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 blog
- 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.
I'm only half 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: accept no substitutes!
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.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4-25
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.
I'm only half 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?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4IN 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.
I'm only half 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*
I'm only half 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.
I'm only half 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.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Poor 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*
I'm only half stupid
Thanks for the kind words.
I feel much better now. Was that so hard? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Disingenuosity
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.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4That'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: accept no substitutes!
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.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Weak.
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: accept no substitutes!
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: accept no substitutes!
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.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4What 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.
I'm only half 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: accept no substitutes!
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.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I 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: accept no substitutes!
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.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bah.
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.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4-100
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'.
I'm only half 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?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Yeah 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.
I'm only half 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.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The 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?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Two 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.
:)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4False 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).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Help 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.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Specifics
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...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Lets 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%.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Double 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 ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You obsess with "typical" as if Obama said "cracker"
Now I'm positive that you haven't seen or read his whole speech, becaue there's no way that Obama portrayed whites "as though they hadn't changed" since his grandmother's youth.
How exactly do you reconcile your statement above with Obama's statement here?
Seems to be that Obama is acknowleging that a great deal of change has occurred-- a stark and direct contradiction to your false claims.
To make your case, you insist on seizing on this use of one ambiguous word, "typical", rather than reading paragraphs of Obama's words which don't mesh in any way with what you want to believe about Obama's racism. As I have pointed out, if you replace "typical" with "not uncommon [among]" in what Obama said, which is what I think it's pretty clear he meant, then there's absolutley no way you could even pretend to make this thin case that Obama was stereotyping white people. And the word "typical" is often used to mean roughly "not uncommon": It is typical for dogs to chase their tails. It is typical for cars in northern cities to have significant rust issues. It is typical for football players to develop hip problems later in life.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I also found this bit ironic given this conversation ...
:) A bit like the pot calling the kettle black ... er, white ... er, you know what I mean.
Easy, politician speak with forked tongue. Him say what him need to say to fool people to vote for him. (Apologies to the Hollywood writers who propogate this type of stereotype about how native Americans used to talk, oh, and the native Americans too.)
Look, this entire speech is laced with ambiguous statements that are just coded language to let people read into it whatever they want to hear and it sure seems to have worked on you.
Really? Exactly what part of your excerpt justifies your use of the term "great deal"? I sure don't see it. He acknowledges change. He alludes to the fact that we CAN change. But the degree of that change? Nothin. Zip, zero, nada.
I am not "seizing" on anything. I am merely accurately quoting the man. And no matter what he may or may not have said in other parts of the speech, it does not alter what he said in this part of the speech or what one can conclude it means, logically speaking.
If he made contradictory claims it was merely to give both sides something to cling to. Notice how well that worked, eh? I cling to the throwing his white grandmother under the bus part, and you cling to the other parts. This is the hallmark of the Obama speech, say a little of everything so that everyone goes home with something to like. :)
Actually, if you make the substitution you mention it does not alter the meaning of his statement in any substantive way, but if it does it only serves to make it ambiguous whereas it originally was not. "Typical" is pretty much a synonym for "most" in this context. You have tried to water that down to make your point since "not uncommon" means roughly the same as "typical", it does not carry with it the same implication in terms of "most". This is the essence of your slight of hand here. Let's stick with the man's actual words, shall we?
And I rest my case. You have watered down the "most" implied by "typical".
"A typical dog will chase its tail" vs. "It is typical for dogs to chase their tails."
"A typical car in northen cities will have rust issues" vs. "It is typical for cars in northern cities to have significant rust issues."
I believe he used a construction more in line with my examples since he actually used the phrase "typical white women".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Obtuse and laced with self-contradiction
Most political speech is designed to appeal to many people, but when you dissected my diary and pointed out one example which you claimed was ambiguous, I demonstrated Obama's words to be quite unambiguous. To the obtuse person, everything is ambiguous, nothing ever applies to anything else, and no forest is grand enough that a single flaw in one tree can not be seized upon.
Fine, leave out "great deal" if you wish. It doesn't alter the fact that you admit now that "he acknowledges change"-- directly contradicting your initial claim was that Obama was "painting all white people as though they hadn't changed since the times when his grandmother was raised."
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
You're over playing the obtuse card, my friend...
No you didn't, at least no IMHO.
Hey, I don't mind throwing you a bone now and again, just don't feel entitled or anything. :)
Given the momentous concession I am making here, let me amend my original statement to reflect our new understanding of Obama's position:
All fixed.
I did find one thing curious about this whole white and blacks are equally bad meme of yours. I notice that in his speech Obama explicitly addresses things he thinks WHITE people need to address but I didn't find any comparable section addressing the things the BLACK people need to address. Hmmm. I would have thought such an even minded individual would have addressed BOTH.
But I never found the counter point. Why?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Hey, I don't mind
Thanks for the rare concession of a point. I would note that it's probably more accurate to say that you accidentally dropped a bone rather than throwing it to me, but hey, why split hairs? :-)
If you won't allow me to modify "change" with "great deal", why should I allow you to modify "change" with essentialy "insignificant"?
Not all fixed, still self-contradictory with your later statement.
Because segregation is over, and Obama shouldn't have to provide "separate but equal" white and black counterpoints on every single statement he makes.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Not getting off that easy.
Rather than skirting the issue please provide a substantive answer. You contention is that Obama was highlighting that both sides were biased yet he only commented on how WHITEs had to change. Why doesn't he (shouldn't he have to?) address how BLACKs have to change as well, assuming your contention holds water?
Is this not an example of his seeing this as a one way street, thereby negating your contention that he sees it as a two-way street?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No sir.
Not when the whole speech practically screams "two-way street".
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Talk is cheap.
He may have talked like it was a two-way street, but when it came to actually having to DO anything to fix the problem it was suddenly a one-way street. This calls into question his sincerity on the whole two-way street meme, IMHO.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Except
that folks are actually talking and examining racial issues out loud and in public for the first time. Looking at black history, white history, and the progress of generations. The point is the dialogue has been opened up.
You can look to Obama, or Trent Lott, or Bush, or Wright, or the KKK, or Liberation theology for excuses, blame or answers........ but the point is you are looking........ and talking!
If you are looking to an authoritarian figure to solve problems for you, that's one thing.
If you are looking for a leader to get folks thinking about serious issues that is another thing.
That is the courage and beauty of having someone like Obama stand up and give his speech. He got folks to talking. He isn't telling you waht to do, or what to think, he is asking you to look, talk and listen. So far it's been working, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
I'm only half stupid
Pfft. Yea, right.
Yea, no one ever mentioned racial issues before Obama. That whole civil right struggle thing? Nothing. Doesn't count for anything. Hell, we didn't eve realize that there was a problem before Obama opened out eyes, right?
I think you are seriously over rating Obama on this front.
Ha. Gee, what was I thinking I was talking about with all those race related posts over the years. I guess I only THOUGHT I was talking about race. Thank god Obama came along so that mypost would at least now count as dialogue.
OMFG, what a visionary this man is. Nobody was discussing anything related to race before he came along. Look, talk, listen. Brilliant!
Nope. We never discussed race before Obama. Absolutely correct.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Glad you agree
I am noticing it especially in the media.
Although I see many have a vested interested in keeping things the same and playing victim, and oddly enough many of these folks are the ones that were unfairly stereotyped. Some seem to want to keep the stereotypes alive apparently enjoying the role of victimhood. Dare I see the ones with the strongest interest in keeping a stalement, are white. Odd that.
I'm only half stupid
Not true, skymutt
This,
unfortunately, is not true. One admirable thing about Barack Obama is that, while he was truthful about the race issue and racism here in the United States, unlike his (former) Rev. Wright, Barack Obama didn't once resort to incendiary, nasty rhetoric in order to do it. Obama is proof that it's possible to lead without inflaming people.
