Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 127

Thread: I'm A Bigot

  1. #111
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,417
    Amen (Given)
    2810
    Amen (Received)
    1790
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronson View Post
    He peppered his speeches with admonishments of past American policy. And even though I happen to agree with him on those points, it's not something to vocalize.
    It's helpful if you're trying to convince someone who previously didn't like your country that things are changing, and that they'll be able to work with the new administration.

    So why do you think allies loved Obama? What's your take as a New Zealander? Because he didn't start wars like Bush?
    Not necessarily in order, and varied by person:
    1. Obama was clearly intelligent. Whereas Bush was clearly stupid (and evil, especially when directed by Cheney, e.g. invasion of Iraq, torture program etc).
    2. Obama was a good speaker. And he said nice things in his speeches that people liked.
    3. Obama was charismatic, presidential, dignified and thoughtful. He seemed to effortlessly combine casualness and humor with dignity and the gravity of the office he held. Simply by virtue of being such a presidential person, he regained a huge level of international respect for America, and the office of its president.
    4. Obama's international politics was on the whole perceived to be positive and constructive - he touted himself as a peacemaker and a diplomat who would work to build international relationships and international consensuses (as opposed to Bush's policies that were perceived to be destructive - invading random countries and destabilizing the middle east and going-it-alone, especially to the extent they were perceived as being puppet-mastered by Darth Cheney who was widely perceived as the incarnation of evil and the mastermind behind the incompetent bumbling lout).
    5. There was widespread confidence that Obama wouldn't go invading random countries at the drop of a hat, unlike Bush/Cheney.
    6. Obama was Black, and this impressed a lot of people with regard to it being a historic first for the US and representing civil rights progress. As much of the Western world continued to discuss civil rights in the context of race, sexuality, and gender, it was viewed as fitting that the 'leader of the free world' be of a minority identity.
    7. Insofar as people here paid attention to Obama's domestic polices they typically strongly agreed with and supported them. (As you may know, Americans tend to label Europe as 'socialist', implicitly acknowledging that US domestic policy tends to be quite far to the right of where the European center is. NZ is similar to Europe in that regard, and Obama's domestic polices were far closer to what almost everyone here would regard as normal, than Bush's were)
    8. Obama got on well with other international leaders. NZ's leader at the time seemed to be genuinely good friends with Obama and would happily play golf with him and chat with him.

    Him being black was definitely a reason lots of people in allied countries did like him. My (white) father got and enjoyed a t-shirt with pictures of MLK Jr and Obama and words saying "I have a dream" and "I am the dream". So unlike with your "that's why he got a Nobel prize" conspiracy, that reason does actually apply here.

    On the other hand, your "he paid allies $$$" conspiracy, doesn't apply at all. Where's my check? Where's my country's check? Nowhere. AFAIK Obama didn't pay a single cent to any Western allies ever (not counting Israel as Western). Would paying money to allies cause people in them like you anyway? It would be pretty weird. People who don't need money (e.g. the reasonably affluent Western countries) would probably find it somewhat offensive if the US tried to offer them money, and almost certainly wouldn't take it if they thought anything at all would be expected in return.

    Obama pursued similarly violent policies.
    I will be the first to say that Obama didn't live up to the hype. I've written endless criticisms of Obama and his actions (eg here). He was 10x better than Bush, sure, but his actions sure didn't live up to his rhetoric or his values.

    Trump massively increased the US's already extremely-high use of drone strikes,
    Do you have a link on that?
    Initially Trump massively ramped up the rate of drone strikes:
    https://worldbeyondwar.org/u-s-drone...p-took-office/
    Then he substantially reduced the data that the government was releasing about drone strikes, making it difficult to track the deaths they were causing:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

  2. #112
    tWebber Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    9,417
    Amen (Given)
    2810
    Amen (Received)
    1790
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Well where is your evidence that homosexuality is genetic?
    I'm not sure either of you quite knows what you're arguing for at this point, but I'll but in and point out that scientific evidence points to two known causes of homosexual inclinations:

    1. Genetic, which can be assessed by checking whether lots and lots of pairs of identical twins are or aren't both homosexual, and comparing this to how often non-identical twins are homosexual. The difference in rates tells us that genetics explains about 33% of the variance. You could handwavingly say that 1 in 3 people who are gay are that way due to their genetics.

    2. Hormonal in the womb, where the mother develops antibodies over time to the male hormones in the fetus and these suppress male hormones in the developing fetus, feminizing it somewhat. This effect gets stronger with each male birth a women has and makes each son 33% more likely to be gay than the previous one. This effect accounts for about 20% of gay males.

    Of course, that still leaves the majority of the effect unexplained, and scientists as yet have no proven theories with regard to the majority-cause of same-sex attractions.

    However, pretty much all humans both straight and gay, report that their attractions seem to be innate rather than voluntary. No person goes around choosing who they are and aren't attracted to, rather they simply are attracted to some people and not others. Whatever the underlying biological causes (genetics, hormones, brain development, pheromones etc), attractions appear to be innate. Nor has anyone been able to produce a method for reliably changing which sex a person is attracted to. In that sense, a person with same-sex attractions seems to be essentially born with it and can no more change it than they can change the color of their skin.

    Obviously, gay people (ie same-sex attracted people), like anyone else, can control their behavior, and act, or not, on desires. Homosexual behavior is obviously voluntary even if homosexual attraction (aka homosexuality) isn't.

  3. #113
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,781
    Amen (Given)
    2028
    Amen (Received)
    5572
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    I'm not sure either of you quite knows what you're arguing for at this point, but I'll but in and point out that scientific evidence points to two known causes of homosexual inclinations:

    1. Genetic, which can be assessed by checking whether lots and lots of pairs of identical twins are or aren't both homosexual, and comparing this to how often non-identical twins are homosexual. The difference in rates tells us that genetics explains about 33% of the variance. You could handwavingly say that 1 in 3 people who are gay are that way due to their genetics.

    2. Hormonal in the womb, where the mother develops antibodies over time to the male hormones in the fetus and these suppress male hormones in the developing fetus, feminizing it somewhat. This effect gets stronger with each male birth a women has and makes each son 33% more likely to be gay than the previous one. This effect accounts for about 20% of gay males.

    Of course, that still leaves the majority of the effect unexplained, and scientists as yet have no proven theories with regard to the majority-cause of same-sex attractions.

    However, pretty much all humans both straight and gay, report that their attractions seem to be innate rather than voluntary. No person goes around choosing who they are and aren't attracted to, rather they simply are attracted to some people and not others. Whatever the underlying biological causes (genetics, hormones, brain development, pheromones etc), attractions appear to be innate. Nor has anyone been able to produce a method for reliably changing which sex a person is attracted to. In that sense, a person with same-sex attractions seems to be essentially born with it and can no more change it than they can change the color of their skin.

    Obviously, gay people (ie same-sex attracted people), like anyone else, can control their behavior, and act, or not, on desires. Homosexual behavior is obviously voluntary even if homosexual attraction (aka homosexuality) isn't.
    Right and as I posted to Jim there is a lot of research showing the genetic, evolutionary connection to the desire to rape. And as you rightly say homosexual behavior is voluntary, unlike being black which is not voluntary. Skin color is not behavioral. Which is the comparison that Jim L was making.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqgC1tqifV8

  4. #114
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,601
    Amen (Given)
    1168
    Amen (Received)
    1818
    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal
    So yeah, it seems you are a bigot, and apparently a bigot with your own reality.

    I live for unwitting irony.

    Quote Originally Posted by Juvenal
    I'm assuming you haven't left the Appalachians yet, so all these tales from foreign lands must sound like fantasy. My condolences, and sympathies.

    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  5. Amen Cerebrum123, One Bad Pig, Chaotic Void amen'd this post.
  6. #115
    Professor Zymologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Land of the Large Atmosphere
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,712
    Amen (Given)
    1433
    Amen (Received)
    4127
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Well, he does live for unwitting irony....
    I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

  7. Amen MaxVel, Cerebrum123, Chaotic Void amen'd this post.
  8. #116
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    52,757
    Amen (Given)
    5366
    Amen (Received)
    23292
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Probably for the same reason you admire them. Why do you admire them?
    Same reason you do.

  9. #117
    tWebber Ronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    268
    Amen (Given)
    45
    Amen (Received)
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Starlight View Post
    It's helpful if you're trying to convince someone who previously didn't like your country that things are changing, and that they'll be able to work with the new administration.
    (correction: I agree with Obama on some points, not all)

    It is bad policy to apologize. There are all sorts of things a true diplomat could say to repair damaged relations without taking a permissive posture. Saying "there have been issues in the past" or "moving past earlier conflicts" (etc). Apologizing simply puts power in the opposite court.

    Not necessarily in order, and varied by person:
    1. Obama was clearly intelligent. Whereas Bush was clearly stupid (and evil, especially when directed by Cheney, e.g. invasion of Iraq, torture program etc).
    2. Obama was a good speaker. And he said nice things in his speeches that people liked.
    3. Obama was charismatic, presidential, dignified and thoughtful. He seemed to effortlessly combine casualness and humor with dignity and the gravity of the office he held. Simply by virtue of being such a presidential person, he regained a huge level of international respect for America, and the office of its president.
    4. Obama's international politics was on the whole perceived to be positive and constructive - he touted himself as a peacemaker and a diplomat who would work to build international relationships and international consensuses (as opposed to Bush's policies that were perceived to be destructive - invading random countries and destabilizing the middle east and going-it-alone, especially to the extent they were perceived as being puppet-mastered by Darth Cheney who was widely perceived as the incarnation of evil and the mastermind behind the incompetent bumbling lout).
    5. There was widespread confidence that Obama wouldn't go invading random countries at the drop of a hat, unlike Bush/Cheney.
    6. Obama was Black,
    You can move this one to the top.

    ... and this impressed a lot of people with regard to it being a historic first for the US and representing civil rights progress. As much of the Western world continued to discuss civil rights in the context of race, sexuality, and gender, it was viewed as fitting that the 'leader of the free world' be of a minority identity.
    7. Insofar as people here paid attention to Obama's domestic polices they typically strongly agreed with and supported them. (As you may know, Americans tend to label Europe as 'socialist', implicitly acknowledging that US domestic policy tends to be quite far to the right of where the European center is. NZ is similar to Europe in that regard, and Obama's domestic polices were far closer to what almost everyone here would regard as normal, than Bush's were)
    8. Obama got on well with other international leaders. NZ's leader at the time seemed to be genuinely good friends with Obama and would happily play golf with him and chat with him.

    Him being black was definitely a reason lots of people in allied countries did like him. My (white) father got and enjoyed a t-shirt with pictures of MLK Jr and Obama and words saying "I have a dream" and "I am the dream". So unlike with your "that's why he got a Nobel prize" conspiracy, that reason does actually apply here.
    I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. It is an unspoken - perhaps even a subconscious motivator. Being a "good speaker" and "charismatic" are window dressings. There are a lot of snake-oil salesmen in this country with those same attributes (probably superior to what Obama possesses). Obama being black tends to emphasize those traits to a lot of people, and is one reason he was elected in 2008. And I'm not saying he didn't deserve to win his first term because he was obviously more formidable than either Hillary (gag) or McCain (wishy-washy), so his election went beyond being black. His Peace Prize, OTOH, was primarily based on that, in my strong opinion.

    On the other hand, your "he paid allies $$$" conspiracy, doesn't apply at all. Where's my check? Where's my country's check? Nowhere. AFAIK Obama didn't pay a single cent to any Western allies ever (not counting Israel as Western). Would paying money to allies cause people in them like you anyway? It would be pretty weird. People who don't need money (e.g. the reasonably affluent Western countries) would probably find it somewhat offensive if the US tried to offer them money, and almost certainly wouldn't take it if they thought anything at all would be expected in return.
    I will concede this point. Obama's generosity with US tax dollars was neither unique nor was it aimed at allied nations.

    I will be the first to say that Obama didn't live up to the hype. I've written endless criticisms of Obama and his actions (eg here). He was 10x better than Bush, sure, but his actions sure didn't live up to his rhetoric or his values.

    Initially Trump massively ramped up the rate of drone strikes:
    https://worldbeyondwar.org/u-s-drone...p-took-office/
    Then he substantially reduced the data that the government was releasing about drone strikes, making it difficult to track the deaths they were causing:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207
    I will look further into this. My two foremost criteria for president are (1) non military-interventionism, and (2) non globalism ($). The transparency point is less concerning to me than a drone increase.

  10. #118
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,354
    Amen (Given)
    2021
    Amen (Received)
    1624
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Well where is your evidence that homosexuality is genetic?
    I don't know the science behind it or if there is a genetic connection or not, and neither do you.

  11. #119
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,354
    Amen (Given)
    2021
    Amen (Received)
    1624
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Right and as I posted to Jim there is a lot of research showing the genetic, evolutionary connection to the desire to rape. And as you rightly say homosexual behavior is voluntary, unlike being black which is not voluntary. Skin color is not behavioral. Which is the comparison that Jim L was making.
    Being a choice, if it is a choice, doesn't make the choice wrong or evil.

  12. #120
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    26,781
    Amen (Given)
    2028
    Amen (Received)
    5572
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    Being a choice, if it is a choice, doesn't make the choice wrong or evil.
    Well Jim you were suggesting that because it was genetic it wasn't immoral or wrong. That does not follow.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqgC1tqifV8

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •