Obama's speech answered many questions his critics are still asking
I have to wonder if Barack Obama's critics on the race issue have seen or read the entirety of his speech . The truth is, Obama clearly answered some of the questions that his critics here are still putting forth as if Obama had not addressed them at all.
For instance, one critic wondered why Obama would throw Louis Farrakhan under the bus and go easy on Rev. Wright:
Why is it that Obama simply "rejected and denounced" not only statements by
Farrakhan, but rejected and denounced the man himself, and offered no excuses or
pleas for understanding, nor cited his positive contributions to the black
community as something to be weighed against HIS outrageous statements, yet has
done the opposite of each for Wright?
But Obama anticipated this very question, and answered it clearly and concisely in his speech:
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and
ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of
condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright
in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I
confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of
those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and
You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the
caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that
I would react in much the same way.
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I
met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my
Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love
one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who
served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at
some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who
for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing
God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the
needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison
ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
So Obama admits that firsthand knowledge of a person's good side weighs significantly in how he would treat a situation where that person had made statements worthy of condemnation.
So, we can agree or disagree with his philosophy in the matter, but the question has been answered.
And then today, more than one critic was troubled by Obama's statement that his white grandmother's use of stereotypes of blacks was "typical" of white people :
Obama... unwittingly stereotyped all whites as racists afraid of
the black man. Is this what we have to
look forward to as far as unifying the country??
It is a racist comment. That's wrong, right?
But if you read Obama's speech closely, he directly compares Wright to his white grandmother, and then strongly implies that Wright's "distorted" views on race are widely held in the black community. Thus he is acknowledging that racial bias is also "typical" in the black community. This nullifies any claims that Obama's "typical" statement is racist in itself or that Obama is singling out whites as racists, because Obama has made equivalent observations of both blacks and whites.
Here's where Obama makes the equivalence relationship between Wright and his grandmother, and implies that the "black community" shares the sins of both:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother
Obama clearly and directly equates Wright to his grandmother with this statement. And if you can connect the three dots here, it's pretty easy to see that Obama acknowledges that the black community (or, a significant percentage of the black community) holds biased views equivalent to Wright... and his grandmother. But he explicitly notes the racial bias of the congregation elsewhere:
The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce
intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes,
the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black
experience in America.
And he clearly implies that his church is "typical":
Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety
So, to recap:
1. Obama thinks the congregation of his predominantly black church is typical of black people,
2. Obama thinks that the church congregation contains "in full" racial bias
3. Obama equates the racial bias of the congregation with that of Reverend Wright
4. Obama equates the racial bias of Reverend Wright with that of his grandmother
5. Obama thinks his white grandmother's racial bias as "typical" of the white community
and therefore:
6. Obama equates the extent of racial bias in the black community with the extent of racial bias in the white community, seeing racial bias as typical in both communities.
I happen to think that Obama meant "typical" to mean "not uncommon". But if you want to claim, as Ender has done, that "typical of" means "all", and therefore Obama unwittingly charged "all" white people with racial bias equivalent to his grandmother, I would note that Obama did not explicitly exempt any black people as being free from bias in his speech, so you could similarly claim that he was saying that "all" black people are racially biased like his grandmother. I strongly doubt that this was Obama's intent.
If you've gotten this far, thanks for bearing with me. I know we've gone over this subject at length, and some of you are probably tired of it already. I just thought that it might be useful to bring the focus of any further discussion on the issue back to what Obama has had to say on the Wright issue and the broader black/white race issue.
- skymutt's diary
- Login or register to post comments

Comments :
Its far easier to find
Its far easier to find perceived logical fallacies or bias in a politician if you don't agree with their political stances.
On the same you note, if you more or less agree with a politician on other topics, it is easy to fill in the gaps of other statements and conclude the statements mean exactly what you want them to mean.
That being said, I agree with skymutt's point of view on Obama's statements.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
True believer syndrome
It's called True-believer syndrome
, a way of dealing with cognitive dissonance
.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Place mark for GoRight
Yes. It is an acknowledged reality. But you could also generalize it to 'threatening seeming' men. The stereotype is black men are threatening, sexually hungary animalistic prowlers looking for white flesh, and as far as I am aware this was pushed on the public by the movie 'Birth of a Nation', shown even in Woodrow Wilsons Whitehouse.
