The more things change the more they stay the same..... Who ARE you to believe?

The Coffee Shop
21

Bruce Wayne,

It appears you intend to turn this into a “bash BarryP” thread, yet your only insult is that I call bigotry when I see it. You have every opportunity to respond to the bigotry or to not respond at all, yet you find it more important to condemn me for pointing out the ills of society. I draw comparisons to you and Rush Limbaugh, but I wouldn’t know where to draw the line. If you don’t understand why the comparison should be apparent, then maybe you should really think long and hard about perceptions.

Right back to the inuendos I see. Why don’t you say want you want to say? Or are you too concerned that your hollier than thou persona will get too far out of the box?

**Here we have yet another example of a thread about racism and you attempt to deflect it into a thread about “those terrible people who cry bigotry.” I can’t help but wonder why this is the battle you wish to fight. **

I am not trying to insult you; you seem to be doing that pretty well on your own. I never said that people who cry bigotry are terrible; I suggested that those people also hold predjudices themselves, and for them to condemn others thoughts and not actions, is just as bad.

Re - your comments on thoughts: Thoughts drive actions. If people think racism is ok, then racial acts will be ok. Again, you seemed to be more concerned with someone writting that they “think bigots are deplorable” than the people writting “here’s my biggoted thoughts.”

Thoughts don’t drive actions. Decisions drive actions. I have thought for years that I need a titanium tri bike, but my decision process prevents me from purchasing one. I also never said that racism was Ok. I said racism was illegal, and that I think it is wrong to judge others for their thoughts rather than thier actions. The reason you don’t see me posting any concerns about people writing ‘‘here’s my biggoted thoughts’’ is because no one is posting such thoughts.

**Again, I wonder what your motivations are. **

What do you think they are? I will tell you what I think they are, if you truely haven’t figured them out yet, but they won’t fall in line with your perception; I am sure.

22

BW, you seem to be yet another radical who “doesn’t care what people think” who spends an awful lot of time posting in the LR.

Wow, I’ve never been called a radical before. Even Yahey never thought to use that term. The difference between you and me is; I understand that not everyone holds the same beliefs as I do, and I don’t condemn them for it. I believe that actions make the man or the woman; not thoughts. I also enjoy debating issues with other, especially those who hold different ideas or beliefs than I do. How else does one learn. For example, I really enjoy debating with Rob_C in Fla. I know he does not believe in God. I do, but I don’t condemn him for having a different belief.

23

You pretty much reinforced everything I said. Again, the cross you bear is that against people who have opions against people who have opinions. You just can’t seem to find the hypocricy in you statements. “Hey you! I won’t tolerate intolerance of intolerant people!!”

I am not trying to insult you; you seem to be doing that pretty well on your own.

Yet another case of passing a judgement while attempting to wash your hands of it.

I suggested that those people also hold predjudices themselves, and for them to condemn others thoughts and not actions, is just as bad.

So…because I might prejudge a guy wearing a Clan hood to think that he might want to kill a black man…I am “JUST AS BAD” to condemn somone for saying that they actually want to kill a black man.

Is this one of those “we are all sinners” so everyone shut the fuck up (except you, of course) messages?

Seriously, is THAT your stance. That people shouldn’t speak out against racism??? You are seriously taking the stance that Martin Luther King was “just as bad” as the bigots who opressed blacks for centuries and that he should have kept his mouth shut?

Are you fucking kidding me?

Thoughts don’t drive actions. Decisions drive actions. I have thought for years that I need a titanium tri bike, but my decision process prevents me from purchasing one. I also never said that racism was Ok. I said racism was illegal, and that I think it is wrong to judge others for their thoughts rather than thier actions. The reason you don’t see me posting any concerns about people writing ‘‘here’s my biggoted thoughts’’ is because no one is posting such thoughts.

And where do you think those decisions come from…nevermind. I’m really just wasting my time, aren’t I. You’ve probably been rationalizing this one for years, haven’t you.

You just keep on “not being just as bad” by “not condemning my terrible thoughts about racism” by “not bringing it up several times on a thread I hadn’t even posted on.”

The beauty is, I don’t even have to pass judgement on you based on my own morals. Your wacked out system works fine all by itself.

24

I understand that not everyone holds the same beliefs as I do, and I don’t condemn them for it.

YOU’VE JUST BEEN DOING EXACTLY THAT FOR THE LAST TWO THREADS. WHAT DON’T YOU GET!!!

25

Let’s see if you can follow simple logic. I have not called you names, stated that you were insane, yelled, or resulted to profanity. As far as I can tell, I am guilty of pointing out your actions on this board and suggesting you might have over indulged in alcoholic beverages. I have not condemned your beliefs or even said they were wrong.

