"Whites Only" alive and well in Alabama

[Jamie]

That statement completely opposes the reason your beloved GW Bush went into Iraq in the first place.

Saddam had clerics write the Koran in their own blood. He abused the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. His policies favored the minority sunni group. He was a poor leader.

Democracy isn't imposing anything on the Iraqis. It's allowing them more control of their land.

I know Saddam done some horrific things during his time in power, but that still does not explain what you said. Regardless of what Saddam done while in power you still contradicted your own beliefs. Besides GW is more of a threat to the welfare of Iraq than Saddam ever was. If Saddam needed to be removed so urgently, why not fund or financially aid some of the Iraqi's that seek this removal and allow them to stage their own rebellion rather than bomb the shit out of them and tell them it's for their own good?

Back on subject you have still not explained some of the things that you have been questioned on, I've been watching this thread since it was started, and any time you are presented with a series of questions regarding one of your bullshit statements you answer maybe one of them in an extremely half-assed fashion.

[Walk]

What you just said in no way answers the questions you were asked. You class racism as positivist thoughts? And equality as absolutist thoughts? Very rarely is their a right and wrong on issues regarding opinion, except on racism and other forms of discrimination. You say absolutist thoughts are reserved for the bible. What the hell does that mean? You justify racism by saying, humans are incabable of complete moral judgement.

We would have no true morality outside of the morality given to us. Who are we to say what human rights are and aren't? The Bible suggests that some "pottery" is prepared for the fire (Romans 9. Read the whole thing!), so you can come to your own conclusion there. Predestination explains a lot about just about everything.

So humans being imperfect specimens is a valid excuse to hate other races? You also say "it's troublesome when people accept a questionable absolute as truth and expect government to enforce this truth." Therefor calling equality a questionable absolute, and later call yourself "a freedom loving American", your contradicting yourself! You question the state's attempt to enforce freedom, if the state did not try to enforce freedom in any way where do you think the world would be now? Slavery? White Supremecy? The government may not do a perfect job enforcing these laws, but it's their duty to!

The government's role is to keep order and preserve a nation from foreign advances. Equality is mostly a theory, anyway. We've aimed for it for centuries and it hasn't been achieved. It might not even be possible. On the other hand, the government has made a lot of mistakes in its pursuit, which is mostly what my argument is.

Even if those decisions affect someone else's lives in a bad way. And impede on someone's human rights?

The government enforces what are basic human rights, like the right to not be murdered or have private property stolen. The problems come up when it comes to a grey area in human rights. For example, corporations are legally allowed to dump pollutants because it's cheaper. It would be illegal not to, since it would violate fiduciary responsibility! Even if people are affected by it, the corporation must do it if it isn't against the law if it would increase profits, otherwise it would be against the law!

The government's responsibility is to weigh the benefits of increased profits to whatever maladies the contamination would facilitate. Sometimes (ok, usually) it rules in favor of higher profits. Now the corporation's position is even stronger than it was before! As you can see, you leave the government responsible for human rights, and sometimes it makes mistakes that affect all economic sectors.

First off, the majority of American war protesters care about their soldiers. Thus wanting them home from a war that's killing them. And if hate speech was allowed would you participate in such an act. And could you look a black man in the face and call him a 'nigger'. Somehow I doubt it.

There's a difference between insulting someone and hurting their feelings and endangering the mission of our armed forces. Don't take this difference lightly. Even if protesters personally care for the soldiers, their actions inspire disconfidence in the mission. Also, the nature of the crowd could facilitate a minority to mistreat the soldiers and get away with it in the mob, like the protestors who spat on our Vietnam soldiers. Well meaning protestors make the situation worse simply by being there with the stronger dissidents.

Is that how you would go about raising a child? Don't teach it any moral lessons or try to set any examples? If you did how do you think that child would turn out? Pretty fucked up if you ask me.

I'll start with the Bible, then Plato and Aristotle, then Evola and Nietzsche, etc. He can make up his own mind, and it's his fault if he makes mistakes. These examples have stood the test of time, and would be appropriate for anyone to learn from, even if not live by.

That statement completely opposes the reason your beloved GW Bush went into Iraq in the first place.

In this rare occasion, we're increasing the ability of Iraqis to live how they want to, since Saddam didn't allow it. Plus, we get oil. Win win, here! 

[Jamie]

We would have no true morality outside of the morality given to us. Who are we to say what human rights are and aren't? The Bible suggests that some "pottery" is prepared for the fire (Romans 9. Read the whole thing!), so you can come to your own conclusion there. Predestination explains a lot about just about everything.

I think human rights is something we are pretty safe to assume is right. There really has to be some sort of law enforcing some sort of equality. If it is flawed, so be it, we need it none the less. Until we learn some sort of ultimate truth from a second coming of the messiah, we need to be able to think for ourselves, there has to be something stopping injustice, I don't think Jesus wants us to follow him blindly and act on nothing without his permission.

The government's role is to keep order and preserve a nation from foreign advances. Equality is mostly a theory, anyway. We've aimed for it for centuries and it hasn't been achieved. It might not even be possible. On the other hand, the government has made a lot of mistakes in its pursuit, which is mostly what my argument is.

But don't you think some form of human rights stopping people being discriminated against, hurt, or even killed because of skin colour, nationality or some other irrelavent appearance is part of keeping order? Is it possible to keep order without stopping racial violence? I don't thin so. Equality may never be acheived because of the small minded prejudices of a select few. This select few has dwindled in numbers considerably over the last century, if we keep on striving for freedom they will one day be extinct. I agree the government, on an international basis has indeed made mistakes up holding equality, a lot of them. But as is said, we can learn from mistakes, because there are certain flaws in enforcing human rights there is no need to throw the whole system out the window and replace it with nothing.

The government enforces what are basic human rights, like the right to not be murdered or have private property stolen. The problems come up when it comes to a grey area in human rights. For example, corporations are legally allowed to dump pollutants because it's cheaper. It would be illegal not to, since it would violate fiduciary responsibility! Even if people are affected by it, the corporation must do it if it isn't against the law if it would increase profits, otherwise it would be against the law!

Again these are just flaws in human rights, I totally agree with you there are grey areas such as the effect of polution and waste on people. But these can be learned from, hopefully before it is too late for us. If we throw out the entire human rights system and start from square one we will not have time to get back to environmental issues such as these. It will be too late for us! World government on a whole has come a long way from slavery, torture etc. (with exceptions) we need to keep going from where we are today.

The government's responsibility is to weigh the benefits of increased profits to whatever maladies the contamination would facilitate. Sometimes (ok, usually) it rules in favor of higher profits. Now the corporation's position is even stronger than it was before! As you can see, you leave the government responsible for human rights, and sometimes it makes mistakes that affect all economic sectors.

If the government's only responsabilitys were finance and profit we'd be sitting under the ocean right now. This may be the governments main aim and concern, but not rightly so, they should focus further on conservation and proper usage of natural resources; not exploiting them until we have none left. And if we don't leave the government responsible for human rights who will be? The people? That would be anarchy! It would be every man for himself and every minority would surely be wiped out!

There's a difference between insulting someone and hurting their feelings and endangering the mission of our armed forces. Don't take this difference lightly. Even if protesters personally care for the soldiers, their actions inspire disconfidence in the mission. Also, the nature of the crowd could facilitate a minority to mistreat the soldiers and get away with it in the mob, like the protestors who spat on our Vietnam soldiers. Well meaning protestors make the situation worse simply by being there with the stronger dissidents.

I agree, but it was you that intertwined the two in the first place, using American war protesters as an example to back up a claim you made. And I think inspiring disconfidence in the mission is the reason to protest, people protest to try and convince others war is wrong and should be ended. I mean people don't protest a war to build public confidence in it.

I'll start with the Bible, then Plato and Aristotle, then Evola and Nietzsche, etc. He can make up his own mind, and it's his fault if he makes mistakes. These examples have stood the test of time, and would be appropriate for anyone to learn from, even if not live by.

But do you really think getting a child to read books on philosophy alone for their moral teachings will be enough? Life experience and wisdom stems from personal experience. I share most of my morals with my parents because they are the people that spent their time teaching them to me. My dad, when I was a child had a lot of black friends and I was taught from an early age, by being around these people, to judge them on what kind of person they are, not the colour of their skin. That is something I know I wouldn't have learned mearly by looking at a book.

In this rare occasion, we're increasing the ability of Iraqis to live how they want to, since Saddam didn't allow it. Plus, we get oil. Win win, here!?

It still opposes the point you made, it doesn't make much sense to say, government should never interfere with how a country is run on a social level. And then turn around afterwards and say; 'oh but this time it's ok'. That's a contradiction.

[Walk]

I think human rights is something we are pretty safe to assume is right. There really has to be some sort of law enforcing some sort of equality. If it is flawed, so be it, we need it none the less. Until we learn some sort of ultimate truth from a second coming of the messiah, we need to be able to think for ourselves, there has to be something stopping injustice, I don't think Jesus wants us to follow him blindly and act on nothing without his permission.

Well, all cultures have their own folkways and methods of handling problems. The problem is when a large federal government uses a "shotgun" approach that isn't appropriate for everyone. The problem is the inherant inefficiency of a large government trying to control a diverse populace. More states' rights would solve the problem.

But don't you think some form of human rights stopping people being discriminated against, hurt, or even killed because of skin colour, nationality or some other irrelavent appearance is part of keeping order? Is it possible to keep order without stopping racial violence? I don't thin so.

Violence is already covered under assault laws. Being a jerk, fortunately, isn't illegal, but the ways things are going, it might be soon. People shouldn't be forced to be nice. Ministry of Love, anyone?

Equality may never be acheived because of the small minded prejudices of a select few. This select few has dwindled in numbers considerably over the last century, if we keep on striving for freedom they will one day be extinct.

You underestimate human nature. Idealism is fine when it accepts reality, but otherwise, it's useless at best and counterproductive at worst.

I agree the government, on an international basis has indeed made mistakes up holding equality, a lot of them. But as is said, we can learn from mistakes, because there are certain flaws in enforcing human rights there is no need to throw the whole system out the window and replace it with nothing.

The UN is a failure. It won't stop the genocides in Africa and it didn't stop Saddam and the Taliban. We did. What happens is human rights ends up poorly defined and never enforced. Those who do attempt to enforce them are called imperialists and end up being protested in the streets.

Again these are just flaws in human rights, I totally agree with you there are grey areas such as the effect of polution and waste on people. But these can be learned from, hopefully before it is too late for us. If we throw out the entire human rights system and start from square one we will not have time to get back to environmental issues such as these. It will be too late for us! World government on a whole has come a long way from slavery, torture etc. (with exceptions) we need to keep going from where we are today.

There is no world government, only treaties and pacts between state governments. People don't learn from history, and even if they did, there is the problem of the human condition. The thing is, with less government, there are problems on an individual level, like the example of this thread. However, when the government tries to stop these small, individual problems, it creates large scale problems and waste. It's the nature of government. Endling slavery, for example, also ended states' rights as they were intended.

The key is, people should either (1) at least stop doing stuff like this to bait the government into overlegislating poor solutions, or (2) better yet, stop supporting liberals!

If the government's only responsabilitys were finance and profit we'd be sitting under the ocean right now. This may be the governments main aim and concern, but not rightly so, they should focus further on conservation and proper usage of natural resources; not exploiting them until we have none left. And if we don't leave the government responsible for human rights who will be? The people? That would be anarchy! It would be every man for himself and every minority would surely be wiped out!

The free market can decide how resources are allocated very well. The government's record on the environment is comparatively poor. Private conservation groups can do better; even liberals like Ted Turner have shown this to be true! There has to be a point where government exists, but it should never limit freedom.

I agree, but it was you that intertwined the two in the first place, using American war protesters as an example to back up a claim you made. And I think inspiring disconfidence in the mission is the reason to protest, people protest to try and convince others war is wrong and should be ended. I mean people don't protest a war to build public confidence in it.

Exactly. And this would ruin the hopes and dreams of moderate Iraqis and the soldiers who died fighting for their future. The war might have been wrong, but that's not an issue now. We have to finish our job, and protestors aren't helping the cause.

You could actually spin this issue on the federal government problem anyway. It's the big government that starts wars, not the people!

But do you really think getting a child to read books on philosophy alone for their moral teachings will be enough? Life experience and wisdom stems from personal experience. I share most of my morals with my parents because they are the people that spent their time teaching them to me. My dad, when I was a child had a lot of black friends and I was taught from an early age, by being around these people, to judge them on what kind of person they are, not the colour of their skin. That is something I know I wouldn't have learned mearly by looking at a book.

People get plenty of "life experience", whatever that means. It's unavoidable, and it can be negative, as well. However, time spent reading books and engaging the mind is never wasted! People don't read as much as they used to, and should.

It still opposes the point you made, it doesn't make much sense to say, government should never interfere with how a country is run on a social level. And then turn around afterwards and say; 'oh but this time it's ok'. That's a contradiction.

No, it isn't. The problem here is that Saddam ran Iraq how he wanted it, not how the people or free market would. It's ironic that a big government (us) solves the problem of a bloated government (Saddam), and this makes it look like a contradiction. Our government just got lucky on this one. A broken clock is right 2x a day, even if it's almost always useless.

Our main argument is that you believe government should enforce our rights, while I believe the government can make mistakes, so its power to do this should be limited. This is just the difference between a conservative and liberal. It's a worldview difference, and we aren't going to solve it.

[Jamie]

Well, all cultures have their own folkways and methods of handling problems. The problem is when a large federal government uses a "shotgun" approach that isn't appropriate for everyone. The problem is the inherant inefficiency of a large government trying to control a diverse populace. More states' rights would solve the problem.

And how do you suggest we solve these problems besides doing nothing? More states rights? I thought you were against the state envoking rights in the first place? I'd rather a flawed something than a big fat nothing.

Violence is already covered under assault laws. Being a jerk, fortunately, isn't illegal, but the ways things are going, it might be soon. People shouldn't be forced to be nice. Ministry of Love, anyone?

Physical violence is indeed covered by assault laws, but what about emotional violence, verbal violence, intimidation, discrimination, instanes such as the one this thread was based on in the first place? There are other ways to hurt and intimidate people than physical violence.

You underestimate human nature. Idealism is fine when it accepts reality, but otherwise, it's useless at best and counterproductive at worst.[/qupte]

And why is it idealism and not reality? For the reasons I have previously described, if people gave up closed-minded ignorant bigotry than idealism would become reality.

The UN is a failure. It won't stop the genocides in Africa and it didn't stop Saddam and the Taliban. We did. What happens is human rights ends up poorly defined and never enforced. Those who do attempt to enforce them are called imperialists and end up being protested in the streets.

Oh you did because you're the world police. Never fear America's here. The problem with American government is everything has to be solved with violence and bombings and murder. All this accomplishes is a short term solution to the problem. The UN tries to do things peacefully it may take longer than just bombing the shit out of everybody, but it lasts longer too. I have nothing against the Americans as people, but what annoys me is their insistense they have the solution to everything. To use the words of John Lennon, All we are saying is give peace a chance.

There is no world government, only treaties and pacts between state governments. People don't learn from history, and even if they did, there is the problem of the human condition. The thing is, with less government, there are problems on an individual level, like the example of this thread. However, when the government tries to stop these small, individual problems, it creates large scale problems and waste. It's the nature of government. Endling slavery, for example, also ended states' rights as they were intended.

There is a world government it's called the UN maybe if people like you gave it more respect we'd be getting somewhere. People most certainly do learn from history. Ever wondered why there are very few Communist governments left in the developed world? Ever wonder why nazi's are now mearly just a psychotic minority? What states' rights worth keeping did the abolishment of slavery end?

The key is, people should either (1) at least stop doing stuff like this to bait the government into overlegislating poor solutions, or (2) better yet, stop supporting liberals!

People should stop doing stuff like what? Campaigning for basic human rights? And, yeah sure people stopping supporting liberals will really make a change for the better. Illegal wars, the re-instatement of torture forbidden by UN law, or maybe even slavery!

The free market can decide how resources are allocated very well. The government's record on the environment is comparatively poor. Private conservation groups can do better; even liberals like Ted Turner have shown this to be true! There has to be a point where government exists, but it should never limit freedom.

Oh Yeah?! Give me one example! Bushes oil buddies maybe?

Exactly. And this would ruin the hopes and dreams of moderate Iraqis and the soldiers who died fighting for their future. The war might have been wrong, but that's not an issue now. We have to finish our job, and protestors aren't helping the cause.

Moderate Iraqi's are being killed in their drones by this war! Civilian deaths have been huge since the war started! You think the average Iraqi even knows what's going on, you think they've been educated enough in the shitty system they've been living in for so long to know why the American government are invading them? All they can see is a bunch of foreigners coming in blowing there cities to fuckin pieces, and starting a civil war.

People get plenty of "life experience", whatever that means. It's unavoidable, and it can be negative, as well. However, time spent reading books and engaging the mind is never wasted! People don't read as much as they used to, and should.

Life experience as in knowing how to deal with everyday issues properly, and how to deal with moral issues. Such as racism which is what we are discussing here. Far from me to criticise the wonderful works and ideas of the Greek Philosophers, but you think a child reading fucking Aristotle is going to automatically make them into decent moral people?

No, it isn't. The problem here is that Saddam ran Iraq how he wanted it, not how the people or free market would. It's ironic that a big government (us) solves the problem of a bloated government (Saddam), and this makes it look like a contradiction. Our government just got lucky on this one. A broken clock is right 2x a day, even if it's almost always useless.

Our main argument is that you believe government should enforce our rights, while I believe the government can make mistakes, so its power to do this should be limited. This is just the difference between a conservative and liberal. It's a worldview difference, and we aren't going to solve it.

Yes and GW is running the country how he wants too. And in the case you have been making you really think the majority of the people want to get rid of human rights because of it's few flaws. I also think the government makes mistakes, my argument is so does everyone else, we need human rights to it's every flaw there are hundreds of things right about it. You seem to think since there are a few flaws the whole thing is useless

[Walk]

And how do you suggest we solve these problems besides doing nothing? More states rights? I thought you were against the state envoking rights in the first place? I'd rather a flawed something than a big fat nothing.

State governments tend to be better than federal, but less efficient than state. I'm against the state imposing proprietary solutions on groups who won't benefit from them. This could mean, for example, federal government forcing strong tariffs on the whole nation based on the needs of the North. This particular example led to civil war. It could also mean big city politicians from the state capital making laws inappropriate for rural counties. It could mean a county government making laws unfair to a small town.

The point is, local control and small government are more efficient and people are happier with them that way. The only people upset are the big government politicians and liberals who want to tell people how to live.

Physical violence is indeed covered by assault laws, but what about emotional violence, verbal violence, intimidation, discrimination, instanes such as the one this thread was based on in the first place? There are other ways to hurt and intimidate people than physical violence.

There is also the first amendment. It can and will be abused, like by war protestors, but it's important. By definition, however, it exists to protect unpopular ideas, since popular ideas aren't opposed! However, popular ideas can be wrong (war protestors), and unpopular ideas can be right. People easily offended don't belong in a free society.

And why is it idealism and not reality? For the reasons I have previously described, if people gave up closed-minded ignorant bigotry than idealism would become reality.

No, it wouldn't. People can't give up imperfections because they are inherent of the human condition. They're something we have to live with, not make ridiculous policies that can never be achieved. The UN is particularly infamous in this regard. They don't understand that some people don't care about strongly worded rebukes and sanctions that end up killing more innocents than anything else.

Oh you did because you're the world police. Never fear America's here. The problem with American government is everything has to be solved with violence and bombings and murder. All this accomplishes is a short term solution to the problem. The UN tries to do things peacefully it may take longer than just bombing the shit out of everybody, but it lasts longer too. I have nothing against the Americans as people, but what annoys me is their insistense they have the solution to everything. To use the words of John Lennon, All we are saying is give peace a chance.