Come again?
I don't see how my statement and your statement are mutually exclusive. All I'm saying is that his speech should be evaluated as a whole, and that the truth that he spoke and the positive and non-incendiary manner with which it was spoken should be the takeaway from the speech. Those who would try to find fault in the speech by scouring it minutely for some passage which, out of context, might seem like it was placing more blame or burden on one race or another, are pretty much intentionally missing the point of the speech IMHO.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
By the way, thanks for putting up the "GoRight Flypaper" :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Nothin' stuck yet. Have to come back and see later. (n/t)
hahahaha
I'm only half stupid
It is not a fact. Please provide something to back this up.
Show me how we know for a fact that the typical white person is afraid to have a black man pass them on the street. Hogwash.
And a message that says the typical white person is afraid of blacks IS calling them racists ... that is unless they are somehow justified in their fears. Why be afraid unless your think blacks are evil criminals hell bent on preying on you? That's racist.
So, again we see that Obama is a racist who not only harbors but perpetuates negative stereotypes about white people based on nothing but the color of their skin. It's despicable.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4-30
I am not here to defend centuries of black history and how race and fear have driven the discourse of the political debate for a long long time.
Have your resentments and hold them close.
I'm only half stupid
In other words ...
sorry, GoRight, you caught me. I got nothin.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4In otherwords
you have long standing resentments that you won't let go of.
You seem to be repeating yourself so I will do the same.
When someone says, Hillary won the white vote in Mississippi, are they really saying that Hillary when the 'typical' white vote?
I'm only half stupid
Ad hominem?
And what long standing resetnments do you think I harbor? I harbor no resentments. My pointing out that this comment was racist on Obama's part is not related to any resentment.
If anyone is displaying resentment here, according to Obama that would be the Black community. If I am to believe skymutt's line of reasoning, Obama is practically beating people over the head with the message that most Blacks are just seething with resentment over perceived injustices. Personally, I don't believe it.
So, please enlighten me as to what my resentments are.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by this or how this relates to our discussion at hand.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I disagree somewhat with what you're saying, GoRight.
Here's why:
First of all, if history is any indication, it's true that the average white American, be they Jewish, Christian, or whatever, has not wanted to live next door to the blacks.
Also, Obama seems like anything but a racist. He told the truth, without resorting to incendiary speech in order to do so.
Perhaps.
Skip ahead a bit to here: Not at all. I am illustrating the absurdity of the left ..., and here: Alright. for the full story on this thread.
In reality I actually agree with you regarding his speech.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4+1
I'll admit to having that fear at one time. Growing up in the middle of nowhere where we didn't have more than 2 or 3 black people in the whole school, your perceptions of people are based on movies, media, the news, etc.
College was a culture shock of sorts and then working at an HBCU helped me overcome my fear. No longer did I see the students as black people, but just people.
I'm reminded of something I saw on television. A man said that he thought all Muslims were closet terrorists. I mentioned this to my fiancée, who was obviously disgusted as she had a Muslim friend. I thought to myself that that man's comment said to me that he didn't know any Muslims. It's the same story with those who say that black people are lazy, irresponsible, crack addicts. They simply don't know any black people.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
So Obama admits that
Which is nice and all, but it doesn't alter, negate, or modify in any way what Wright actually said. It is a distraction from the point of discussion. An evasion and nothing more.
Since this screed does not even mention Farrakahn, it is hard to believe that it answers the question:
That's the question you were addressing, right? Based on this screed I know absolutely nothing new about how Obama feels about Farrakahn and his redeeming values vs. Wright yet that is the sole contention of your point. You are saying, in effect, that in Obama's opinion Wright is a worthy human being and Farrakahn is not but I see nothing to the effect your excerpt.
Your position is a rationalization not an explanation.
I'm not sure where you took a logic course but you should ask for a refund. Nothing in your excerpts from Obama actually implies this, strongly or otherwise.