26

“I guess I just don’t buy the notion that irrational belief causes people to commit actions that endanger others.”

Have you never read the Unabomber’s manifesto? Are you not familiar with the ideology that motivated the 9-11 hijackers? Are you not aware of the terrorists around the world who are motivated by the irrational belief that they will be rewarded for their horrendous acts? Are you not aware of the millions of people in the Middle East who may not have committed terrorist acts themselves, but who cling to the irrational belief that suicide bombing is morally justifiable and therefore lend their support to the killers, helping to perpetuate these crimes?

Getting people to modify such beliefs may be a very hard task, but in the above cases one can hardly deny that it’s those beliefs that lead them to commit those evil acts. One may also argue that they cling to those beliefs out of “stupidity” or “mental imbalance,” but in each case it is the irrational beliefs that are the proximate cause. You may argue that they act out of a “complete lack of regard for human life,” but that’s just another way of saying that human life is worthless in their irrational belief systems. And it’s equally clear that racist actions are typically motivated, at least in large part, by irrational beliefs about race.

“…if I COULD articulate an immediate threat to my life or the life of another, why would your opinion outweigh mine?”

I’ll assume that by “articulate” you mean “demonstrate,” i. e., you believed that you could demonstrate that the person in question presented the immediate threat. But in the scenario as I described it, “I saw you getting ready to shoot someone whom you believed was a dangerous criminal and I knew it was actually an innocent party.” In other words, the person in the hypothetical scenario isn’t REALLY dangerous. You could still believe that he was, based on the facts at your disposal. But in the real world, I may be aware of facts that you am not (or vice versa). For example, your belief might be based partly on a Wanted-Dead-or-Alive poster showing a similar-looking person, but I might happen to have just seen a news report that the real suspect was apprehended ten minutes ago. Would you not want me to bring that fact to your attention? Would you merely respond, “that’s just your opinion,” and pull the trigger? (If you can’t imagine finding yourself personally in such a situation, just substitute someone else in your imagination; my point still applies.)

Rational beliefs are beliefs that are based on observable or demonstrable facts, or on logic deriving from those facts. When rational people are confronted with new facts that contradict their previous opinions, or with a train of logic that had not previously occurred to them, they are not afraid to modify their beliefs. That’s the only reason a forum like this one makes sense. If people can’t modify their beliefs, then what’s the point of shouting at each other all day?

Your statement suggests that you believe that all beliefs are equally worthwhile, they all “weigh” equal because facts and logic don’t matter. But if that’s true, there’s no place for rational persuasion in this world; it all comes down to “might makes right,” and who shoots first. Surely, I hope, that’s not really the way you look at it?

27

You are correct Barry did not show surprise. He showed nothing, added no value or comments simply posted a terd and waited.

Your OP:

"Hopefully you are aware of the Jena story, but either way read this and then tell me based on all the views opinions and facts stated that you can tell what the truth is.

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/black_high_school_students_louisiana_threatened_lynching "

My OP:

"BOISE, Idaho (AP) – The Boise State running back who scored the winning points in the Fiesta Bowl, then proposed to his cheerleader girlfriend on national television, says he has hired security for their wedding because of racial threats.
Ian Johnson, who is black, and Chrissy Popadics, who is white, are due to be married Saturday in Boise.

Since his Jan. 1 proposal, Johnson said, he has received phone calls, letters and some personal threats from people who object to their marriage plans."

Thank you so much for correcting me on forum protocol. Aparently posting an excerpt from an article is “laying a turd” but if you add a sentence asking readers to see who is telling the truth shines that turd up real nice, doesn’t it.

NO, Look at the time of the EDIT: It was moments later, because I posted before I added my comments. AND IMEDIATELY fixed the situation.

EDIT: well unfortunetly you can not look at the edit time because it only shows the last edit. and I have had to edit my edit. Point being I did mention why I was posting and what my motive for the post was. So I did add something other than the article.

28

NO, Look at the time of the EDIT: It was moments later, because I posted before I added my comments. AND IMEDIATELY fixed the situation.

Where that was very wise of you. Perhaps you realized that you were being hypocritcal. I, on the otherhand, waited for people to respond and then responded to them in kind…much worse. Yep…definitely “leaving a turd.”

29

I have not condemned your beliefs or even said they were wrong.

Ok…then you admit that you hold no opinion whatsoever in me condemning the actions of other people. You are merely pointing that I am condemning them for their actions. Sorry…I was confused. I think I understand now.

