Wokeness the Death of Science in the Western World

[RDKirk]

Wokeness and identity politics has infiltrated universities. Some say this will have a disastrous effect by reducing the level of education and qualifications in STEM fields and social sciences.

How Identity Politics Is Harming the Sciences

Identity politics has engulfed the humanities and social sciences on American campuses; now it is taking over the hard sciences. Read the whole story here.

www.city-journal.org

I'm one who says that. Nothing labeled "Studies" should have ever been made a major field.

 

[GenemZ]

A group of researchers has suggested the terms 'male' and 'female' should not be used in science because they assume sex is binary.

What is the root cause for this sort of driven, dogmatic, irrationality?

God has given us a big clue to be found in Genesis 6.


...............

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't believe that. It's a pretty well-known fact that what we believe to be true produces emotions both positive and negative, or neutral, according to what that belief is. That's why propaganda works to move people in one direction or another. Words carry sentiments, and sentiments are spirit. As a matter of fact, there have been several times I've witnessed atheists correcting a christian on what Jesus taught on this very forum. The Word of God means the Spiritual Light in all of mankind.

Ok...again, not trying to change your beliefs. I agree they can cause people to feel things. I don't see that as anything except an impediment to truth. I think it's far easier to reject anything that doesn't give you a warm fuzzy even if it's true....than it is to believe the lie that does.

We've been over this already, but that's okay. I understand what you mean, but you need to adjust your psycholinguistics to account for how it's unethical to take the meaning that one person used in a term as a positive, and change their meaning to a negative that they never intended, and then attack the character of that person based on the mischaracterization of what they originally meant. Hence propagating a lie about another person or group of people doesn't make it true no matter how many people believe it.

I don't see that anyone has actually done that. It's hard to explain that the radical black liberation movements that ate themselves in zealotry during the 60s and 70s still existed to some degree in universities...but they did. As did all other movements that essentially had few legitimate targets or goals. An idea called "intersectionality" tied all these unnecessary defunct movements and created a sort of orthodoxy within universities.

Now....if math and science is hard, and business is boring....but you went to college anyway, the dose of orthodoxy you swallowed and now spit out is only dependent upon the decade you were in college.

My apologies, I meant overcoming propaganda that is specifically designed to cause division between two subjective views. I'm just stating that objectively speaking we can observe that when two people face each other, what's on one person's left is on the other person's right in their subjective views and any decent propagandist can cause division by exploiting this circumstance to cause misunderstandings and manipulate public sentiment.

Ok.

Actually, I've already explained this, but that's okay. There are several ways, but primarily those projecting belief in a brotherly Love that is altruistic and not vainglory are propagating the truth and unity in the common faith.

I can take people at their words or take them at their deeds. I don't speak everything I think true but I don't lie about myself either.

Those who speak consistently out of cynicism are propagating an unbelief in the common faith (there's a such thing as a healthy skepticism). So, I will add that hypocritical judgment is the red flag that one is believing a lie, because it ends in a contradiction wherein one condemns others for things, they themselves do.

I don't think we have a common faith.

Okay, let me give you a simple example of spiritual warfare.

My five-year-old granddaughter comes over and she goes upstairs to play in a playroom that we have in our house. With glee, she proceeds to open a drawer and pull out every toy, throw it on the floor and then moves on to the next drawer, and then on to the books and to the dollhouse, and soon most everything is on the floor in a huge mess. But when told it is time to pick up, the gleefulness is gone and a great dread comes upon her at the sight of the mess. She then begins to cry not wanting to clean up the mess.

So, with complete understanding having been a child myself, I will say to her, "This is a huge mess and I don't want to have to clean it up either, but I will help you, because if we don't do it, then your grandma will have to clean it up, and I don't want her to have to do it either because I Love her. So, out of Love for your grandma, let's both do this real quick and we will be done in only five minutes". Her tears then begin to subside and she begins to clean up. Her pace is slow at first but as the spirit of dread dissipates, a smile comes on her face as we race to see how fast we can clean it up. A few episodes like that and she no longer make as big of a mess and she gladly cleans it up herself without being told.

Now suppose I took the authoritarian approach and forced her to do it against her will. It then projects that doing what is right only happens if one is forced out of fear of punishment rather than out of love for others, and cynicism is the byproduct.

Alright...I would just call it instilling a work ethic.

In the context you originally used, yes the memo would amount to telling you what to say which is a negative connotation of telling someone what to say. But in the context I gave of a memo telling someone to be aware of projecting a false premise it's a positive connotation. So I would say that in the positive context it assumes that those who serve the altruistic spirit have the humility to listen to sound wisdom and it does not qualify as a demand for allegiance towards someone else's opinions. So please consider how it is that I would think that surely you would want to be corrected if you were spreading a lie about someone else, since I know I would.

Look up the etymological fallacy.

I understand that, but I am talking about a positive connotation of a memo, not the negative connotation you presented.

Again, look up the etymological fallacy.

It doesn't make you wrong...but it's no reason to imagine you're correct. I would argue that because the term resurfaced under the rubric of intersectionality...it no longer has the original meaning but rather a very new one.

Now, if you really want to argue for some other meaning....I might be convinced of one that has a more meaningful utility (because intersectionality watered down it's original meaning) or one that has a more common usage. So far, you're offering neither. Going back to it's original meaning simply makes me unable to use the word today.

The memo example I gave is not even about knowing what a word means but being aware of how it is being used and changed to mean something other than what was intended by the original user. We should always ask what a person means (seek to understand them) lest we misrepresent them, and we shouldn't just take someone else's word for it. I can't even tell you how many times I've seen gossip create animosity because of a misunderstanding. Nowadays it seems more common than not as people tend to return evil for evil on social media.

Sure. Are you using it as it's now commonly used? I don't know anyone who exclusively associates it with....the "dangers of being black around white people"....which seems to be the argument you're making.

I know, but we should reason upon facts and where there isn't enough information, we should avoid the negative prejudice. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with an allegiance to the Altruistic Spirit.

I don't know what the altruistic spirit is.

Whole-heartedly. So also let us agree that the altruistic love for others does exist as a Spiritual motivator and that it can be misguided by disinformation and misinformation. And let us agree that being successful means nothing if others are left behind.

I don't think I can agree with that. If I'm on a sinking ship I may not be able to save everyone...but I don't think it's meaningless to save who I can, nor is it more righteous for all to die.

I don't want to write a long post, but using recyclable materials is a wise course to begin with. Supporting ideas such as Building affordable self-sufficient housing using 3d printing etc..

I don't want to be a downer...but recycling seems a lie told to people to assure them progress on a problem was being made.

I beg to differ. Despair and cynicism doesn't put food on the table. When seeking employment one must have a hope of finding it and faith that God will provide. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door will be open. Seek ye first the Kingdom of God.

Everyone led by the Spirit of Altruism.

I haven't seen any altruism. I've seen people insist upon things they would never give.

It simply means that objective facts are learned while subjective opinions form in the imagination.

....

I would think everyone has their own unique path to the Truth.

I think anyone could bump into truth. That's not the same as recognizing it as truth though. Failing to do so will result in just repeatedly bumping into that truth.

I hear you. I believe in higher powers in terms of Light and darkness, as in opposite directions that are only perceived clearly by knowing from which direction the Light is shining. I find myself in a circumstance where I must either sacrifice myself to save others or sacrifice others to save myself. The tribalism, racism, sexism and 'othering' of one's fellow man is contrary to Christ. But the irony is that Jesus was crucified by those he came to save, and he persevered the ultimate shame only to forgive those whose grievances he endured.


You would need to qualify who you are referring to, because I don't see woke to a plutocracy the same as being woke to Marxism, or woke to white racism as woke to black racism, or woke to gender confused as any of those things. I just know that I am woke to the term being used for propaganda that undermines unity in the common faith.

Look up "intersectionality".

I don't want to concede to a lie, but I want to concede to the Truth. So, to take a side according to a spirit that works both ends against the middle using a left/right or east/west dichotomy is to be tricked into conceding to a lie. Which is why I said that I see the devil working both ends against the middle in these left/right dichotomies Democracy/Autocracy and Socialsim/Capitalism. The cultural leanings pertaining to character flaws in the context of carnal vanity is a false dichotomy. These carnal flaws pertain to a North/South Dichotomy, the positive being an Altruistic Spirit in terms of glory and honor that is not carnal, and the negative being a spirit of vainglory in terms of glory and honor that is carnal.

Ok...I don't see it that way. Politics are severed from morality.

I think our posts are way to long. But I have appreciated the discourse.

Anytime.

 

[stevevw]

A group of researchers has suggested the terms 'male' and 'female' should not be used in science because they assume sex is binary.

What is the root cause for this sort of driven, dogmatic, irrationality?

God has given us a big clue to be found in Genesis 6.


...............

I think the root cause is a combination of postmodernist thinking (there is no objective truth and everything is relative) and the culmination of rights based politics becoming the measure of reality. Fundemnetally this takes a constructivist view where there is no fixed nature and humans, society and nature itself can be reconstructed according to the ideological belief. So there is no fixed nature like male and female and therefore a male can be reconstructed into a female.

This is the basis for gender and trans ideology and is rewriting the history of long held truths. Up until as recent as 10 or 20 years ago sex and was based on biological facts. But this position was quick to change, too quick to be warranted as science. Now sex and gender are seen as social constructions. Coincidently this came at a time when societal thinking was changing to become more politically correct. Many suspect this was the motivation. We are now seeing many long held truths being torn down and replaced with ideology which is basically the same as religious belief.

I think we can also see at the same time society has moveed away from belief in Goed. I think when we do this we leave a void of belief which needs to be replaced as we are natural believers. So ideological beliefs become the new religion. Except this new religion is based on human truth and not Gods truth. It seems a natural progression that if we get ride of God we will end up making ourselves the god. All truth is human truth.

But as in the past God was the stablizing factor which grounded nature in an unmovable creator God beyond human ideology. Now that grounding has been removed aned we are left with relative truths created by humans.

At the same time there seems to be a clash of worldviews where this new ideology is enforced on society and any deviation is considered hate or descrimination. That seems to point to this all being about belief and not facts or truths about nature and reality. The ironic thing is this new ideology claims that a new world order can be created that will bring equality and peace. But in fact the opposite has happened where extreme and radical ideas are being promoted that defy reality and individuals and groups are being divided against each other.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Or at least that's what Christians would like non-christians to believe, but their actions would suggest otherwise. I much prefer judging their intentions by what they do, rather than by the claims to divine authority by which they justify them.

Personally I've yet to decide which I disdain more wokeism or theism, it seems that within each it's the most vocal among them that does the greatest disservice to either of them. From their supporters actions it's hard to distinguish their merits from the acerbic rhetoric of their proponents.

For me the difference is rather clear. While both sides might insist upon a moral viewpoint....only one judges me according to my skin color, genitalia, or sexual orientation. The other judges me by my beliefs....and has a long tradition and willingness to openly debate the merits of theirs. They don't seek my silence nor demand anything of me against my free will.

So if in some turbulent future scenario where I come across some Christians burning the members of this new cult like the witches of old...I don't think I'd speak even a word of protest. They do want my silence after all.

I rarely find that to be the case. Almost without exception Christians use Christ to justify why they're right and everyone else is wrong. Not because they feel some deep seated need to defend the inerrancy of God, but because they feel a deep seated need to defend the inerrancy of themselves.

To me the bible isn't a window into God's heart, it's a window into yours. And how you choose to use it tells me a whole lot more about you, than it does about Him.

I've critiqued Christianity more than I care to admit....but I'm still allowed to do so. The vast majority of Christians were indoctrinated as children....and I understand what that means. The woke? Largely indoctrinated as adults....I mean, how embarrassing.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes the old saying someone is acting "holier than thou". But I think the difference is the basis for Christainity is Christ whereas the basis for woke ideology is humans. Christ is sinless and worthy as the standared we should strive for whereas humans are fallible and will chop and change their standards according to human ideas. So Christains are not trying to promote themselves as being virtuious but are promoting Christ. Though some perhaps many Christains do use belief as a way of promoting self.

That’s all well and good but if Jesus IS God then all the nasty brutish things God did in the OT were also Jesus.

This renders Christian morality entirely inconsistent depending on the book of the Bible one currently reads.

Both human and Godly morality chops and changes but with humans you can perceive the logic behind that morality: while distasteful it can be understood.

Not so with God’s whim.

 

[stevevw]

That’s all well and good but if Jesus IS God then all the nasty brutish things God did in the OT were also Jesus.

What nasty stuff. As I pointeed out an atheist has no moral basis except human ideas of morality which are fallible. So appealing to some idea of God doing nasty stuff makes no sense as an atheist because your either borrowing from God as to what is right and wrong or you have no basis for what is right and wrong outside your own subjective ideas. .

This renders Christian morality entirely inconsistent depending on the book of the Bible one currently reads.

But if as you claim as an atheist there is no objective morals then what are you using to determine God or the Bible is morally wrong. Its almost like your using the Bible to determine morality while at the same time claiming the bible is morally wrong.

Both human and Godly morality chops and changes but with humans you can perceive the logic behind that morality: while distasteful it can be understood.

Not so with God’s whim.

There is no logic to human morality because its relative/subjective. Its all about the subjects preferences and feelings and there ain't no logic to preferences and feelings. The idea of God is an independent moral lawgiver outside human subjective ideeas of morality. So humans are not even in a position to judge Gods morality because God is all knowing and humans are not.

If you appeal to some moral standard to judge God and the bible then you are appealing to some objective moral law outside humans. Thats more or less making a case for a moral lawgiver outside humans. Otherwise atheists have no basis to Gods morality.

 

[Larniavc]

There is no logic to human morality because its relative/subjective.

Of course there is. Humans have mirror cells in their brain and can experience empathy. Most people abhor causing harm to other people. They don’t need some book to tell them right from wrong.

The logic is limited to how we’re have evolved to be generally less brutish and nasty enabling us to build societies larger than any other mammal on the planet.

Beyond that humans are not logical. We can be but that is not how morality works. It might be logical to push the guy off the bridge but most people don’t.

It’s not rocket science.

 

[childeye 2]

Ok...again, not trying to change your beliefs. I agree they can cause people to feel things. I don't see that as anything except an impediment to truth. I think it's far easier to reject anything that doesn't give you a warm fuzzy even if it's true....than it is to believe the lie that does.

Very good, so what I mean by spiritual warfare is a description of a certain fact of reality that can be observed and experienced. And you're right in your description of an impediment to Truth, so long as it only applies to emotions that form in a belief upon something not true. Because it occurs to me that a deceived person would see the Truth as an impediment to what they believe, deem it as falsehood and regard the messenger as the deceived one.

In light of this, I can also see that we need to reason upon true dichotomies without any subtle deviations, and to do that there must be a North Star, so to speak, to navigate the semantics. The Spirit of Christ is the North Star for every believer, and I've even seen atheists correct Christians using his teachings. Therefore, I would add that not all impediments to the Truth are wrapped in warm and fuzzy. Anger and fear can arise as well out of impediments to the Truth, and often do so in the form of grievances. Moreover, there are degrees between absolutes, some grievances are valid in some degree, and some are completely invalid. Hyperbole and understatement can both come from many directions confounding the sentiments of the terms. This is what a propagandist works with to manipulate and divide people to undermine the common faith.

And finally, you say you're not trying to change my beliefs, and I respect the sentiment as intended, but I would also respect the sentiment that you are trying to change my beliefs if you felt they needed changing. Because in reality, that's what we do when we preach the Gospel Truth to the blind. And therefore, the blindness of pride is an impediment to humility and honesty, and pride is a spirit that exists in the vanity of our imaginations which is what scripture identifies as the Spirit of the devil. And with that, I will say that we don't dictate Who God is, but we must all have some imagery of what God means as an axiomatic term about the reality we share and who we are to be in character.

I don't see that anyone has actually done that.

I do. For example, it's every person who takes one little neutral term like 'woke' and uses it to provoke one another rather than to understand one another, and thereby create division by undermining the common faith. And I see that contention happening right now in the body politic, which is why we are here talking about it.

I don't think we have a common faith.

Then look at all the people driving down the highway trusting that others will stay in their lanes and not kill their loved ones in the car. That's a good example of the common faith, but generally speaking since there is a Truth that is learned, then there is a common faith.

Alright...I would just call it instilling a work ethic.

Respectfully, that's a perfectly accurate description but is irrelevant to my point, which is that there is a battle waged in the heart and mind between carnal vanity and the Altruistic Spirit.

Look up the etymological fallacy.

I not sure why you would bring this up. I'd say it could be an issue, but it would be irrelevant in any deliberate attempt to smear someone.

You presented a memo with a negative connotation of someone telling you what to say and I quote "It's an idea so completely repulsive, so deliberately insulting, that the moment someone does this in my presence they have named themselves as foolish forever in my eyes".

In response, I presented a memo with a positive connotation of telling people what to not say so as to not project a false premise. I did this to give an example of how a memo of telling people what to say can be positive.

As I see it, neither of these actually have anything to do with etymology.

Again, look up the etymological fallacy.

It doesn't make you wrong...but it's no reason to imagine you're correct. I would argue that because the term resurfaced under the rubric of intersectionality...it no longer has the original meaning but rather a very new one.

Now, if you really want to argue for some other meaning....I might be convinced of one that has a more meaningful utility (because intersectionality watered down it's original meaning) or one that has a more common usage. So far, you're offering neither. Going back to it's original meaning simply makes me unable to use the word today.

Okay, let me get something on the record here because you're clearly misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing in favor of any one meaning of the term. I'm arguing against any sentiments/spirits that use the word to cause division and undermine the common faith.

I don't know what the altruistic spirit is.

If you've experienced compassion, then you have experienced the Spirit of Altruism. For a Christian the Christ is the Spirit of Love/compassion that came down from heaven, became flesh and blood, and persevered torture and crucifixion out of compassion for mankind, so that any who believed/trusted in this Man as the True Image of the Spirit of God sent by God would be set free from the ways of this world. His intentions and actions were altruistic in an extreme of self-sacrifice.

I don't think I can agree with that. If I'm on a sinking ship I may not be able to save everyone...but I don't think it's meaningless to save who I can, nor is it more righteous for all to die.

That's a good point and I applaud the reasoning. Allow me to rephrase. Let's agree that compassion is a positive emotion in its intention and action to help others, and therefore compassion would favor the poor, or in other words those who are in the most distress.

I don't want to be a downer...but recycling seems a lie told to people to assure them progress on a problem was being made.

There's definitely some truth to that, but it still shows what sustainability means.

I haven't seen any altruism. I've seen people insist upon things they would never give.

I see compassion and other forms of caring about others all the time, and I experience compassion all of the time. Maternal instinct, brotherly Love, on the highway everyone driving in their lanes in the common faith. All of these have some measure of selflessness, even if not utterly altruistic.

Look up "intersectionality".

I did. I couldn't/wouldn't comment on it at this moment.

Ok...I don't see it that way. Politics are severed from morality.

In the reality I observe, politics is never severed from morality/immorality (caring/not-caring how we treat our fellow human being). For just one tiny example, some politicians have to lie to get elected or sometimes are themselves deceived, and lying is immoral, and immoral people should not hold power.

 

[childeye 2]

Of course there is. Humans have mirror cells in their brain and can experience empathy. Most people abhor causing harm to other people. They don’t need some book to tell them right from wrong.

The logic is limited to how we’re have evolved to be generally less brutish and nasty enabling us to build societies larger than any other mammal on the planet.

Beyond that humans are not logical. We can be but that is not how morality works. It might be logical to push the guy off the bridge but most people don’t.

It’s not rocket science.

You're testifying to God and you don't even know it. You can credit evolution all you want but it's irrelevant since the term God is axiomatic. Here's what isn't irrelevant. The Christ is a quickening Spirit showing a Love that is not of this world, that no man imagined, and he was prophesied by the very people chosen to bring him forth into the world and yet would be rejected by them. So, Christians need to get their mirrored cells aligned and reflect the Lord.

 

[Neutral Observer]

First let me say that I appreciate your viewpoint, you always bring a well reasoned argument to our discussions, even if they can at times be a touch biased. Such is to be expected.

While both sides might insist upon a moral viewpoint....only one judges me according to my skin color, genitalia, or sexual orientation. The other judges me by my beliefs....

I'll admit that I may be a bit fuzzy on the whole wokeism thing, but I always thought that it's purpose was to stop people from judging others according to those things. Of course to do so means bringing these things into the forum of public debate and civil reform, which some find morally reprehensible, and of course leads to heated rhetoric from both sides. But it's not one sided, both parties are making moral judgments about the other, and doing so based upon their own personal beliefs.

But when it comes right down to it I don't care what your sexual orientation is, it doesn't matter. Perhaps God is going to judge you on such things, but I'm not. I'm going to judge you by the manner in which you treat your neighbor. So in this case neither side is beyond reproach. Which is why I said that I don't know which side I have the greater disdain for, because there are good and bad people on both sides, only it's the most vociferous among them that get all the attention.

From my perspective wokeism's intentions aren't inherently bad, and the whole dispute is being fueled by what I hope is simply a minority of intolerant actors on either side. And eventually the wiser majority will see through the rhetoric and allow me to do me, you to do you, and God to do the judging.

The vast majority of Christians were indoctrinated as children....and I understand what that means. The woke? Largely indoctrinated as adults....I mean, how embarrassing.

Perhaps, but then again, what's to stop someone from feeling the same way about conservatism? The problem as I see it isn't that some people are indoctrinated, it's that some people are convinced that they're not. Wokeism, or conservatism, or theism, what's the difference?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Okay, so what I mean by spiritual warfare is a description of a certain fact of reality that can be observed and experienced. And you're right in your description of an impediment to Truth, so long as it only applies to emotions that form in a belief upon something not true. Because it occurs to me that a deceived person would see the Truth as an impediment to what they believe, deem it as falsehood and regard the messenger as the deceived one.

I'm simply saying that sometimes truth is an unhappy repulsive thing.

As I see it, we need to reason upon true dichotomies without any subtle deviations, and to do that there must be a North Star, so to speak, to navigate the semantics. The Spirit of Christ is the North Star for every believer, and I've even seen atheists correct Christians using his teachings. Therefore, I would add that not all impediments to the Truth are wrapped in warm and fuzzy. Anger and fear can arise as well, out of impediments to the Truth, and often do so in the form of grievances. Moreover, there are degrees between absolutes, some grievances are valid in some degree, and some are completely invalid. Hyperbole and understatement can both come from two different directions confounding the sentiments of the terms. This is what a propagandist works with to manipulate and divide people to undermine the common faith.

I'm unsure of your ability to see true dichotomies.

And finally, you say you're not trying to change my beliefs, and I respect the sentiment as intended, but I would also respect the sentiment that you are trying to change my beliefs if you felt they needed changing. Because in reality, that's what we do when we preach the Gospel Truth to the blind. And therefore, the blindness of pride is an impediment to humility and honesty and pride is a spirit that exists in the vanity of our imaginations which is what scripture identifies as the Spirit of the devil. And with that, I will say that we don't dictate Who God is, but we must all have some imagery of what God means as an axiomatic term about the reality we share and who we are to be.

I don't think any amount of time would be sufficient for you to explain your imagery of god.

I do. For example, it's every person who takes one little neutral term like 'woke' and uses it to create division by undermining the common faitGod.

l see no one who does that.

Then look at all the people driving down the highway trusting that others will stay in their lanes and not kill their loved ones in the car.

That's not an action of faith.

Respectfully, that's a perfectly accurate description

Thank you.

I not sure why you would bring this up.

It is exactly what you're engaged in.

You presented a memo with a negative connotation of someone telling you what to say and I quote "It's an idea so completely repulsive, so deliberately insulting, that the moment someone does this in my presence they have named themselves as foolish forever in my eyes".

Not negative connotation... any connotation.

In response, I presented a memo with a positive connotation of telling people what to not say so as to not project a false premise. I did this to give an example of how a memo of telling people what to say can be positive.

You aren't presenting memo...you're holding a discussion. Memoranda are typically in a work setting, from peers or superiors.

As I see it, neither of these actually have anything to do with etymology.

It does.

Okay, let me get something on the record here because you're clearly misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing in favor of any one meaning of the term. I'm arguing against any sentiments/spirits that use the word to cause division and undermine the common faith.

Are you embarrassed or something for calling yourself woke at some point?

If you've experienced compassion, then you have experienced the Spirit of Altruism. For a Christian the Christ is the Spirit of Love/compassion that came down from heaven, became flesh and blood, and persevered torture and crucifixion out of compassion for mankind, so that any who believed/trusted in this Man as the True Image of the Spirit of God sent by God would be set free from the ways of this world.

Ok.

That's a good point and I applaud the reasoning. Allow me to rephrase. Let's agree that compassion is a positive emotion in its intention and action to help others, and therefore compassion favors the poor, or in other words those who are in the most distress.

Imagine if the poor were the ones sinking the ship, I have no way to convince them to stop. Now who can I save?

There's definitely some truth to that, but it still shows what sustainability means.

Indeed.

I see compassion and other forms of caring about others all the time, and I experience compassion all of the time. Maternal instinct, brotherly Love, on the highway everyone driving in their lanes in the common faith.

I did. I couldn't/wouldn't comment on it at this moment.

That's ok...simple idea for simple minds. It creates a hierarchy of oppression.

It forms off simple and false assumptions. Such as...

1. Black people are oppressed.
2. Women are oppressed.
3. Gay/queer people are oppressed.

The author of this theory points these things out as if her assumptions are always true (making her the author of a dogma) and we can make statements like ....

A black female queer person is more oppressed than a black person.

Or...

White straight men are never oppressed.

This of course requires the assumptions be held true always, in all contexts, despite any evidence otherwise.

The author of this idea, on page one of the text explaining it names herself a Marxist. This is not mere coincidence. The leaders of BLM themselves are black female queer Marxists, this is not coincidence. BLM was responsible, largely for the resurgence of the term "woke" and with it, all the assumptions of intersectionality.

I mentioned people insisting upon things they would never give. That's the essence of greed, is it not?

In the reality I observe, politics is never severed from morality/immorality (caring/not-caring how we treat our fellow human being). For just one tiny example, some politicians have to lie to get elected or are themselves deceived, and lying is immoral, and immoral people should not hold power.

Lies are told by all politicians who understand the truth. If they told you the truth, it would sound unpleasant to you...and you wouldn't vote for them.

That's not really what I mean though.

Consider yourself as a single man, perhaps you would involve yourself in any evil you saw...but that's unlikely. There were undoubted times in your life when you decided it wasn't your business and not your problem.

As you gained a family, you changed. These people, your wife, your children and who shared your love were under your protection. You helped secure their future. You helped keep them safe. In essence, you did things that you would not do for those occasional strangers. This is an older kind of morality...sometimes called an honor system, and we really don't ever evade it as men. I certainly can't recall a woman ever saving me from harm nor working to secure my future apart from my mother and only as a child. I'm sure there are occasional exceptions...but not in the lives of most men.

You spoke to this moral obligation formally when you married but you informally accepted when you had a child. It's an expectation that women don't typically have.

Consider then how this changes your view of what is right and good for you to do, and though you might not notice it immediately....changes you. Consider then the sort of things you might do to secure the safety and futures of 300+ million under your care and you might begin to see that the view from the top of what is so completely different from the view of any one man at the bottom they share little in common in regards to morality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

First let me say that I appreciate your viewpoint, you always bring a well reasoned argument to our discussions, even if they can at times be a touch biased. Such is to be expected.

Well ty.

I'll admit that I may be a bit fuzzy on the whole wokeism thing, but I always thought that it's purpose was to stop people from judging others according to those things.

No. People insisting you are racist because you are white are definitely judging you according to skin color.

People insisting they deserve whatever wealth, name, title, job, position by their skin color are insisting you judge them by such.

Of course to do so means bringing these things into the forum of public debate and civil reform, which some find morally reprehensible, and of course leads to heated rhetoric from both sides. But it's not one sided, both parties are making moral judgments about the other, and doing so based upon their own personal beliefs.

They want no public debate.

But when it comes right down to it I don't care what your sexual orientation is, it doesn't matter.

I agree. I cannot fathom why we should teach children about sexual orientation but upon puberty...that's the message I would prefer they're taught.

Perhaps God is going to judge you on such things, but I'm not. I'm going to judge you by the manner in which you treat your neighbor. So in this case neither side is beyond reproach.

I have so far done no harm to any.

Which is why I said that I don't know which side I have the greater disdain for, because there are good and bad people on both sides, only it's the most vociferous among them that get all the attention.

Sure.

From my perspective wokeism's intentions aren't inherently bad, and the whole dispute is being fueled by what I hope is simply a minority of intolerant actors on either side. And eventually the wiser majority will see through the rhetoric and allow me to do me, you to do you, and God to do the judging.

Consider again.

A Black Professor Trapped in Anti-Racist Hell

Compact Magazine, a radical American journal

compactmag.com

Perhaps, but then again, what's to stop someone from feeling the same way about conservatism? The problem as I see it isn't that some people are indoctrinated, it's that some people are convinced that they're not. Wokeism, or conservatism, or theism, what's the difference?

I would say that the principle difference is dogma. To understand what a dogma is, you must take serious effort in recognizing it.

A rational belief accepts open inquiry, in fact, it invites it...and is subject to change through such means.

A dogmatic belief can only be questioned so long or in so many ways before you are told it's something you must simply accept as true...or you are vile in some way to it's author or adherents.

 

[coffee4u]

I don't know if I'd go that far. Knowing what I know now, I'd certainly advise my younger self better.

I am a skeptic when it comes to get quick money schemes. I don't believe anything in life is easy unless you happen to be born with a silver spoon.

There has been pushback. Disillusionment seems to have taken hold in some places.

However I think one has to consider what caused this shift in the first place. One has to ask why it was promoted and by whom. It's not difficult to see the corporations lining up behind it, it's not hard to see why they want it....a large dumb mass that is easily manipulated through media is useful.

As a Christian I see the root cause of this is rebelion towards God. Every single thing God said is good people have said is bad. Now you obviously don't believe in God but there is no getting away from all these basic precepts have been washed away by society.

God says man and woman
Society says you are whatever you feel you are.

God said the structure for raising children is a mother and father committed in marriage and that children are a blessing.
Society says single parenting is fine, woman don't need men.

God says it is the parents responsibility to raise those children, that you must teach them.
Society says children are a nuisance. Get back to work and find someone else or a screen to mind them. Your job is more important than your children.

God says that childhood innocence is to be protected.
Society says lets expose children to adult themes as soon as we can and that innocence needs to go.

What do you get? Children without fathers being raised by the state and screens who have been stressed their entire life with adult concepts. Their mental state is fragile, their education is weak. They are now ripe for the picking.

Those are scary videos. Worse when you see them head to college campuses. I watched a girl once explain that these native American figurines were "living beings" because that's how the natives saw them. Not metaphorically....literally. I thought oh...we may as well just burn this place down.

Nothing surprises me any more.

Well I think cobalt is the really tricky one....no one really seems to talk about how much their is, and it seems necessary for energy storage. 60% of the entire world's supply is in the Democratic Republic of Congo.


Sure I mean...I understand. If the UK sank into the sea tomorrow it would only reduce the carbon worldwide by 2%. What you essentially have to do is convince the poor of the world to stay put....and stay poor. There's millions of people all over the world getting a job to get their first car....which was your used car 10+ years ago....and it's not something they see as a priority. Since nations like ours have already done it....they feel entitled to do the same. I can't think of a reason why someone without plumbing or a air conditioner would care about their car polluting.

I don't know what the answer is, I still think we should aim more for wind. That research into making things like refrigeration less polluting. Of course this assumes that there are young and upcoming people in the science field.

Well I hope things are less flammable down there than recent years.

Our weather is governed a lot by the Southern Oscillation. The last couple of years we have been in the La Niña cycle (cooling and rain) which is why we have had flooding. Soon we will be back to the El Niño (hotter and drought) and back to fire. :/
it doesn't help that we have a lot of bush and it is full of eucalyptus trees and eucalyptus oil is extreamly flammable. What may have been a normal forest fire somewhere else literally takes on a life of its own here.

 

[coffee4u]

For me the difference is rather clear. While both sides might insist upon a moral viewpoint....only one judges me according to my skin color, genitalia, or sexual orientation. The other judges me by my beliefs....and has a long tradition and willingness to openly debate the merits of theirs. They don't seek my silence nor demand anything of me against my free will.

We believe God gave us all free will so you also have free will.
Would we like you to have faith? Yes, since most of us believe in hell. To believe in hell but to not be concerned about you going there would be highly callous.

Faith however can not be forced, and any group of religious people who think it can be are very mistaken, perhaps even to the point of being evil.

So if in some turbulent future scenario where I come across some Christians burning the members of this new cult like the witches of old...I don't think I'd speak even a word of protest. They do want my silence after all.

Anyone doing such a thing is not a Christian. Many people have used Christian as a label without actually being Christian. This has been a problem since the beginning as its even talked about in the New Testament.
A Christian is a follower of Christ whose aim is to be Christ like in what they say and do. No one claimed it was easy but would Christ have burnt a cult member at the stake? Most definitely not. He would have spoken to them perhaps harshly or softly depending on what was needed as we can see him doing both in the New Testament. Then he would have forgiven them if they wanted forgiveness and told them to go "sin no more" as he did with the woman accused of adultery.
If they would not listen at all he would have dusted his sandals off and left. That there comes a point to turn away.

Also I never said I want your silence. Do we disagree on spiritual matters? 100%. But I believe everyone has the right to their views.

I've critiqued Christianity more than I care to admit....but I'm still allowed to do so. The vast majority of Christians were indoctrinated as children....and I understand what that means. The woke? Largely indoctrinated as adults....I mean, how embarrassing.

You are allowed to do so. Likewise I will say you are wrong. But that does not make for a good conversation.
I became a Christian at the age of 24, I had probably set foot in a church 4 times by that point. You may not believe in God but I know God is real.
What the woke are pedaling is Satanism, which is the 'religion of self'.
Christianity is "Not I, but God"
Satanism is "Not God, but I"

 

[Larniavc]

since the term God is axiomatic.

No it isn’t.

 

[childeye 2]

I'm simply saying that sometimes truth is an unhappy repulsive thing.

The subject matter is spiritual warfare around the term "woke", which is about discerning the lies from the Truth in how it's being used. Propaganda is used to move people, and what we believe to be true shapes our sentiments/feelings/spirit either in the positive or negative, pro/con, and sometimes neutral.

You said this: "I agree they can cause people to feel things". I don't see that as anything except an impediment to truth. I think it's far easier to reject anything that doesn't give you a warm fuzzy even if it's true....than it is to believe the lie that does".

The major point is to establish the fact that what we believe to be true manifests feelings appropriate to that belief and so we can reason soundly upon that fact. I agreed that lies can be warm and fuzzy, but that is not always the case. Therefore, I said, that not all impediments to the Truth are wrapped in warm and fuzzy. Anger and fear can arise as well out of impediments to the Truth, and often do so in the form of grievances and negative prejudice. (See demagoguery).

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader)[1] or rabble-rouser[2][3] is a political leader in a democracy who gains popularity by arousing the common people against elites, especially through oratory that whips up the passions of crowds, appealing to emotion by scapegoating out-groups, exaggerating dangers to stoke fears, lying for emotional effect, or other rhetoric that tends to drown out reasoned deliberation and encourage fanatical popularity.[4] Demagogues overturn established norms of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.[5]: 32–38 

I'm unsure of your ability to see true dichotomies.

It's easy. A true dichotomy is formed by taking a positive and creating its negative, or in other words the absence of its positive sentiment. Examples: Knowledge/ignorance, Honest/dishonest, Faithful/faithless, Light/darkness, Hopeful/hopeless, Information/disinformation.

In linguistics a true dichotomy is two terms which represent true opposites either in degrees or absolutes (Drawing a clear distinction). A false dichotomy is when the two terms have a deviation between the two that makes it imprecise (typically found in propaganda) which creates a false premise, which in turn means it will ultimately end in a contradiction when reasoned upon. So objectively speaking, when a base dichotomy is viewed as a positive/negative for the purpose of reasoning, pro/con, true/false, the negative is always the absence of the positive in connotation and denotation.

I don't think any amount of time would be sufficient for you to explain your imagery of god.

The altruistic Spirit of brotherly Love shown in the Spirit of Christ is the positive of the Word of God. But it's a misinformation for you to think it's my imagery of god. Because the term Christ implies the True Image of God sent by God. How long did that take?

l see no one who does that.

It sounded like you were referring to woke here:
"Well awakening the "socialist/collective/Marxist" conscious in mankind was always seen as this sort of necessary predicate for communism".
"People insisting you are racist because you are white are definitely judging you according to skin color".
"They don't love the poor....they hate the rich they're just outside of becoming".

That's not an action of faith.

The phrase is " The common faith", and to undermine it means to cause distrust between people. We can't see it if we don't look, nor does it disappear simply because we call it something else.

Faith means 'trust' in the following sentiment: Look at all the people driving down the highway trusting that others will stay in their lanes and not kill their loved ones in the car.

faith
NOUN

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   

   common​

   1 of 2
   

   adjective 1​

a
: of or relating to a community at large : PUBLIC
work for the common good

b
: known to the community

It is exactly what you're engaged in.

Ana the Ist said:
Do you have a citation for woke or something?
childeye 2 said:
Just the English dictionary identified as a slang term.
Ana the Ist said:
Ok...so I'm going to look, but guess atm no one has bothered to figure out the etymology of woke as a slang term
childeye 2 said:
It's slang and therefore informal. So, it doesn't much matter to me so long as I understand the sentiment of the people currently using it.

I'm on the record above showing that I don't care about the etymology because it's a slang term and is therefore pointless.

Not negative connotation... any connotation.

If we don't draw a distinction between a positive and a negative then we can't tell the Truth from a lie. The type of memo/message you present below to reveal a concerted effort to release disinformation carries a negative connotation because it's a deliberate changing of a term for the purpose of propaganda:

childeye 2 said:
Or change deliberately for the purpose of propaganda.
Ana the Ist said:
You can usually tell when that happens because it's preceded by a memo or otherwise transmitted message to stop using one definition and begin using another.

You aren't presenting memo...you're holding a discussion. Memoranda are typically in a work setting, from peers or superiors.

Perhaps we have some miscommunication going on. I'm not meaning to imply you sent a memo or I sent a memo to someone, but rather that there have been two examples of memos/messages presented in our discourse pertaining to propaganda.

childeye 2 said:
Or change deliberately for the purpose of propaganda.
Ana the Ist said:
You can usually tell when that happens because it's preceded by a memo or otherwise transmitted message to stop using one definition and begin using another.

I in turn gave an example of a memo that is telling people to make sure they don't misrepresent the truth. It therefore carries a positive connotation as shown below.

childeye 2 said:
And therefore, those propagating the Christ Image of God (The Altruistic Spirit in the terms of glory and honor) might in due diligence send a memo making sure everyone is qualifying the terms correctly so as to negate the latest false premise, because they want to guard against inadvertently projecting a false image.

It does.

Please consider that 'woke' is slang and is being used as a byword or metaphor for 'aware', so the etymology of the literal term is pointless.

Are you embarrassed or something for calling yourself woke at some point?

I appreciate the question. No not at all. I'm certainly aware of injustices and racism that affect the Black community, but I wouldn't presume to indicate I know the suffering that Black people have gone through or go through. Like I said, I see the devil using the term to sow division through distrust of the other and working both ends against the middle. This is why I don't take a side.

Imagine if the poor were the ones sinking the ship, I have no way to convince them to stop. Now who can I save?

It's probably not a good analogy. The weight of each individual is basically the same, and weight is not based on wealth, so the poor are not sinking the ship more than anyone else.

That's ok...simple idea for simple minds. It creates a hierarchy of oppression.
It forms off simple and false assumptions. Such as...

1. Black people are oppressed.
2. Women are oppressed.
3. Gay/queer people are oppressed.

The author of this theory points these things out as if her assumptions are always true (making her the author of a dogma) and we can make statements like ....

A black female queer person is more oppressed than a black person.

Or...

White straight men are never oppressed.

This of course requires the assumptions be held true always, in all contexts, despite any evidence otherwise.

The author of this idea, on page one of the text explaining it names herself a Marxist. This is not mere coincidence. The leaders of BLM themselves are black female queer Marxists, this is not coincidence. BLM was responsible, largely for the resurgence of the term "woke" and with it, all the assumptions of intersectionality.

I mentioned people insisting upon things they would never give. That's the essence of greed, is it not?

The semantics show a contradiction in reasoning working both ends against the middle, and since faith and cynicism are positive and negative in their prejudices, both are self-fulfilling. I don't think greed is the appropriate term in this instance, since it would be like conflating hunger with gluttony.

Lies are told by all politicians who understand the truth. If they told you the truth, it would sound unpleasant to you...and you wouldn't vote for them.

That's not really what I mean though.

Consider yourself as a single man, perhaps you would involve yourself in any evil you saw...but that's unlikely. There were undoubted times in your life when you decided it wasn't your business and not your problem.

As you gained a family, you changed. These people, your wife, your children and who shared your love were under your protection. You helped secure their future. You helped keep them safe. In essence, you did things that you would not do for those occasional strangers. This is an older kind of morality...sometimes called an honor system, and we really don't ever evade it as men. I certainly can't recall a woman ever saving me from harm nor working to secure my future apart from my mother and only as a child. I'm sure there are occasional exceptions...but not in the lives of most men.

You spoke to this moral obligation formally when you married but you informally accepted when you had a child. It's an expectation that women don't typically have.

Consider then how this changes your view of what is right and good for you to do, and though you might not notice it immediately....changes you. Consider then the sort of things you might do to secure the safety and futures of 300+ million under your care and you might begin to see that the view from the top of what is so completely different from the view of any one man at the bottom they share little in common in regards to morality.

Every man cares for his family, but if we kill others to save our own, we may as well eat our own children. The Spirit of Christ accepts torture and crucifixion and forgives it, because the Spirit of Love that sacrifices self, is Eternal. To live in Christ is to die to carnal vanity because the Spirit dwells in us by grace through faith. I pick up my cross to follow Christ so as to persevere in a Love that walks through the fire and is not consumed. We all die, and I figure I am already dead along with my miseries and grievances. And I prefer it that way because I would not want to live without the beauty of God's Spirit, and I weep for all those who don't know Him. Therefore, I preach the Gospel Truth in a world filled with lies meant to turn brother against brother.

Darkness on the heart over the concerns of how to survive in this world is tantamount to hopelessness. But if you seek a miracle, I will tell you that Jesus did not perform many miracles where people would not/could not trust in Him.

 

[childeye 2]

No it isn’t.

The term God in scripture means the source of the energy that formed all things. It's therefore an axiomatic term in theism.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

 

[Neutral Observer]

It's therefore an axiomatic term in theism.

The fact that you had to add a qualifier means that @Larnievc was right.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The subject matter is spiritual warfare around the term "woke", which is about discerning the lies from the Truth in how it's being used. Propaganda is used to move people, and what we believe to be true shapes our sentiments/feelings/spirit either in the positive or negative, pro/con, and sometimes neutral.

You said this: "I agree they can cause people to feel things". I don't see that as anything except an impediment to truth. I think it's far easier to reject anything that doesn't give you a warm fuzzy even if it's true....than it is to believe the lie that does".

The major point is to establish the fact that what we believe to be true manifests feelings appropriate to that belief and so we can reason soundly upon that fact. I agreed that lies can be warm and fuzzy, but that is not always the case. Therefore, I said, that not all impediments to the Truth are wrapped in warm and fuzzy. Anger and fear can arise as well out of impediments to the Truth, and often do so in the form of grievances and negative prejudice. (See demagoguery).

You're a bit off track regarding truth.

We agree the word woke has a common meaning, a common usage today, and we know that because of the etymological fallacy, it may be entirely different from any original meaning.

When you claim someone has adopted the wrong meaning of a word....in regards to truth....you simultaneously imply that a correct meaning exists.

When you say these things....the discussion is then about the correct meaning of the word, now. I've explained the best I can that it will never matter to me how the correct meaning makes you, me, or anyone else feel.

Rather, it's more important to use whatever meaning is in fact correct. That allows us to communicate and understand each other....which is the purpose of words after all.

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader)[1] or rabble-rouser[2][3] is a political leader in a democracy who gains popularity by arousing the common people against elites, especially through oratory that whips up the passions of crowds, appealing to emotion by scapegoating out-groups, exaggerating dangers to stoke fears, lying for emotional effect, or other rhetoric that tends to drown out reasoned deliberation and encourage fanatical popularity.[4] Demagogues overturn established norms of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.[5]: 32–38 


It's easy. A true dichotomy is formed by taking a positive and creating its negative, or in other words the absence of its positive sentiment. Examples: Knowledge/ignorance, Honest/dishonest, Faithful/faithless, Light/darkness, Hopeful/hopeless, Information/disinformation.

In linguistics a true dichotomy is two terms which represent true opposites either in degrees or absolutes (Drawing a clear distinction). A false dichotomy is when the two terms have a deviation between the two that makes it imprecise (typically found in propaganda) which creates a false premise, which in turn means it will ultimately end in a contradiction when reasoned upon. So objectively speaking, when a base dichotomy is viewed as a positive/negative for the purpose of reasoning, pro/con, true/false, the negative is always the absence of the positive in connotation and denotation.

It's not as easy as you propose. Consider inside/outside and it seems clear....consider standing at the threshold of a doorway though and it becomes apparent not only was it not a dichotomy but a 3rd place was always available.

The altruistic Spirit of brotherly Love shown in the Spirit of Christ is the positive of the Word of God. But it's a misinformation for you to think it's my imagery of god. Because the term Christ implies the True Image of God sent by God. How long did that take?

It sounded like you were referring to woke here:
"Well awakening the "socialist/collective/Marxist" conscious in mankind was always seen as this sort of necessary predicate for communism".
"People insisting you are racist because you are white are definitely judging you according to skin color".
"They don't love the poor....they hate the rich they're just outside of becoming".

Yeah, and honestly, I don't want to get into Marxist methodology with you. It's a long topic to explain the usage of one word. In terms of Marxist dialectics, it denotes those who support the cause of the revolution from those who either oppose it or must be indoctrinated. Marxism always seeks to describe people in such terms.

The phrase is " The common faith", and to undermine it means to cause distrust between people. We can't see it if we don't look, nor does it disappear simply because we call it something else.

Faith means 'trust' in the following sentiment: Look at all the people driving down the highway trusting that others will stay in their lanes and not kill their loved ones in the car.

faith
NOUN

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
   "this restores one's faith in politicians"
   

   common​

   1 of 2
   

   adjective 1​

a
: of or relating to a community at large : PUBLIC
work for the common good

b
: known to the community

It's not a faith. It's a rational inference. I would imagine that were you to be out driving near some local bars at 2am, and saw a driving weaving in and out of his lane at erratic speed....suddenly your supposed "faith" evaporates. It's not faith, but a reasonable inference based upon observation....and that's all it ever was

Ana the Ist said:
Do you have a citation for woke or something?
childeye 2 said:
Just the English dictionary identified as a slang term.
Ana the Ist said:
Ok...so I'm going to look, but guess atm no one has bothered to figure out the etymology of woke as a slang term
childeye 2 said:
It's slang and therefore informal. So, it doesn't much matter to me so long as I understand the sentiment of the people currently using it.

I'm on the record above showing that I don't care about the etymology because it's a slang term and is therefore pointless.

Ok...then it's not clear what point you're arguing. Reread my explanation of my position on truth and its independence from any emotional reaction.

If we don't draw a distinction between a positive and a negative then we can't tell the Truth from a lie.

Again, I disagree. I'm either using it correctly or I am not. I would suggest I definitely am using it correctly.

The type of memo/message you present below to reveal a concerted effort to release disinformation carries a negative connotation because it's a deliberate changing of a term for the purpose of propaganda:

childeye 2 said:
Or change deliberately for the purpose of propaganda.
Ana the Ist said:
You can usually tell when that happens because it's preceded by a memo or otherwise transmitted message to stop using one definition and begin using another.


Perhaps we have some miscommunication going on. I'm not meaning to imply you sent a memo or I sent a memo to someone, but rather that there have been two examples of memos/messages presented in our discourse pertaining to propaganda.

I have looked at the meaning of those who have called themselves woke in the recent past....the reason why it now stands as a pejorative is the foolishness of their actions. It is not the result of a memo....it changed naturally as the opinion of those who named themselves woke changed. They are foolish.

I appreciate the question. No not at all. I'm certainly aware of injustices and racism that affect the Black community, but I wouldn't presume to indicate I know the suffering that Black people have gone through or go through. Like I said, I see the devil using the term to sow division through distrust of the other and working both ends against the middle. This is why I don't take a side.

It's probably not a good analogy. The weight of each individual is basically the same, and weight is not based on wealth, so the poor are not sinking the ship more than anyone else.

It's an analogy. To know what is causing the ship to sink requires understanding. There is certainly an understanding those in the hold of the ship have that isn't necessarily shared in the cabin....and vice versa.

The semantics show a contradiction in reasoning working both ends against the middle, and since faith and cynicism are positive and negative in their prejudices, both are self-fulfilling.

Every man cares for his family, but if we kill others to save our own, we may as well eat our own children.

Funny you should mention the atrocity of eating children....as it has and does happen in times of great scarcity.

If I remember the island wrong forgive me....but not too many years ago, I believe Aruba was swept over by a great hurricane, flooding the mainland desperately and thrusting everyone very suddenly into a scarcity event. Without any certainty of rescue...survival became a desperate and immediate matter. Reports were of people being shot and killed over nothing more than a bottle of water.

I would not suggest that such a person who would do so believed himself capable or morally inclined to such things the week before.

Perhaps though, he should have.

Consider then, since I have a great number of bullets and some firearms and no small skill in using them...we're it me and you finding ourselves in such a situation, I think the best I could do is give you the opportunity to share your water....and allow you to save some face by not referring to the gun in my hand. Would you then share it with me? Knowing it very likely you or yours will die of thirst if you do? Would you extend me the same opportunity to save face by not referring to the gun in my hand or shaming me for my lack of water?

We have what ways and means that are available to us...and they similarly limit the morality of our choices.