Umm, skymutt, you are making this too easy. Two points here:
(1) Obama's statements, at least the ones you have provided, do not acknowledge that Wright's views are "distorted" nor do they imply that those views are widely held within the black community so your premise if false in the outset.
(2) You provide an example where you acknowledge that Wright is a racist and then higlight that Obama thinks that he is typical of the black community. So, if we accept your contention, he is using the characteristics of one person to paint an entire group. Again, this too is a racist comment because it is fostering a negative stereotype about a group of people based only on the color of their skin.
So in case (1) your premise is false so the conclusion is irrelevant. In case (2) you are claiming that, in effect, two wrongs make a right ... which they do not. Being prejudiced against two different groups does not change the fact that you are prejudiced against either one of them. So, logically, even if I accept your premise your argument is flawed.
In terms of their relative merits in terms of being disowned by him, yes, but nothing more.
Hand waving, that's all this is. You cannot infer from the first part of his statement that he thinks the black community holds the same views. You can only infer that from the perspective of his disowning either one of them, for whatever reasons, that they are equivalent in his mind. Nothing more. The reasons may be the same, or they may simply be different but of equal importance in his mind.
Obviously the same would be true with respect to the equivalence of Wright's views realtive to those of his grandmother. Obviously these views are NOT exactly the same views, they are only equal in terms of his disdain, or even his praise as the case may be. *
A nice bit of wishful thinking here, thanks for the example. This is classic hearing what you want to hear interpretation. *
Lets look at the operative part of the statement a little closer:
Please note that "black experience in America" is obviously code for "being held down by them racist whites". And if that were the black community's perspective on all this wouldn't they be justified in being "bitter and biased?"
But the $64 million question is what type of bias might the black community actually have here? Biased in terms of seeing the majority of white people as racists, or biased in terms of believing that they are victims who are doomed to a lower class existence in a system that offers them no opportunity to advance? We simply don't know from the speech, so again we see that the message is coded so that the listener can read anything they want to hear into it.
White people read it as the former, and, perhaps anyway, the black community reads it as the latter. Who knows? The point is that these statements can be interpretted to mean anything you want them to so they don't actually mean anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------
* Crafty how he tried to give the impression that he disagrees without actually saying that he disagrees here, eh? This is the hallmark of code language, or so we are to believe based on how liberals describe the speech of conservatives in similar areas of race. ;)
So, to the whites this means he disagrees (i.e. what they want to hear). To the black community, he is expressing solidarity of experience (i.e. what they want to hear).
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I see you have brought your faux logic with you tonight!
Of course-- nothing Obama says can alter or modify what Wright said. You are asking for the impossible from Obama and then feign disgust when he fails to deliver on what you ask of him.
You called me "obtuse" awhile back, which is highly ironic, because obtuseness is your bread and butter. Your most obtuse premise here is that the speech must mention Farrakhan by name in order to have any application to Farrakhan. This is a false premise, of course. For instance, does your name have to be written into law for the law to apply to you? Of course not. The passage I cited is quite applicable to the question of why Obama is more charitable to Wright than Farrakhan even though Farrakhan is not mentioned by name in the speech.
We went to the same school, remember? I checked my trusty grade slips and see that I got an A- in Math 366: Discrete Structures: Mathematical formalization and reasoning, logic, and Boolean algebra;
sets, functions, relations, recursive definitions, and mathematical
induction; and elementary counting principles.
*Sigh*... do I have to spoon feed you everything? From the speech:
But of course since you obviously didn't read the speech before you condemned Obama for his racism, how could you possibly know that he said this?
Only an anti-Obama spinmeister could pretend to see it this way-- Obama is racist against blacks AND whites: hes' a double racist!!!!
Of course all he's really saying is that there's racial bias present in both the white and black populations of America. He expressly states elsewhere that this bias is not "endemic" in the white population, which puts the lie once again to your purposefully dense attachment to a single usage of the word "typical", which is the single speck which you are attempting to conjure into a mountain of racism.
You are undoubtedly right right that the "black experience in America" references the history of systemic white racism against blacks, this is obvious. And of course we do know the answer to your $64 million dollar question, because Obama nearly hits you over the head with the answer: Obama is saying that the black community contians bias against whites, and bitterness over economic circumstance and percieved lack of opportunity. There is no coding here so that the white listener only hears about poor bitter envious blacks and blacks only hear about racist whites.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Hard of hearing?
I guess I was too terse. I'm not asking anything of Obama, but I am observing that this little piece of Obama's speech sounds really nice and all, but it doesn't change what was said nor does it excuse it. Wright may have any number of worthy traits but those don't remove or justify his negative ones. We are talking about the negative ones here. So talking about Wright's positives in merely a distraction regarding the discussion at hand.
So says you and your wishful thinking. You are reading into Obama's words things that you can't possibly know. Where in this speech are we supposed to infer that Obama thinks of Farrakahn as a despicable human being with no redeeming qualities? That is a fundamental part of your argument yet I see nothing in the speech that implies anything about Farrakahn either directly or even indirectly. Help me out here because I just can't see where you are reading this into Obama's words...
I don't need to read the entire speech to understand what the section I am discussing means. Regardless of what he said in the rest of the speech it does not alter what he said about his grandmother.
It was YOUR argument, not mine! :)
Really, where was that? I must have missed that part! :)
Again, he may have made contradictory statement in his speech but they do not change what he said about his grandmother nor what those statement imply.
:) I like this line. Kudos.
As a white listener that has demonstrated that he only hears what he wants to hear (see all previous comments), you obviously can't hear both sides! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Heh
No more spoonfeeding for you!
The truth often does have a pleasant ring to it ;-)
There is only one side-- Obama's side-- and I have heard it, in its entirety, unlike certain potshot artists I could name...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
LOL
And here I was throwing bones
atto you and all.Not that this observation applies here, of course. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4IF Richardson is like Judas.....
as per James Carville, what does that make Hillary.
I'm only half stupid
Resetting the indent on the Golden Rule thread ...
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4This is trying.
First, I'm thinking that this is not any longer a Golden Rule thread. I presume you are willing to drop the 5 point logic argument that started all this. If not, I'd prefer to get back to that, because I know you are wrong there. (I'm actually assuming that you were never serious about that, at all, and were just being intentionally provocative.)
So what this has become is just fleshing out the meaning of "to try." Which is fine and all, but there is a definite element of subjectivity and I doubt we will come to any true agreement. Nor do I think there is any real need for us to do so.
That said, probably the best jumping off point is this:
So it would appear that you are looking at this from a reductionist view, and I am looking at it from a holistic view. I can see validity in both those points of view, although obviously I see the holistic view as more useful. It is also obviously more subjective - the reverse results you describe later would pretty clearly not be accurately described as someone who is trying to not eat meat. (Although one could argue that if the number of meatless meals are increasing over time, even if the rate is still pretty low, that person is trying.) There's a fuzzy area in there (between what is clearly trying and what is clearly not trying) which I personally have no problem with. Fuzzy is good! I certainly see no need to have a hard and fast rule about how to describe whether someone is trying or not.
It comes down to this. Good people can sometimes do bad things, and I don't think that prevents them from being described as good people. In the same way, someone who is trying to do something, may sometimes lapse and fail (what you would I guess describe as a moment of "not trying"), and I don't think that prevents them from being described as somenone who is trying.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I'm not dropping anything.
I intend to get back to the 5 point argument, but you insisted that we had to introduce the notion of "try" into the argument. I agreed because I thought we would have agreement on what it meant to try. When it became obvious that we don't I retracted my agreement based on the fact that your definition of to try allows someone to do the exact opposite of to try and still claim to be trying.
Unless we can come to agreement on what it means to try, or you agree to remove your insistence on introducing the notion of to try into my 5 point argument there is nothing left to discuss because we simply disagree.