30

I think you are misunderstanding me.

I certainly agree that ‘‘ational beliefs are beliefs that are based on observable or demonstrable facts, or on logic deriving from those facts.’’ I also agree that, ‘‘hen rational people are confronted with new facts that contradict their previous opinions, or with a train of logic that had not previously occurred to them, they are not afraid to modify their beliefs.’’ With this being said, I don’t think it is appropriate to disregard, condemn, or call people names just because I don’t agree with their beliefs.

I do not think that all beliefs are equal, I don’t think it is possible for a human to really believe that. And I absolutely agree that rational persausion should be the tool most frequently used to help others understand alternate beliefs (I wish I had a better grasp of this tool myself). However, I do not think that condemning people for their thoughts, disregarding their opinions as insane or irrational, or calling people names is a form of rational persausion.

I will go back to the anology I used with BarryP. You and I have vastly different beliefs when it comes to God. Despite our different beliefs, we can have a rational discussion (I am sure even about God if we chose to) because we do not resort to irrational persausive techniques. I am also sure that if either one of us took irrational actions against the other regarding our beliefs, we would no longer be able to have the same type of discussions. This is why I say that peoples actions weigh much more heavily than their thoughts.

31

NO, Look at the time of the EDIT: It was moments later, because I posted before I added my comments. AND IMEDIATELY fixed the situation.

Where that was very wise of you. Perhaps you realized that you were being hypocritcal. I, on the otherhand, waited for people to respond and then responded to them in kind…much worse. Yep…definitely “leaving a turd.”

Perhaps, but no. It was a mistake. But the only defense I could muster for my side is you will not find another thread that I have started where it is a copy paste thread with nothing more. With one exception and I do not know the topic but I posted something and just added Discuss. Becouse I had nothing to add, but wanted to hear others people opion’s on the issue, and this is a good place to here two sides to most topics. Though the comment discuss to me said it all, others it did not and if in the future another such topic came up. I would add a complete sentence explaining why I am posted just a cut and paste.

I try to make my actions for starting most threads very clear. Unfortunetly more often than not my poor grammer and lack of elequence, along with a brain that just doesn’t think like mosts, gets me into more trouble.

Hence why on a thread about bigots/racism and I use the word wackos to me it is perfectly understood what I am saying and in no way am I supporting or agreeing with the actions of such people. Unfortunetly others do not see it that way and think wackos means people who are acting out of a mental difficiency, well I am not Dr. so I can not make that assesment of folks, and just label them for their behavior and anyone who acts inappropriately or (dumb in my speak) I label a wacko.

I still have yet to read from you why you posted that, and what your logic was. All I have heard is you attacking others who gave their thoughts. And even then you went from not knowing about this behavior because it did not happen in your social network, to well its just not discussed (or some such thing).

So Why did you make the original post?

32

Ok…then you admit that you hold no opinion whatsoever in me condemning the actions of other people.

No, I actually agree with you concerning the condemnation of the *actions *of the people (racists/bigots from the other thread).

You are merely pointing that I am condemning them for their actions.

No, I am merely pointing out that condemning others for their thoughts, IMO, is just as bad as how you perceive their thoughts.

**Sorry…I was confused. I think I understand now. **

No problem. Hopefully I have further clarified my position.

33

No, I am merely pointing out that condemning others for their thoughts, IMO, is just as bad as how you perceive their thoughts.

By pointing that out, you are offering a negative judgement on my thoughts, which is itself a condemnation of my thoughts. Furthermore, not only have you done that in that one sentence, but you felt the need to call me out on it several times before my first post in this thread.

You are the one who has issue with it, yet that is exactly what you do. You are wrapped up in your own catch22. Once you understand that, then you will understand how I can justify condemning racism.

34

Once again, I am only pointing out the obvious, not making a personal judgement.

I will allow you that ‘‘bad’’ is perhaps a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said, just as ‘‘intolerant.’’

35

It sounds as if we’re in agreement, for the most part. You state that “I don’t think it is appropriate to disregard, condemn, or call people names just because I don’t agree with their beliefs,” and I’ve said the same thing myself several times. I condemn people for their wrong actions, not their beliefs per se, even when I think those beliefs to be mistaken or irrational. Frankly, I couldn’t condemn people just for their beliefs anyway, since I can’t see their beliefs directly; I can only know what they believe insofar as those beliefs are manifested in their behavior.

You also state: “I do not think that condemning people for their thoughts, disregarding their opinions as insane or irrational, or calling people names is a form of rational persausion.” I do think that some opinions are irrational–or, at least, that holding on to them despite contradictory evidence is irrational–but I agree that calling them irrational is not in itself “a form of rational persuasion.” To reiterate an earlier point, the process of rational persuasion must consist of pointing to demonstrable facts of reality and drawing logical conclusions based on that evidence. Ideally, a person who is exposed to that process will come to understand for himself (herself) why his previous beliefs might have been irrational and will therefore discard them.

36

" I am sure that BarryP is next to the Son of God in regards to piusness"

“If BarryP is the example of a non-bigot, I think we as a society are in a much worse position than we would…”

“I await the diatribe of hate and name calling from the almighty BarryP.”

"Or are you too concerned that your hollier than thou persona will get too far out of the box? "

"I am not trying to insult you; you seem to be doing that pretty well on your own. "

These are some statements you made regarding me on this thread alone. The first three were before my first post. Pardon me for assuming this, but they seem to be full of negative connotations.

As was explained on the earlier thread, many of us (if not most…at least as I have observed American culture) believe that it is perfectly acceptable to cast negative judgement toward the actions or the words that exemplify condonennce of said actions. Your original post pointed out that “intolerance of intolerance is intolerant,” but failed to miss the point that it isn’t the intolerance that we have a problem with, its what they are intolerant about.

That is your cross to bear. I don’t have a problem with you holding that as a personal belief, but I think you practice what you preach. The above are merely 5 examples in one day of your hypocrisy on the subject. If you honestly think that is “just as bad” then by your own principles your “5 judgements of me” is just as bad as Mein Kampf and Helter Skelter (personally I don’t think it is even on the same level…but I’m using your rules here Adolf Manson).

37

Thanks Rob, it is always good, and educational, having a discussion with you.

38

**That is your cross to bear. I don’t have a problem with you holding that as a personal belief, but I think you practice what you preach. The above are merely 5 examples in one day of your hypocrisy on the subject. If you honestly think that is “just as bad” then by your own principles your “5 judgements of me” is just as bad as Mein Kampf and Helter Skelter (personally I don’t think it is even on the same level…but I’m using your rules here Adolf Manson). **

Are you saying that those 5 descriptions are inacurate regarding your actions in these two threads? Ah, but what do I know? According to you, I am Adulf Hitler and Charles Manson roled into one. It is good to know that the old internet addage applies regarding the introduction of Hitler into a thread.

39

That is your cross to bear. I don’t have a problem with you holding that as a personal belief, but I think you practice what you preach. The above are merely 5 examples in one day of your hypocrisy on the subject. If you honestly think that is “just as bad” then by your own principles your “5 judgements of me” is just as bad as Mein Kampf and Helter Skelter (personally I don’t think it is even on the same level…but I’m using your rules here Adolf Manson).

Are you saying that those 5 descriptions are inacurate regarding your actions in these two threads?

You are playing dumb on purpose now. Right?

  1. Yes, they are inaccurate.

  2. Accuracy is not the issue. Condemnation is, and that is precicely what you are doing.

Ah, but what do I know? According to you, I am Adulf Hitler and Charles Manson roled into one.

No…according to YOU you are just as bad as them. Do you not see how your screwy logic?

Anyway, this is going completely nowhere. I’ve read your psost before and this has been pretty consistent with the typical insane blatherings that you put up here. No need to assume you might, just this once, apply logic to your thought process.

40

I must have missed that. Do I get some slack if was 2AM? grin

I would find it very strange (at least compared to other schools) that a student could be expelled for the year without a it being a situation that involved police … and it’s likely impossible in many districts that the principal could expel a student for the year without consulting the super/board for approval/agreement. Princpals don’t usually have that much power.

I would be interested in hearing/reading more. It would seem we have two admins looking at the same situation interpret it two different ways. IMO, the only way a student could be expelled for a non-violent behavior is if it was viewed as a threat that would be carried out with further action. Example: A student could tell another student (in the heat of the moment) “I’m gonna kill you!”, and it could mean anything from “I’m very mad at you” to “I am literally going to get a weapon and end your life”. It’s not clear, one way or another, what the intent of the hanging nooses was. As I said, I’d like to know more (especially on the history of behavior of the noose hangers).

Are there any articles on this situation that are more investigative in nature. I’d be interesting in hearing/reading both the Principal’s comments, as well as, the Super’s comments. I would like the see how they differ, since the positions differ in power, influence (both by and on), and legal liability. MOst important, from legal aspects, are the board’s policies regarding suspension events and their corresponding lengths.

There seems to be a whole lot of missing info that is required to get an understanding of the the various aspects involved in this situation.