I am assuming the 'fear' of black men was used for political reasons, or perhaps just resentment and fear by white men who felt threatend by black men going after their women. Perhaps it was white men who perpetrated this, because they felt their masculinity was threatened. It is not a myth that blacks were thought of as animals in days of yore.
I don't think this was a speech that Barack particularly wanted to give to whip up black voters. He obviously has already gained most of the black vote (thanks in part to the Clintons betrayal)
No the message is not that the typical white person is a racist, it is that the fear is there. It's just a fact. The message is acknowledging a truth, and acknowledging that there is a lot of resentment on both sides, including a racism by the blacks against whites.
IN my opinion the whole story should be one of economics. That is what Bobby Kennedy realized, after Watts. In order to change things these people needed jobs. In order to provide jobs you need to get someone with capital to invest in poor neighborhoods. Thus the tax base improves, schools improve, neighborhoods and communities thrive, and there is less envy and resentment.
It is the economy, stupid.
And there's a big difference between "call me" and Barack
"call me" sought to pander to white fear of blacks. Barack Obama notes those fears and clearly labels them as stereotypes, while alowing that people are complex and that a person may harbor racial biases and still be a good person in other ways. So it's really more apples and oranges from our red-barred friend.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
And Barack is pandering to blacks fear of racists.
It is the same thing, only in reverse. Pick out the worst fears of your target group and play on them. What are black more afraid of than racists?
His message was clear, he acknowleges that his white grandmother harbors the same racist fears that her up bringing instilled into her ... and later goes on to say that she is representative of typical white people. This is undeniable. These clearly are his words and this is clearly what they mean.
So by painting all white people as though they hadn't changed since the times when his grandmother was raised he is playing on the worst fears of the black population, just like missliberties claims of the call me ad.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
-25
Brain cramping?
Passport-gate overrode Obama's hour long interview on Larry King where he addressed this issue. The use of the word typical was probably not the best choice of words.
But you have latched onto it like a bulldog, in an effort to make some point. It seems like you have some very long standing resentments that you aren't interested in letting go of.
It is the economy, stupid.
Not at all. I am illustrating the absurdity of the left ...
by doing to Obama exactly what they did to, say, Trent Lott among others. How do you like it?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
IN other words you have
some very long standing resentments that you are not interested in letting go of and your goal is not enlightening us but revenge.
Yes I believe Obama made that point in his speech by acknowledging that integration, bussing and affirmative action created resentment among some. IN other words your anger is not without cause.
But how do you 'let' the colored people drink at the same water fountain as the whites without creating resentment in some fashion, unless you think that we should still have segregated drinking fountains.
I believe Eisenhower made the decision to integrate the nation as a way of honoring the military service of african americans. He was very nervous about it and knew it would create a huge backlash. He gave orders to have the signs saying 'coloreds only' taken down at night when no one was looking to avoid mobs of angry whites who would resist.
Yet you can also look to the Irish and find resentment. Many hated the Irish with a passion when they immigrated in droves to the US. This is white on white resentment, so I don't think it is exclusive to just race, though I think the racial division is more entrenched.
Here
is the transcript of Obama's interview on Larry King. He responds to your questions at the bottom of the page, if you'd like to read it.
It is the economy, stupid.
Brilliant!
...your goal is not enlightening us but revenge.
Had I been online last night I likely would have become embroiled in this discussion a bit more. But I just have to say that this is an excellent line that I think really hits the mark. It also makes the reading of GoRight's posts in the rest of the thread more humorous and less infuriating than they otherwise might be!
In fairness to GoRight, however, we could say that his goal is to enlighten us to the fact that this disingenuous style of discourse which he has adopted is counterproductive and should be avoided. Teaching through bad example, so to speak!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
*blush*
It is the economy, stupid.
further if you think about it
the recognition that cheap or slave labor has been used to build the glorious structures seen as symbols of the greatness of so many societies, the Greeks, the Egyptians, was addressed in our constitution by asking that slaves not be counted as a whole person. A sort of tip of the hat to not roiling the rich who depended on slaves for wealth, yet an acknowledgement that the 'untouchable class' deserved recognition. It's fascinating.
I am so encouraged that people are talking.
It is the economy, stupid.
You're easily impressed.
Too easily sometimes.
What disengenuous style of discourse am I using? To what are you referring?
Why? Are you saying that the Democrats were being disingeuous with what they did to Trent Lott? And are you saying that by doing so they were being counter productive?
Hmmm. Sounds like you might have learned something.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Poor poor GoRight
You poor thing.
I didn't realize that you (and Trent Lott) have been so victimized by liberals all these years.
Such a burden you bear.
Here have tissue to wipe away those tears for your years of suffering at the hands of the left. *sniff*
It is the economy, stupid.
Thanks for the kind words.
I feel much better now. Was that so hard? :)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Disingenuosity
I believe I have made a statement to that effect before. Yes. Although as I said then, it was not just the Democrats. Bush did it too.
And was this not your intent? Teaching by bad example, like I said? So where exactly are we disagreeing? Other than I think you currently are being counterproductive in this specific argument. The meta-argument of how to argue notwithstanding.
You can either claim that you are arguing in good faith about Obama's racism, or you can claim that you are using the disingenuous style of "the left" to make a point about how not to argue. You can't have it both ways.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Alright.
I wasn't sure how to interpret your response. It could have been interpetted as a pointy stick. If you were serious then yes, we are in agreement.
I am mostly doing the latter (immitating how I see the left treating the right on race issues) to illustrate how disingenuous it all seems to me so you can see it from your side.
I actually liked what Obama had to say in his speech on the topic. He is a good orator. He also seems somewhat unflappable which is why all the Clintonian dirty tricks are failing miserably. He is secure in his position and so he refuses to take the bait. I think that he has actually run one of the more above board campaigns in recent memory.
The larger point, obviously, is that good people who are NOT racists may make statemetns or have reactions that can be made to look racist when, in fact, there was no racism behind them at all. My attack on Obama should be illustrative of exactly that point.
I don't really think Obama is a racist even though I believe I did a pretty good job of making him look like one. Your mileage may vary.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
That's pretty much what I figured
You big jerk. :)
Edit: I was going to suggest that maybe Obama should pick Lott as a VP. That would be bold! But then, after looking at Lott's actual positions
on the issues, I don't think I could even suggest it in jest. They'd probably win Mississippi, though.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Let's reexamine the Lott situation, shall we?
Certainly, some Democrats called Lott's statements racist, or called for his resignation from his leadership post. But did the Democrats speak with one voice on the issue?
Let's see what a couple of True Democrats had to say at the time:
Bending over backward for Lott, I'd say. I wonder how many Republicans would have given Daschle the benefit of the doubt in a similar spot?
Strong criticism from Lewis, but criticism that focuses on the words, not Lott himself, and certainly worded so as to give Lott "outs" to explain himself later. Pretty generous, I'd say, from a man who spilled blood in the fight to end the brutal racist policies enforced by the likes of Thurmond.
Meanwhile, condemnation of Lott's statement was bi-partisan, with George Bush calling Lott's words "offensive", William Kristol calling them "ludicrous", and William Bennett calling them "offensive" and "repugnant". McCain called for a "full blown press conference". link
All in all, it hardly looks like an organized partisan Democratic railroading of Lott. Sure, a couple Democrats called for him to resign his leadership post, but it's pretty natural that no Republican Senator would want to be the first to publicly ask for Lott's resignation as Majority Leader-- since Lott was their leader, and if he didn't actually resign as leader, that could make things mighty uncomfortable in the "go along, get along" Republican culture... Heck, you might actually lose some earmarks or a plum committee post if you make the wrong move!
In the end, Lott ended up resigning his leadership post, but stayed in the Senate, and after that, the whole thing kind of died down. A couple years later, Lott was reelected to Senate leadership, and there was no overwhelming outcry from Lott's Senate colleagues on the Democratic side. He'd done his time for a dumb statement, and that was that. Seems like Dems are nice guys who will give a Republican a second chance!
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Lets not.
It was bad enough the first time. The reality is that it was Democrat and left wing media pressure that drove him from office, pure and simple. They refused to let up on the man over a simple statement where he was only trying to make an old man feel good on his birthday.
And, as I said originally, Lott is only a current example for how the left treats the right on race. An exemplar for my point, not the sum total of it.
You can rationalize away their behavior if your wish but I don't have to buy it, and I don't.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Weak.
Bashing Democrats over the head with Trent Lott repeatedly, then acting all huffy and refusing to discuss like this is some sort of painful personal memory when I respond on the point... very weak stuff, and contrary to the spirit of Sword Crossed!
Not pure and simple. For one thing, he wasn't "driven from office"-- he only resigned his leadership post, not his Senate seat. For another thing, there was pressure coming from his own side, and some Democrats-- to their credit IMHO-- seemed to be giving him more of a break than some Republicans, as I pointed out in my post.
Well, in the current polarized environment, neither party gives members of the other party much of a break on anything. I don'tat all like feeding frenzies like the Lott thing, but the Republicans and their allies in Talk Radio and so forth pick off Democrats for insignificant or even false stuff all the time. You seem to give them a complete pass on their ridiculousness-- such as the swiftboating of John Kerry, or Whitewater, or Pastor Wright-- yet that stuff perpetuates the vicious cycle where each side swarms in for the kill when they smell blood.
I say "enough" of the politics of personal destruction on both sides.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Awful lonely up here on this thread...
Kinda ridiculous that my red-barred friend actively refuses to engage with me on Lott, when 1.) He brought him up-- several times, actually, before I relented and took the bait, and 2.) I half agree with him on the issue.
I can only conclude that he i playing the martyr here so that he can continue to use Lott to bash Democrats like myself, even though I have repeatedly denounced the politics of personal destruction.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Sorry, I just don't want to pursue the Lott details.
The record is out there for anyone who wants to read it. I just prefer to move on given that I have already admitted that my true purpose in this whole thread was actually to illustrate the absurdity of how the left treats the right on race issues.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
What are you talking about
There is no such thing as race. And there are no black people.
Everyone is judged on the merits.
I don't know why everyone keeps calling Obama black when he is really white.
It is the economy, stupid.
Okay, but...
you never "illustrate[d] the absurdity of how the left treats the right on race issues" with respect to Lott, you merely asserted it, whereas I actually demonstrated examples of prominent Democrats who gave Lott more of a break than many of his Republican colleagues.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Sigh.
My basic claim is the the liberals hounded Trent Lott on the Thurmond comment until he was driven from his leadership position. I forget exactly how many times he apologized for the comment but the left kept up the pressure. They were still hounding him 4 years after the fact when he was re-elected back into a leadership position.
Personally I think that the arguments against him in this case are basically of the same caliber as the ones I am making against Obama here (i.e. they may not be exactly parallel but they are essentially equivalent in their honesty and approach).
Did I ever say that the liberals were all 100% in lock step on this issue? No. Does my position require that the even BE 100% in lockstep? No. It only requires that a significant portion of the left wingers continued to hound him after each apology.
So, skymutt, what kind of "proof" would you consider acceptable under these circumstances.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I don't require proof, I just want discussion
I think that Lott basically was "trying to make an old man feel good on his birthday", as you say, and made a dumb, clumsy statement that, quite rightly raised some eyebrows. But even though Lott and some of his staff didn't handle the immediate aftermath of the statement particularly well, I still think that an explanation and an apology should have sufficed: no crime was committed; Lott wasn't trying to personally gain anything by the statement; nobody was slandered by the statement, and there was really no ill intent in the statement. I don't think that these facts were taken into proper consideration by those who called for Lott's head.
I don't think that Obama's "typical" statement comes anywhere near to risng to the level of dumbness of Lott's statement, however. Obama simply made an imprecise choice of one word. Because of this distinction, I find John Lewis's response to Lott's statement which I quoted upthread to be genuine, whereas I find those who are seizing on "typical" to be a little bit opportunistic, to put it mildly.
I also draw distinction between Lott's statement and the Call Me ad. Unlike the Lott situation, here is a case where the Corker campaign was seeking gain-- by issuing a sleazy ad that was peddling a racial stereotype to smear Ford. There was ill intent in issuing the ad-- the Corker campaign must have had discussions about potential negative reaction to the ad, yet released it anyway.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
I can agree with a lot of this ...
I agree with most of this and that is basically the point I am making. Not too many liberals will acknowledge any of this even though I think most of them would actually agree in private.
Well, even if Lott's comment was stupid that doesn't make the disingenuous and unrelenting attacks on him any less opportunistic. You basically agree that he was mostly railroaded over a stupid statement. That's all I was doing to Obama. Illustrating the making of mountains out of mole hills, if you will. Maybe Obama's mole hill wasn't as big as Lott's to begin with, but it was still a mole hill and in that sense served to illustrate my point.
As with my discussions with missliberties, I don't actually think that the Call Me ad was "peddling a racial stereotype". But if you insist that it was then I will continue to insist that Obama's "typical white person" comment was doing the same. They are equivalent in the respect as far as I am concerned. If you are justified in your criticism of the Call Me ad then I am justified in my criticism of Obama. I demand the same rules be observed on both sides.
Your accusation of ill intent rests on the premise that there was something wrong with the ad in the first place. I argue that there wasn't so you initial premise is false. I choose (b) the Corker campaign didn't think there was anything wrong with the ad as they never intended to propagate or exploit a racial stereotype in the first place.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Bah.
That which you call revenge is actually holding both sides to the
same standards. We have been through this before. I am going to do to
the liberals exactly as they do to me. Ergo my statement regarding the
treatment of Trent Lott.
And exactly what do you think that those resentments might be? What exactly are you accusing me of here? Who am I supposedly harboring resentment against? Please be specific.
I am not angry about any of these things. They are what they are. These may not be the way that I would have tried to solve the underlying problems, but I support all of them in the sense that I support the intention of solving the problem that they are claiming to address. In other words I have no problem with the black community having full access to what American society has to offer without any discrimination or disadvantage.
Affirmative action, of course, is nothing more than reverse descrimination so I oppose it on those grounds since I ALSO believe that the white community should likewise have full access to what American society has to offer. Affirmative action is not consistent with that goal.
Equal opportunity yes. Affirmative action no.
I am not trying to keep anyone from using whatever water fountain they want. Let everyone share the water fountains. I am not of the separate but equal persuation if that is what you are trying to imply, and I find the implication offensive.
But of course this is clearly a digression, yet again, from the discussion at hand which was what Obama said about his grandmother and what those statements implied. In other words, we are discussing just how racist Obama actually is, not me. Why do you always try to shift the discussion to others rather than address the substance of the discussion at hand. Weren't you (falsely) accusing me of just such a thing not that long ago?
Gee, this is interesting. Are you trying to suggest that perhaps I would have been one of those resisting? How ad hominem of you. If so you would have been wrong.
Speaking of resentments that people just won't let go of ... there haven't been any slaves in the US for over 140 years. Get over it already and move on. This country has more opportunity for you than any other place on the planet so stop wallowing in self pity and make something of your lives.
From your link:
Double speak, the native tongue of democrats far and wide.
In the first paragraph he says that racism is a live and well, at least racism as it has been defined since the days of slavery. Racism as defined the way you keep using it with your Call Me ad rhetoric.
Then in the second paragraph he boldly comes out and says that these things are not racist. Ironically that's pretty much what I have claimed all along in regards to the Call Me ad scenario you put forth.
So, ML, how does it feel to have Obama trashing your argument like this? How does it feel to have him saying the same thing I did, in effect?
I guess Obama actually agrees with me, except for that bit about his white grandmother ... that was just racist.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
-100
I have stated my position.
It is duly noted that you disagree.
You obviously feel you have a lot of liberal history you need to expose as hypocritical.
Fine.
I agree with Obama's larger point.
Feel free to call me a racist all day and all night if it puts some sort of salve on your need for equal justice or equal accountability or whatever. I have no problem with that.
I am not interested in playing the game of 'find the victim'.
It is the economy, stupid.
I am just assuming that liberals follow Obama's advice ...
I can only assume that when the liberals attack conservatives with the race card like they do against people such as Trent Lott that they are following the advice given above by Obama.
So when the liberals do unto the conservatives, I likewise follow the above advice and do unto them right back. Isn't that what he meant?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Yeah sure
if that's what you believe. Obama's message is all about spite and getting even.
Have a great day. I hope you get what you give.
It is the economy, stupid.
A bit of a wide brush there, GR
So some members of this amorphous entity you refer to as "the liberals" did something you disapprove of, and that gives you the moral imperative to do that same thing back to anyone that falls into your definiton of liberal.
This is the kind of thinking that blames all Muslims for the actions of Al Qaeda. It is the kind of thinking that underlies actual racism.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No it's not.
Just because my label "liberal" is an amorphous entity from your perspective does not mean that I don't know exactly who I include in the group.
Well, I don't blame all muslims for the actions of Al Qaeda so obviously you misunderstand something here.
Yea, following the golden rule is what underlies racism. So you are saying that Obama is a racist after all? It was his quote.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The Golden Rule
No, it is your (intentional) misinterpretation of the golden rule that underlies racism.
You are saying that because some members of a general category do x, it is OK to do x right back at anyone in that category. That has no relation whatsoever to the actual golden rule. It is in fact, the opposite - more akin to an eye for an eye, but with the added perversion of generalizing to an entire group.
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Eye for an eye: Do unto others as they have done unto you.
GoRight's Rule: Do unto others as people like them have done unto people like you.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Two points.
How is this actually related to racism in any way? This is what you said is the underlying thought process of racism, right?
Even if the categories in your statement above are interpretted as racial divisions it doesn't describe racism. The whites are not oppressing the blacks because the blacks oppressed them first, but that is what your construction above would imply.
Actually, it is not the opposite and it directly relies on the Golden Rule as its exact basis. I would argue the following:
So by attacking Obama in this way I am actually demonstrating that I have given the Democrats the benefit of the doubt with respect to being people of integrity. What's wrong with that?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Two responses
There are two parts to my construction: 1) the tit for tat aspect which you correctly state is not related to racism; and 2) the justifying actions against a group based on one's perceptions (real or imagined) of some members of that group, which I maintain is related to racism.
Regarding your logical deconstruction of the Golden Rule, I honestly have a hard time believing you could write that with a straight face, but okay, I'll tackle it as if I thought you actually believed it. Point by point:
1. The correct formulation of this sentence should have been: "The Golden Rule is a good rule and people of integrity will try to follow it." No one is perfect.
2. No argument here. You even used the word "should" implying that you understand that you are not perfect, either.
3. The beauty of the Golden Rule is that it requires no assumptions. You don't need to understand anything about other people's motivations to follow it. You just need to know yourself. If you wish to assume that Democrats are people of integrity, then the most you can conclude is that they will try to follow the Golden Rule.
4. No argument here. A statement of your experience.
5. Another assumption, based on the faultiness of statements 1 and 3. Even worse, an improper paraphrase of the golden rule:
As I said previously, this is a paraphrase of "an eye for an eye," it is absolutely NOT the Golden Rule.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
:) LOL
Who says I did? :) But still, it is sound logic.
Meh. OK, so we acknowledge that people are not perfect but assume that they are TRYING to follow the golden rule.
That was easy. So far so good.
Agreed, it doesn't require anyone to make any assumptions. Neither is it incompatible with doing so. Consistent with your last part there, I now assume that the Democrats, being people of integrity, are TRYING to follow the Golden Rule. Thus the things that they do to Republicans must be the things that they desire that the Republicans do in return.
Whether they actually accomplished the goal of having followed the Golden Rule or whether we assume that they are at least TRYING to follow the Golden Rule makes no difference. Either way their actions represent their intent to demonstrate the behavior that they would like to receive in return.
The only way out of this little trap is to either concede that Democrats are NOT people of integrity OR that they are NOT actually TRYING to follow the Golden Rule. Your choice on this one.
OK, another easy one. Thanks.
Sorry, but my statements 1 and 3 are not faulty even under the acknowledgement of people being imperfect. Nice try, though.
Sorry again, but that was not a paraphrase of the Golden Rule itself. It was a logical conclusion based on the assumptions that:
If you would like to prove my assumptions are false, please feel free to do so, but given those assumptions my conclusion is valid ... logically speaking ... and is a direct implication of THEIR having TRIED to apply the Golden Rule.
:)
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
False dichotomy
I believe you are underestimating the magniture of human imperfection. :)
Nope. Let me try an analogy first. I have a rule that I try to follow, which is to eat no meat. I am not a vegetarian, I just want to be. On those occasions when I eat meat, does that demonstrate the behavior that I expect from someone else following the same rule?
What I am trying to say that it is quite possible to TRY to follow a rule and to fail utterly. It does not indicate that one is not trying.
Door #3: They are people of integrity, they are trying, yet they are human, and sometimes fail, as do you or I.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
In your example ...
... your decision to eat meat on any given occasion is a conscious one, so to say this is an example of your TRYING to not eat meat and failing is false, IMHO, or at the very least disingenuous. If you made a conscious decision to eat meat it is hard for me to accept that you were actually trying.
A better example of trying, but failing, would be eating something that you honestly believed did not contain any meat but later found out that it did. I can accept, in this case, that you TRIED to not eat meat but you failed. I can accept this because, in this case, you were faithful to your stated intent at a conscious level. You actually TRIED.
Even further, if you consciously violate your stated intent then I would argue that you aren't truly trying and that you are, in fact, lying (to yourself at least even if not to anyone else). Please note that lying is not an indicator of having integrity, IMHO.
So in an example analogous to your not eating meat, by consciously violating their (the Democrats) stated intent (i.e. to follow the Golden Rule) I would say that they have actually failed on BOTH counts (i.e. following the Golden Rule as well as having integrity).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Help you I can, yes.
Re: your first three paragraphs. Only in the world of the Jedi is it true that there is no try, only do or do not. What you are doing is defining failure as a lack of trying. Not something that I would accept as a truism, by any means.
Re: paragraph #4. It is not necessary to stipulate that the Democrats have in fact failed, only that it is a possibility. But if you are saying you think that they have in fact failed, that is all the more compelling damnation of your original 5 point perversion of the Golden Rule, since point #3 is now a falsehood.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
So you actually believe that ...
(using your vegetarian example) you can simply do whatever you want in terms of eating or not eating meat and yet still claim, legitimately, to be trying. In fact, by your standard you could consciously eat meat with every meal and still claim to be trying. Sorry, but this is disingenuous and lacking any semblence of integrity in my book.
Your position amounts to saying that people can say one thing, and do the exact opposite on a conscious level and repeatedly so, and still not have violated their stated intent - which is of course bogus on its face. This waters down the definition of try to the point of being meaningless.
So basically your argument now is that the Democrats merely have to say that they have integrity in order to actually have it. They merely need to state their intent to follow the Golden Rule in order to actually have done it. All the while not having to have even the slightest intent to actually carry through.
I must say, this DOES sound like how the liberals operate. Very interesting in deed. It must be nice living and working on these terms.
For example, I for years have been trying to say nothing but nice things about liberals. But hey, I am only human, so in your eyes I must now be a very honorable person literally bursting over with integrity on this point. Right? So, I am waiting, shower me with your praise.
I once heard that Jeffry Dahmer
was trying to not kill so many people. How honorable of him, eh? Too bad he is only human.
Given this definition of "trying" I must formally reject my prior acceptance of your point since it has been rendered totally meaningless. Simply trying (by this definition of the word) is not enough. To have integrity you not only have to say you intend to follow the Golden Rule, you actually have to make a good faith effort to carry through and willfully and consciously ignoring your commitment does not represent such a good faith effort.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Specifics
Since I have a bit of free time this fine Easter morning (waiting for the oatmeal bread dough to rise. Yum!) I'll respond to a few of the specific bits of ridiculousness in this post. See below for the more general response.
To some extent this is true. Just as a pole vaulter who continually tries to get over the bar, but crashes into it every time, is still trying. In the specific example you give above, you are likely justified in claiming that such an individual is really just fooling themselves, but you are just looking at the two extremes (eating meat every meal, not eating meat at all, and completely ignoring the vast spectrum between those two points.
Whereas your definition is rock solid, but wrong.
It is actually your argument that requires that the Democrats have integrity. I have said all along that following the Golden Rule has nothing whatsoever to do with other peoples intentions, only your own.
And I could just as easily say, it must be nice living in a world where everything is either black or white, good or evil, right or wrong.
Accepting your first sentence as truth, here is your praise: "A" for effort, "F" for execution!
Just imagine if he weren't trying! I guess in your black and white world, Dahmer is pure 100% evil.
So tell me, does a good faith effort guarantee success?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
No, it does not.
See post below...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Lets rephrase this to match your actual meaning then ...
1. The correct formulation of this sentence should have been: "The
Golden Rule is a good rule and people of integrity
will try to followare free to pick and choose when they wish to follow it and when they don't, purely on their whim and as suits them personally." No one is perfect.it
Sorry, but I don't agree with this formulation which matches your examples of the meaning of "try" 100%.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Double bah.
To both this and your previous post. I'm not even sure where to start - they are both rubbish! Such rampant false dichotomies and strawmen!
Your definiton of "to try" is virtually equivalent of the definition of "to succeed," which is clearly an incorrect definition. When I point this out, you then make the false claim that my definition of "to try," since it is different from yours, is virtually equivalent to the definition of "to fail." Wrong. My definition of "to try" incorporates into it the possibility that success might not result from the endeavor. It inhabits a middle ground between "to succeed" and "to fail."
Based on your strawman interpretation of my definition of trying, you could say that. And according to my interpretation of your definition of trying, I can say this: If you go for months without eating any meat, then go to a restaurant, smell the bacon cooking, and just can't resist trying some, you are clearly not even trying. Tell me why that is an incorrect interpretation of your definition of "to try" and maybe we can get somewhere.
Furthermore, even if I accept your ridiculous definition, your initial argument is still flawed. You begin from the position that the Golden Rule should be followed. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Through a series of "logical" steps, involving a number of assumptions, you arrive at a conclusion which says you should do unto others something which you don't want done unto you. (Unless I am mistaken and you actually want to be unfairly accused of being a racist.) Your conclusion directly contradicts your initial statement. What do you think that says about your logic?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Nope.
It is no such thing. I have already given you a valid example where you try but fail here:
So I am by no means requiring complete success.
I must admit that I am completely flabbergasted that you are seriously trying to argue that someone can consciously do the exact opposite of what they claim to be trying to do and still consider them to be trying.
Let's consider a few examples to establish what it means to try.
Example 1: Not eating meat at a restaurant.
Which of the following are valid examples of someone trying to not eat meat:
I accept both 2 and 3 as examples of having tried, but only 3 counts as being successful. Where do you stand?
Example 2: Skiing down a hill.
Which of the following are valid examples of someone trying to ski down a hill?
I accept 3 and 4 as examples of having tried, but only 4 counts as being successful. Where do you stand?
Example 3: Trying to swim.
Which of the following are valid examples of someone trying to swim?
I accept 4, 5 and 6 as examples of having tried, but only 6 counts as being successful. Where do you stand?
Now, let's consider the second aspect of your point which has to do with consistency of purpose.
Suppose person A claims to be trying to not eat meat. They go to restaruants for lunch 100 days in a row. On days 50 and 100 they simply cannot help themselves and they order bacon cheeseburgers, but on all other days they have salads.
You would argue, I assume, that this is an example of someone who is trying to not eat meat. Based on the analysis of what it means to try above, I would argue that this is an example of someone who tried on 98 occasions to not eat meet and did not try on 2.
So this raises the question of whether someone is free to try some times and not others and still be considered trying. Personally, I say that to be considered trying you have to actually try 100% of the time. Anything less allows you to do what amounts to the exact opposite and still claim to be trying.
For example, suppose we reverse the results described above for Person A who is supposedly trying not to eat meat. If on days 50 and 100 they ordered a salad and every other day they ordered bacon cheeseburgers you would still argue that they are trying whereas I would argue that they clearly are not. In fact you would even allow that they could eat bacon cheeseburgers 100 days in a row and still accept that they are trying.
Is this not a correct assessment of your responses and position? If it is suffice it to say that I simply disagree with you on this point.
So what exactly is required of someone in your definition for them to satisfy the statement that they tried? Or, conversely, what are the conditions under which someone can actually be said to NOT be trying?
Let's reset the indent so reply over here: Resetting the indent on the Golden Rule thread ...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree