Racism and sexism

[Paidiske]

Do you, as a Christian, support the death penalty?

Because as a Christian, I cannot.

 

[samir]

Do you, as a Christian, support the death penalty?

Because as a Christian, I cannot.

I don't object to the death penalty because that would involve accusing God of sin which is something I can't do because I'm a Christian.

 

[Paidiske]

Objecting to the death penalty in the present doesn't accuse God of anything, as I see it.

Torah mandates the death penalty in context of the covenant between God and Israel. Well, Jews can argue about whether they still see that as an integral part of their faith. But I am not under that covenant, and nowhere in the NT do I find a mandate for non-Jews living in secular societies to support the taking of life as a legal punishment.

 

[samir]

Objecting to the death penalty in the present doesn't accuse God of anything, as I see it.

Torah mandates the death penalty in context of the covenant between God and Israel. Well, Jews can argue about whether they still see that as an integral part of their faith. But I am not under that covenant, and nowhere in the NT do I find a mandate for non-Jews living in secular societies to support the taking of life as a legal punishment.

There's a difference between being morally opposed to the death penalty and believing it shouldn't be used today. If you believe the death penalty is a moral evil then you're accusing God of sin. If you merely believe the death penalty shouldn't be used today but aren't morally opposed to it then that would be acceptable.

As far as whether I think it should be used today, I'm not sure and prefer to let others more qualfied than I am make that decision. In the US, it takes a very long time to execute someone (10 to 15 years due to appeals), can be expensive (over $1 million in legal fees), and we have ways to detain people securely for life that countries in the past didn't have or couldn't afford and allowing people to live longer gives them more time to repent and be saved.

 

[Gadarene]

whatever happened for an individual simply taking responsibility for their actions. If you assault someone, shoot the kids, steal, rape, extortion..... YOU did it and that's why your'e in jail. I get a bit tired of hearing how women are to blame for the shortcomings of men.

We feel the same about the vice versa, we assure you.

How about women teachers who have sex with their students?

While the sentances for those so convicted has become closer to equal in the last 10 years, before that a male teacher would spend at least 5-10 years behind bars, put on the sex offender watch list and be barred from teaching for life.

A woman teacher convicted of the same would get at most one year behind bars and not even lose her teaching license.

Good example.

Well.... look at it this way... Abraham Lincoln was seen as a liberal for his views on slavery.... JFK was was referred to as liberal but he fostered space exploration. ... Gandhi was seen as a radical even but he freed his people from colonialism. So who did they all fight against? Those who wanted and demanded that the status quo remain. You see being liberal is also progressive. Hate it if you want but the world will change whether u like it or not

Not necessarily. Change for change's sake is as daft as stagnation for stagnation's sake. The left has come up with plenty of nonsense in its desire to be as right on as possible as the right has in its desire to be as staid as possible.

More testosterone in males leading to increased frequency of risk taking behaviour.

I love how "but biology tho" magically becomes an excuse again when we're talking about discrimination affecting men.

Rubbish.

Keep that stuff in the conspiracy threads please.

Oh I know, it's so ridiculous, now let's get back to discussing how there's a international epoch-spanning patriarchy to suppress all women that all men are responsible for dismantling. Did you know women are oppressed by video games and mean tweets?

Honestly, being scared that women will commit pan androcide is the maddest thing I've ever heared.

I love how incapable some people here are of withstanding women being spoken about in the way either they or their cohorts speak about men.

No I have not.

Did it amount to much?

What's interesting about Solanas is she is still considered a feminist by many feminists, and some even consider the SCUM manifesto feminist literary canon - but feminism is still considered a viable movement despite having a whackjob like Solanas in their ranks, and someone who tried to put her twisted views into practice when she went on an attempted killing spree.

Contrast that with how feminists in the press today treated the MRM when Elliott Rodger did his killing spree (which was "misogynist" despite him hating everyone and killing more men than women). Rodgers wasn't even part of the MRM but he was being used to reinforce the idea that the MRM should not be no-platformed before the bodies were even cold.

If statistics showed that people with red hair commit 10 times as many violent crimes as those without red hair, would you really believe the difference was due to melanin in one's hair? If so, then you really need a bit of science education before continuing this conversation.

Blacks are disproportionately poor, and poverty is one cause of crime. That poverty is mainly due to the release of slaves being unaccompanied by any sort of financial compensation, leading to generations of poor families supporting poor families. There's also a "cycle of crime" that starts when one is imprisoned, as prison is almost a perfect barrier to rejoining society with a paying job and housing, which leads to poverty as well as a need to go back to prison as it's the only place left that accepts criminals. Blacks are discriminated against when applying for jobs, as demonstrated by Steven Levitt when he sent identical resumes to employers with both "black-sounding" and "non-black-sounding" names. Steven Levitt - Wikipedia The problem isn't due to their skin color but due to racism.

If red-heads actually committed more crime, it would be a response to red-heads being treated differently, because the color of one's hair doesn't make one genetically different in a way that would cause a pattern of crime. Neither does skin color. Do you really not know this?

This is a great argument! I wish people would blame socialisation for the woes of men too, instead of just blaming men and rarely factoring in socialisation.

Oh please, you can't compare a bunch of lone wolves with a religious ideology.

It's funny because the comparison was between feminism and ISIS, is feminism the religious ideology?

Feminism is not a religion.

The patriarchy is analogous to God, male privilege is analogous to original sin, they've got the hostility to criticism and the censoriousness down pat as well

History records a lot of English (and their American descendants) REFUSED to take "charity" even when in dire straits because it was beneath them. Many would have rather starved to death (and some did) due to their pride.

IMO a lot of the anti-welfare sentiment comes from that same root.

Hmmmm yeah but that's refusing to take charity for one's self or one's household. Modern antiwelfare sentiment is a refusal to administer charity to anyone else.

I understand that for someone whose ideology had had the privilege of being imposed on others for milleinia, it must be hard to learn that they have lost that exclusive privilege now.

Nice kafkatrap, and which privilege are we talking about exactly - the privilege of getting longer sentences for the same crimes compared to women?

The group of people that were first recognized as being infected with Kuru were infected because of the cultural practice of eating the dead. When they learned that this practice was killing their children, they ceased to eat the dead, recognizing that the preservation of life was worth more than the preservation of that aspect of their culture.

Another good example. Things would go much more smoothly if people were more willing to reflect and critique their own cultures and ideologies.

 

[Zoii]

Not necessarily. Change for change's sake is as daft as stagnation for stagnation's sake. The left has come up with plenty of nonsense in its desire to be as right on as possible as the right has in its desire to be as staid as possible.

I think most would agree with you that the middle road avoiding both extremes is on most topics best for society.

But nothing stays the same - absolutely nothing. Everything in this life including our belief systems will change. Change can be a very positive thing.

 

[Gadarene]

I think most would agree with you that the middle road avoiding both extremes is on most topics best for society.

My point is that progressivism and liberalism are not necessarily synonymous, and IME progressivism tends to generate more of the aforementioned nonsense

 

[Zoii]

My point is that progressivism and liberalism are not necessarily synonymous, and IME progressivism tends to generate more of the aforementioned nonsense

can you define progressivism?

 

[Gadarene]

can you define progressivism?

Very colloquially, liberalism is concerned with freedom, progressivism is concerned with change.

Liberalism - Wikipedia
Progressivism - Wikipedia

You can require social reform to maximise liberty, but progressivism is more akin to reform for its own sake, that there is a particular direction society must be evolving in.

 

[Zoii]

Very colloquially, liberalism is concerned with freedom, progressivism is concerned with change.

Liberalism - Wikipedia
Progressivism - Wikipedia

You can require social reform to maximise liberty, but progressivism is more akin to reform for its own sake, that there is a particular direction society must be evolving in.

Im not sure Im as confident as to what it is. Mainly I guess because Im all for progress....when it fits the things I like. So yeah I can switch around a fair bit on this. For example for our Australian society, if I could vote I would support the current SSM plebiscite. To me thats a change that is progressive to our society (though lots would disagree with that). On the other hand in the next suburb we have a street of massive Morton Bay Fig Trees. So old and massive. But they are putting up a shopping precinct with some pretty cool things to be had it it - but still Im like... Nooooooo dont cut down the trees.

So yeah - am I progressive...yes ...no....when it fits my thoughts on what I like in life I guess. But mostly yes.

 

[Gadarene]

Im not sure Im as confident as to what it is. Mainly I guess because Im all for progress....when it fits the things I like.

That's sort of the issue, the idea of what progress is is a very nebulous one, and social shifts are not always in the direction you want. Sometimes to reinforce gains you have made you have to argue for the status quo. More than that though, it is not immediately obvious that a particular change being argued for is "progress" or even useful.

I've noticed there's a lot less of the smug "BECAUSE IT IS (CURRENT YEAR)!" and "you're on the wrong side of history" remarks from progressives these days, so at least they have learned something from being paddled in the US and UK.

 

[SupernovaK]

No, I'd believe the difference was due to genes that effect hair color and a propensity to violence. If people with red hair chose to live in separate communities and identify with each other as a minority group then I'd attribute it to culture.



Poverty does NOT cause crime. Crimes are committed by people who lack morals. Those who lack morals tend to lack a work ethic which results in them being poor.

As stated above, if this is your belief, that there's a genetic link between hair color or skin color and crime propensity, then you need science education. Your belief comes from ignorance, and I would argue that your racism also comes from ignorance. You claimed that neither you nor your friends were racist, but you believe that because you don't know what racism looks like. To say that the problem is "culture" is another way of saying that everybody with a certain skin tone acts differently, and such a stereotype is racism by definition. https://www.google.com/search?q=def...1.64.psy-ab..5.15.2231...0i67k1.0.eWswDxnqwOQ

It's interesting that you think crime is caused by "people who lack morals". Didn't you imply that the crime problem among minorities is genetic? It's part of their inescapable nature that they were born with and yet a choice at the same time? These are mutually exclusive concepts. I know one thing it's not due to, and that's "lack of work ethic". You drew that from your political beliefs, not the bible. According to the bible, the root of all evil is love of money. 1 Timothy 6:10 I hardly think that the people who "love money" are the people who put in the least amount of effort to acquire it, but rather those who seek to be wealthy, and 1 Timothy 6:9 clarifies that point. I'm simply making the assumption that you care what the bible has to say about this matter... do you care?

 

[PsychoSarah]

There's a difference between being morally opposed to the death penalty and believing it shouldn't be used today. If you believe the death penalty is a moral evil then you're accusing God of sin. If you merely believe the death penalty shouldn't be used today but aren't morally opposed to it then that would be acceptable.

-_- acceptable to you. A person cannot simply change their moral compass and views on a whim. For example, even though I recognize the many logical reasons not to have a death penalty for any crimes, my own vengeful personality continues to demand bloodshed in response to certain crimes, namely, murder. However, I highly doubt that I would view the death penalty as a moral response to all of the "crimes" to which you think the deity you worship condones death.

After all, from an atheist's perspective, there is no deity advising people on morality, just an ancient culture trying to impose it's morality through the name of a powerful entity that doesn't exist. Which, I think, speaks to the inherent flaws of said morality; it can only persist when imposing the highest authority a person can imagine rather than persisting on its own merits.

As far as whether I think it should be used today, I'm not sure and prefer to let others more qualfied than I am make that decision.

You dare question your god that makes it abundantly clear that it thinks the death penalty should be a punishment for a variety of crimes? Such as working on the Sabbath? Guess that makes you immoral. I know your religion label says "Christian seeker", but you talk like an astute believer.

In the US, it takes a very long time to execute someone (10 to 15 years due to appeals), can be expensive (over $1 million in legal fees), and we have ways to detain people securely for life that countries in the past didn't have or couldn't afford and allowing people to live longer gives them more time to repent and be saved.

-_- sounds like you internally don't support the death penalty, but don't want to outright say it because "that'd be disagreeing with the almighty".

 

[samir]

As stated above, if this is your belief, that there's a genetic link between hair color or skin color and crime propensity, then you need science education. Your belief comes from ignorance, and I would argue that your racism also comes from ignorance. You claimed that neither you nor your friends were racist, but you believe that because you don't know what racism looks like. To say that the problem is "culture" is another way of saying that everybody with a certain skin tone acts differently, and such a stereotype is racism by definition. https://www.google.com/search?q=def...1.64.psy-ab..5.15.2231...0i67k1.0.eWswDxnqwOQ

It's interesting that you think crime is caused by "people who lack morals". Didn't you imply that the crime problem among minorities is genetic? It's part of their inescapable nature that they were born with and yet a choice at the same time? These are mutually exclusive concepts. I know one thing it's not due to, and that's "lack of work ethic". You drew that from your political beliefs, not the bible. According to the bible, the root of all evil is love of money. 1 Timothy 6:10 I hardly think that the people who "love money" are the people who put in the least amount of effort to acquire it, but rather those who seek to be wealthy, and 1 Timothy 6:9 clarifies that point. I'm simply making the assumption that you care what the bible has to say about this matter... do you care?

It's believed men commit more crimes than women due to genetics (is that sexist?) but that doesn't mean it's not a choice. High testosterone results in strength and energy so they commit more violent crimes than those too weak or passive but it's still their choice.

Loving money is immoral and those who lack morals prefer to steal and scam people instead of working hard to earn it so they end up in poverty (illegal income and welfare aren't counted that's why they can afford gold chains and spinning rims they isn't really poor)

 

[SupernovaK]

It's believed men commit more crimes than women due to genetics (is that sexist?) but that doesn't mean it's not a choice. High testosterone results in strength and energy so they commit more violent crimes than those too weak or passive but it's still their choice.

Loving money is immoral and those who lack morals prefer to steal and scam people instead of working hard to earn it so they end up in poverty (illegal income and welfare aren't counted that's why they can afford gold chains and spinning rims they isn't really poor)

There is a genetic difference between men and women found in the X chromosome. The X chromosome boosts production of testosterone, a steroid chemical that drives one to be more violent. It's not "sexist" to say that such a difference exists, because it's not a stereotype -- it's true by definition of man and woman and thus true of every single member of those groups. When you believe something is true of a group that isn't necessarily true (because it isn't true by definition), that is racism, sexism, etc. depending on what groups you speak of. Your beliefs about blacks having a certain "culture", for example, is racist because it's not only not true of every member, but isn't even true about the majority of them.

In your previous post, you claimed that blacks "lacked work ethic", and when I clarified how that excludes them from being lovers of money, so you changed that to "prefer[ing] to steal and scam people instead of working hard". I claimed that blacks were disproportionately poor in an earlier post, and that's something that I can prove by citing the nonpartisan US Government Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizations/2017/demo/p60-259/figure1.pdf Where does your belief come from?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's believed men commit more crimes than women due to genetics (is that sexist?) but that doesn't mean it's not a choice. High testosterone results in strength and energy so they commit more violent crimes than those too weak or passive but it's still their choice.

Funny that you mention the love of money later in this post, because when it comes to embezzlement, larceny, and fraud, men and women are nearly equal. Furthermore, while crime rates overall have gone down a bit (for the time period I was able to find that for, 2002-2012), crimes committed by women actually increased; that increase just wasn't near as high as how much crimes committed by men lowered.

Maybe it's not just a matter of strength and energy, but also stress and social expectations? Stress related diseases have been on the rise in women lately.

Loving money is immoral and those who lack morals prefer to steal and scam people instead of working hard to earn it so they end up in poverty (illegal income and welfare aren't counted that's why they can afford gold chains and spinning rims they isn't really poor)

-_- you are ignoring a lot of nuance that needs to be addressed in situations involving theft. Sure, some thieves are immoral people, but what of the child that pick pockets so they can eat that day? What of a person flooded by college loan debt that sees no other way out? People rarely steal out of greed or envy alone.

 

[SupernovaK]

-_- you are ignoring a lot of nuance that needs to be addressed in situations involving theft. Sure, some thieves are immoral people, but what of the child that pick pockets so they can eat that day? What of a person flooded by college loan debt that sees no other way out? People rarely steal out of greed or envy alone.

I'm sure you mean well, but you're poisoning the well. If someone claims that the Earth is flat because crocodiles are green, it's helpful to point out that this is a non-sequitur and that they should fix their argument to one the follows from the premise; it isn't helpful to debate the nuances of crocodile skin shades, because that allows the person with this absurd claim to spend petty (and pointless) time discussing whether or not crocodiles are green. Even if they are, it will never prove that the Earth is flat.

1 Timothy 6:10 simply says that "love of money is the root of all evil", but that's following 9 verses that separate lovers of money from their opposite, those who are content with what they have. The passage makes no reference to theft or scams, and that was just a red herring from Samir because he or she can't defend his or her position based on what the bible actually says there. Please, please don't validate Samir's claim that theft actually matters to this topic.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm sure you mean well, but you're poisoning the well. If someone claims that the Earth is flat because crocodiles are green, it's helpful to point out that this is a non-sequitur and that they should fix their argument to one the follows from the premise; it isn't helpful to debate the nuances of crocodile skin shades, because that allows the person with this absurd claim to spend petty (and pointless) time discussing whether or not crocodiles are green. Even if they are, it will never prove that the Earth is flat.

I don't view the motivations behind an act of theft as irrelevant to making a moral judgement on the act. In fact, I view this as necessary to consider when it comes to issues of morality. Poisoning the well definition: "a fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."

How is it "poisoning the well" when it isn't irrelevant? Stealing to survive and stealing out of greed are not equally immoral acts from my perspective due to the differences in motivation, even if the scale of the crime is the same.

1 Timothy 6:10 simply says that "love of money is the root of all evil", but that's following 9 verses that separate lovers of money from their opposite, those who are content with what they have. The passage makes no reference to theft or scams, and that was just a red herring from Samir because he or she can't defend his or her position based on what the bible actually says there. Please, please don't validate Samir's claim that theft actually matters to this topic.

You mean their claim that criminal tendencies is genetic?
-_- refuting that is so easy that I don't understand why you feel like it would be a problem even if I legitimized his derail by responding to it. Australia used to be a prison colony, and many modern Australians are descendants of those criminals. Yet, Australia doesn't have a higher crime rate than countries that didn't have a huge portion of the population be people of ill repute. Problem solved.

The only crime I know of that has had genetic studies around it is murder. The majority of serial killers have an abnormality in the structure of their frontal lobe that is contributed to by genes. However, the vast majority of people with this structural abnormality aren't murderers, or even criminals. Basically, it's partially responsible for if a person raised in an abusive household becomes a lawbreaker or not. The malformation of the structure makes a person tend to be more impulsive and less empathetic. However, not all killers have this malformation. Nature and nurture combined contribute to how likely a person is to be a criminal, and overall, nurture (one's environment) contributes to it a lot more than nature (genes).

 

[Paidiske]

The X chromosome boosts production of testosterone, a steroid chemical that drives one to be more violent.

I believe you mean the Y chromosome.

I also think - it's been a while since I sat in lectures on this, so I may be wrong - that actually, what males have more of in the crucial phase of development is testosterone receptors.

 

[Traveling teacher]

Dont know about the man vs woman issue.....
But these facts lead to crime....
Poverty
Divorced households....single parents....
Men not working and accepting government welfare....
Drug dealing in the inner cities....
Breakdown of the family....

Imo there is also a disrespect of police and authority in Ameica......especially against our president.....

I have been in and seen some of the poorest slums in africa where kids have no shoes and a small piece of bread once a day
Amazingly these slums do have some crime but not like you would think....
Also many of these slums have very little police presence..

So back to my opinion of disrespect toward authority....
I have been a school teacher in inner city schools as a reference of experience....