:) I'm sure you would. Does this mean I have introduced an element of doubt in your mind on THIS point?
Well, I'm not actually sure. I honestly believe that my argument is based on sound logic which makes it appealing. I admit that I am turning the intent of the Golden Rule on its head here but that doesn't alter the validity of the logic being employed.
Well, it sounds as though we understand each other's perspective then, so that's progress.
On my five point argument the logic depends on the assumption that Democrats are actually going to follow through in making a good faith effort to employ the Golden Rule 100% of the time. They don't necessaily have to have succeeded, but they clearly must have the conscious intent to adhere to it to the point that their own actions can be viewed as indicative of how they want to be treated themselves (per their application of the Golden Rule).
If we introduce a notion of to try that allows them to ignore their stated intent then you are correct, the 5 point argument falls apart simply because my assumption that they are actually following the Golden Rule becomes false, or at least unknown or indeterminant which isn't good enough to make my case.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Mind reading
But it is unknown or indeterminant. That's the whole point. There is no way whatsoever, barring some yet-undiscovered mind-reading technique, to ever know the true intentions of another human being. Forget the whole "to try" tangent as it is fairly irrelevant to this basic point. If you admit that your 5 point argument falls apart unless you can truly know another's intentions, then your 5 point argument does in fact fall apart.
I can think of one objection you might have: if I follow the Golden Rule, I should assume good intent from others, because I would want them to assume good intent from me.
But tell me this: do you think that you yourself perfectly follow the Golden Rule at all times? Assuming no, would you want others to assume that on those occasions when you slip up, that it is an indication of how you want to be treated in return?
Even if you think you do follow the Golden Rule perfectly at all times, you must admit the possibility that others might not be perfect, no?
So we are left with what we do know, which is how we ourselves would want to be treated. Fortunately, that is all that you need to know in order to follow the Golden Rule.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Look, the assumption is what it is.
My position in all of this is consistent.
In my 5 point argument I assume the Democrats have integrity which implies that they will be honest in their intentions and dealings with others. So, unless they are lying to others about having integrity it is legitimate to assume that they operate in good faith.
I also assume that people with integrity WILL follow the Golden Rule or at least will make an honest and faithful effort to do so (i.e. they won't make a conscious decision to do something that will violate the Golden Rule). This is inconsistent with your view of to try, IMHO, so I reject including it in my assumption. I am free to assume whatever I want here, so I am simply declaring that your view of to try is not part of my assumption.
Under these assumptions the Golden Rules tells us that the Democrats will treat others the way that they want to be treated themselves. That's what the Golden Rule means. This is a direct reading of the rule without any twists or misconstrued meanings.
So, if I too am a person of integrity who honors the wishes of others by treating them as they wish to be treated, I am honor bound to treat the Democrats just like I see them treating the Republicans since the Golden Rule tells us that must be how the Democrats want to be treated themselves (given that they are assumed to be following the Golden Rule).
This isn't really all that difficult to follow. I am simply assuming that the Democrats are following the Golden Rule and then give them their wish by treating them like they treat others.
So in the end, the bottom line question to you is "Do the Democrats follow the Golden Rule when engaging in rehtorical discussions of race relations with Republicans?" If so then my treatment of Obama in this thread must be exactly how they wanted me to treat him based on their observed behavior. If not, well, that speaks for itself.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4The assumption
Yeah, wrong. ;)
I actually predicted what your response would be, and provided the counter-argument in advance, yet you chose to completely ignore it. Whatever.
As for your bottom line question, the answer is: I don't know. I highly doubt it. But the answer is irrelevant to how you or I should act when in engaging in rhetorical discussions.
My final word: if your moral judgements require the assumption that all other people are morally perfect, then your moral judgements are based on an untruth, and therefore likely faulty. The Golden Rule requires no such assumption.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I don't remember having made that assumption ...
anywhere. I do not require moral perfection. I require integrity which only demands that they mean what they say and follow through to the best of their ability, I do not require a perfect record of success. In short, I require to try in my sense of the term as opposed to yours.
Nor am I making a moral judgement. I am making a logical conclusion based on the assumptions that the Democrats have integrity and apply the Golden Rule in their interactions with others. If you want to disagree with my assumptions here, then please feel free.
Agreed. Which is exactly why I made the assumption I did in my construction. This leaves the Democrats in the unenviable position of either accepting my treatment of Obama or admitting that they either have no integrity or that they don't follow the Golden Rule themselves (thus making them hypocrits if they demand such from others). At least that's how I see it, your mileage may vary.
A point of order please:
I'm not sure which part you felt was a counter argument to what, but if you anticipated a response on my part and lobbed out what you think of as a counter argument ... it isn't actually a counter argument at that point it is merely an argument which deserves a response (i.e. counter argument) of its own.
You don't actually get to claim to have countered my points before I actually made them and try to use that as proof that I ignored anything. I didn't. You put your side out there first so technically my side is now the counter argument to your points not the other way around. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sigh
I guess what was going to my final word on the subject won't be, because I can't let B.S. like this remain unanswered.
Yes you do, if you think your 5 step formulation is applicable to anything. How can you distinguish between a person who means what they say and a person who doesn't? How can you distinguish between a person who is trying (using your definition) and a person who isn't? Your 5 step formulation doesn't even bother to make such a distinction. It assumes that the person under scrutiny is infallible. If you do not require a perfect record of success, then your conclusions will not always be correct.
And anyway, my point still stands. Here is a slight rewording: if your moral judgements require the assumption that all other people mean what they say at all times, then your moral judgements are based on an untruth, and therefore likely faulty.
Oh, really? So your decision that it is acceptable to unfairly accuse others of racism is what then?
I don't care what position you seem to think you have put "the Democrats" in. You have certainly not put me in any position where I am forced to accept any of the crap you've been spewing in this thread. At best, you have shown that you are morally equivalent to the Democrats you seem to despise so much. Congratulations.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I think we have beat this thread to death.
Well, the short answer is ... a person who does what they said meant what they said and a person who doesn't didn't. It's really not that hard.
But logically I don't have to distinguish between them. For those who actually ARE following through with applying the Golden Rule, well I am just giving them what they asked for. For those who either do NOT have any integrity OR are consciously NOT applying the Golden Rule, well I guess I am giving THEM what they deserve. I'm covered either way.
Exactly what I said it was above, a logical conclusion based on the stated assumptions.
Agreed, and I can live with that (as can they apparantly). My goal is to give as good as we get, so in that sense what you are saying is correct. I am letting the Democrats set the rules of the game and playing on their terms. So no matter how low I may have to sink, it will only be because they led the way.
And what's all this talk about morals. Liberals hate morals. That's why they hate the Christians.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Acceptable
I can accept that as a valid point-of-view (which I don't necessarily share), if that is your intent. But if so, you are not following the Golden Rule, and that has been my objection from the start. Feel free to be as big of a jerk as you want, but don't try to justify it using the Golden Rule, 'cause that just don't fly! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
OK, let me rephrase my position to make even that more
acceptable to you (hopefully):
I am not following the Golden Rule (in the traditional sense). I am using the assumption that THEY are following the Golden Rule as a justification for my actions.
Does that better articulate your understanding of my position?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sure
I understand that you are justifying your actions based on an assumption that you don't actually believe to be true. I believe the non-technical term for that is "fooling yourself."
:P
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
LOL
It is just a funny piece of logic for me. I'm not really fooling myself.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Typical SwordsCrossed
Person A says: "This is my final word".
Person B says: "We have beaten this subject to death".
Obviously, a half-dozen posts get added to the thread in short order ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
On trying
Oh, and in response to this:
Not so much an element of doubt, but an understanding that this whole "to try" argument is mostly just a matter of a difference of opinion/point-of-view - a difference which I don't believe is either particularly important or necesssary to resolve.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki