. That's not what I'm asking you. I'm asking:
Can you affirm that rape is always evil? (adding that to try to get a baseline).
Can you affirm that slavery is always evil?
The owning of another human being against their will and forcing them to labor for your own profit... IS that evil/wrong/horrifying immoral?
As to repeating questions, I do that sometimes for emphasis, for clarification, to make clear what it is I'm asking, since so often you do as you have done here, and ask a separate question. Maybe if that didn't happen so regularly with you, I would not repeat questions for emphasis and clarification. But because it does happen regularly, I emphasize and clarify.
So, two entire comment dedicated to asking a question that's been answered multiple times, in multiple places already, while actively trying to escape the question that I've asked about the results of slavery. What a strange attempt to avoid a question.
For purposes of clarification, I'll note that the "evil" of slavery (as practiced in the antebellum US) isn't really the issue facing us in 2021. The issue is, how the results of that one aspect of US history affects "black" people in the present (and recent past). The issue is to (as best we can) define the effects and determine what should be done going forward to deal with those effects. Simply beating a dead horse doesn't affect the real issues at all.
And just for clarification, most slaves in the US were adults when purchased, not infants immediately after their birth.
While I'm sure that's true, I must have missed what you are responding to.
"Can you affirm that rape is always evil?"
I personally would affirm that rape is always "evil". Unfortunately, there is a school of thought among some scientists that not only is rape not "evil", but that rape is evolutionarily beneficial and therefore it is good.
"The owning of another human being against their will and forcing them to labor for your own profit... IS that evil/wrong/horrifying immoral?"
I will affirm that I believe it to be wrong.
Part of your problem with these questions is that your insistence in positing that morality is subjective, along with those sociologists who define morality in terms of group/society consensus, deprives you of any sort of grounding to make these sorts of objective claims.
FYI, since you asked the same question (rephrased) twice in one comment, I chose to ignore the repetition.
Post a Comment