I believe Jefferson said the life of the republic is fueled from the blood of both patriots and tyrants, or something along those lines. Violence is often the only solution that matters, and it's not always bad. It's unpopular because individuals are killed, even if whole societies benefit. Centuries later, however, wars are usually seen as a good thing, since people from that time period are all dead. Think of the American revolution. Pacifists didn't like it then, but we're glad it happened now!

There is a world government it's called the UN maybe if people like you gave it more respect we'd be getting somewhere. People most certainly do learn from history. Ever wondered why there are very few Communist governments left in the developed world? Ever wonder why nazi's are now mearly just a psychotic minority? What states' rights worth keeping did the abolishment of slavery end?

The UN is a set of treaties that member states accept and rarely abide by. It has no authority over regions it doesn't control. The troubles in Southern Europe a few years ago were solved by NATO and American soldiers, but the UN took credit. That's all it does. Nazis are a minority because of bloody warfare, and Communists are dying out because some people learn from history that government is inherantly inefficient. We're called conservatives.

States' rights is an extremely complex issue that needs a lot of reading. For one example, the first 10 amendments were never originally intended to be forced on state governments. Theoretically, this would increase peoples' freedom, since state governments couldn't abuse them. In reality, the reduced state power, and federal power increased.

People should stop doing stuff like what? Campaigning for basic human rights? And, yeah sure people stopping supporting liberals will really make a change for the better. Illegal wars, the re-instatement of torture forbidden by UN law, or maybe even slavery!

Quit making straw men; it's in poor taste. Basic human rights are the right to an ordered society and a free market. Anything past this means government is imposing their views on people. True human rights are inalienable and are not granted by the government. Making the government enforce some rights tends to make it seem that they're where our rights come from. They aren't.

Oh Yeah?! Give me one example! Bushes oil buddies maybe?

Fiduciary responsibility. There's a difference between a multinational corporation and an individual who wants to contribute to a charity. Learn the laws...

Moderate Iraqi's are being killed in their drones by this war! Civilian deaths have been huge since the war started! You think the average Iraqi even knows what's going on, you think they've been educated enough in the shitty system they've been living in for so long to know why the American government are invading them? All they can see is a bunch of foreigners coming in blowing there cities to fuckin pieces, and starting a civil war.

The American revolution was confusing at first, but look where it led to! You're looking at things from the individual's perspective with no long term focus. In a few generations, they'll be better educated to appreciate what is happening now.

Life experience as in knowing how to deal with everyday issues properly, and how to deal with moral issues. Such as racism which is what we are discussing here. Far from me to criticise the wonderful works and ideas of the Greek Philosophers, but you think a child reading fucking Aristotle is going to automatically make them into decent moral people?

Morality counts for less when its based on reflex instead of a conscious decision. I don't want to become the big government I dislike, even if I have to make compromises at times. That's just life. 

Yes and GW is running the country how he wants too. And in the case you have been making you really think the majority of the people want to get rid of human rights because of it's few flaws. I also think the government makes mistakes, my argument is so does everyone else, we need human rights to it's every flaw there are hundreds of things right about it. You seem to think since there are a few flaws the whole thing is useless

The government has its own motives for things; that's realty. It only stands for human rights when it benefits from them. It has no altruism. It's very similar to how a corporation behaves, except it's more dangerous because it's much more powerful and people somehow believe they have control over it. Your first sentence shows this. GW does what he wants, and it just happens to be right, usually, but your point is still valid. Leaving human rights to a few individuals to enforce is dangerous.

Most people like an ordered society, and there are very few problems with human rights in the US. When the government acts like we have human rights problems, it's because it has its own motive for creative laws that would benefit it, usually by more taxes.

[Skeba]

what the fuck does this last page have even remotely to do with the original title??? The whole thread has again, turned into another iraq thread. When the fuck will you learn to keep it where it belongs? In the Iraq threads.