Racism and sexism

[Larniavc]

Why?

It's not really on to go round killing people is it?

 

[Dave-W]

It's not really on to go round killing people is it?

Tell that to ISIS. They do not scare me either.

If it is out there, I would much rather it be in the open where we can keep an eye on it.

 

[SupernovaK]

That's exactly why I was accused of being a racist. If the liberal belief that "blacks are just like the rest of us" is wrong then white people are unfairly accused of being racist and black problems are ignored so nothing ends up being done to combat higher rates of black crime which especially hurts black neighborhoods and leads to a never ending cycle of poverty.

Most people I know are conservative and NO ONE has a problem with skin color. The problem is what it represents. If statistics showed that people with red hair commit 10 times as many violent crimes as other people then conservatives would call that out and want to address it while liberals would pretend those differences don't exist. When conservatives passed laws that banned black people from living in their neighbor or visiting their town after dark it was done to protect peaceful law abiding citizens from violent crime committed by people of the black race and had nothing to do with their skin color.

If the percentage of black people who commit violent crimes and the percentage that collect welfare decreased to where it was equal to that of white people then "racism" against black people would end.

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?

 

[samir]

So may In clarify? Your issue is that you believe people with liberal ideals support sin which includes any form of feminism. You believe that rich people are taxed such that the money simply ends up in the pockets of people on welfare who are simply to lazy to work and that White men in particular suffer the consequences of a society who are turning the tables on men in support of women and black Americans and Latinos.

First off, I'm attacking liberalism as an ideology and not liberals individually or as a group so I'm not judging anyone. I simply believe what Christianity has always taught and support long and widely held standards of decency and morality. Feminism has "liberated" women to disobey their husbands (which is a sin) that leads to divorce and deprives a man of his once good wife and children being forced to grow up in broken homes. Overly generous welfare benefits has encouraged many to be lazy and stop working, forced hardworking people to pay taxes they can't afford to pay for it (people used to be able to afford to have 5 or 6 children. now most can only afford 2 kids thanks to the crushing tax burden imposed by big government to pay for all the welfare which also stresses families and leads to divorce). Racist affirmative action policies caused the most qualified people to be denied jobs and promotions which may explain the higher suicide rate among white Americans. Liberalism is a direct assault on the historical Christian faith to attempt to destroy Christianity from within. It spreads through propaganda by using spin such as marriage equality, gender equality, and women's reproductive rights to appear loving and tolerant to people who primarily think with their emotions instead of using sound reason and logic. It smears and slanders those who disagree by trying to make them appear intolerant, hateful, and bigoted simply for believing what every good Christian and intelligent person of morals has always believed.

If i have that right then of course many would agree with you including the KKK, Neo nazi parties and other such groups. You can judge for yourself whether you believe your thoughts are aligned with their views or not.

What is a neo nazi party? I've heard that term many times but only from liberals so I get the impression it's an insult meant to slander those who don't agree with liberalism's new ideas.

 

[samir]

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?

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.

Blacks are disproportionately poor, and poverty is one cause of crime.

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.

 

[samir]

Reporting fact is fine, generalising facts to a whole population isn't. Eg more Black's commit crimes.... That man is black therefore he's a criminal. That type of logic I hear a lot in CF. That man is a Moslem, therefore must be an evil terrorist.

I don't recall ever seeing this logic on CF nor hearing it from anyone in real life. Instead, I've found a strange inability to understand generalizations among people who identify as liberal that appears to be limited to certain contexts that suggests the inability to understand is due to thinking with emotions instead of logic.

For example, I don't think anyone would interpret the statement "men earn more than women" to mean that every man earns more than every women yet when the statement is about topics that make some people very emotional such as intelligence, terrorism, or criminal behavior, many people on these forums will misinterpret it that way.

 

[Zoii]

I don't recall ever seeing this logic on CF nor hearing it from anyone in real life. Instead, I've found a strange inability to understand generalizations among people who identify as liberal that appears to be limited to certain contexts that suggests the inability to understand is due to thinking with emotions instead of logic.

For example, I don't think anyone would interpret the statement "men earn more than women" to mean that every man earns more than every women yet when the statement is about topics that make some people very emotional such as intelligence, terrorism, or criminal behavior, many people on these forums will misinterpret it that way.

Then to clarify using the logic we discussed, you have referred to welfare recipients on a few occasions in this thread and in the same phrase indicated they were taking money from those that are wealthy because they are too lazy to work. You perhaps didn't intend it like that but it appeared that you were saying that welfare recipients didn't deserve a handout because they should be earning their own money and would be if only they weren't so lazy. Do you understand my statement about logic now?

 

[samir]

Then to clarify using the logic we discussed, you have referred to welfare recipients on a few occasions in this thread and in the same phrase indicated they were taking money from those that are wealthy because they are too lazy to work.

That's correct. When the government hands out free money then people who don't want to work will take that money instead of getting a job and those of us who work are forced to pay for it which isn't right.

You perhaps didn't intend it like that but it appeared that you were saying that welfare recipients didn't deserve a handout because they should be earning their own money and would be if only they weren't so lazy. Do you understand my statement about logic now?

There is a verse in the bible that says something like "if a man does not work he should not eat." Not only do those people not deserve a handout I'd say it's immoral to force people to give them one.

What's illogical is to take a statement like "welfare encourages many to be lazy and stop working" and interpret it as "everyone on welfare is lazy." Obviously, some peoople on welfare are disabled and unable to work but that doesn't change the obvious fact that giving lazy people free money motivates them to remain unemployed. We had a hurricane (Katrina) a few years ago and despite offering high wages employers couldn't find anyone willing to work and people interviewed told reporters on TV they planned to remain in their free government housing and collect welfare as long as they could and weren't interested in getting a job until the welfare checks ended.

 

[Zoii]

First off, I'm attacking liberalism as an ideology and not liberals individually or as a group so I'm not judging anyone. .

The notion of what is Liberal ideology is nebulous and we all have our ideas about what it is. Yours though seems to be focussed on what you regard as an attack on traditional christian values. Liberal ideololgy would argue IMO (and others here can add to what they believe liberalism is) that its about allowing choice. If you want to live your life by tradition biblical standards so be it but dont impose your will over others. Its broader than that and probably would make a good thread.

Feminism has "liberated" women to disobey their husbands (which is a sin) that leads to divorce and deprives a man of his once good wife and children being forced to grow up in broken homes.

My issue with what you say is that often when I read your posts in this and other threads you make reference to the disobedience of women, who by their recalitrance cause so many social ills - and its all because of the feminist ideology.

Well the moment you use the word "disobedience" I feel like all women should be wearing a dog collar so that when you say something they must obey - SIT, I Said SIT - good wife.

Im being flippant Samir but its quite Ok for people to disagree and have different opinions. It not illegal and it helps the construct of a relationship. And if that relationship breaks down then thats due to a whole littany of issues not just a problem of the women "disobeying" her husbands will. Plus Samir realise that for women choice to leave their husband (as you referred to) is about having a more harmonious life for both partners and children. You must surely realise the prevalence of domestic violence and under such circumstances the parties separating is far safer; particularly for the women and children.

Lastly I dont regard a woman disobeying her husband as a sin.

I do regard a husband disobeying her wife though as a grave standard of misjudgment that should be punished with endless torment .... just teasing you Samir

Racist affirmative action policies caused the most qualified people to be denied jobs and promotions which may explain the higher suicide rate among white Americans. .

Is this your gut feeling or do you have evidence to support your claim?

Liberalism is a direct assault on the historical Christian faith to attempt to destroy Christianity from within. It spreads through propaganda by using spin such as marriage equality, gender equality, and women's reproductive rights to appear loving and tolerant to people who primarily think with their emotions instead of using sound reason and logic. .

Well you have to accept that some support your view on this while other christians simply think its nonsense. As a teen I think gender equality is mandatory and fortunately so does the law in your country.

Samir the day we all stop thinking with some emotional intelligence, is the day our society becomes robotic, simply obeying. What a sad sad world when empathy and love fails to have a part in our decision making

What is a neo nazi party? I've heard that term many times but only from liberals so I get the impression it's an insult meant to slander those who don't agree with liberalism's new ideas.

Samir Neo-Nazism is an ultra right-wing set of organisations. They believe that failings in this world are due to those that are non-white, and non-christian. They are higly xenophobic. They hold to strong mysognist views.

Your statements often reflect their ideologies though I certanly dont believe youre advocating for those groups. Id suggest though you research them and ask yourself how close your views align with them and if its a good thing.

 

[Zoii]

That's correct. When the government hands out free money then people who don't want to work will take that money instead of getting a job and those of us who work are forced to pay for it which isn't right.



There is a verse in the bible that says something like "if a man does not work he should not eat." Not only do those people not deserve a handout I'd say it's immoral to force people to give them one.

What's illogical is to take a statement like "welfare encourages many to be lazy and stop working" and interpret it as "everyone on welfare is lazy." Obviously, some peoople on welfare are disabled and unable to work but that doesn't change the obvious fact that giving lazy people free money motivates them to remain unemployed. We had a hurricane (Katrina) a few years ago and despite offering high wages employers couldn't find anyone willing to work and people interviewed told reporters on TV they planned to remain in their free government housing and collect welfare as long as they could and weren't interested in getting a job until the welfare checks ended.

OK I can accept what youre getting at. Do bear in mind though that these people are easy targets. Often they simply cannot get work even though they are able-bodied. Those on welfare are frequently tainted with the brush of "welfare cheat"

 

[samir]

The notion of what is Liberal ideology is nebulous and we all have our ideas about what it is. Yours though seems to be focussed on what you regard as an attack on traditional christian values. Liberal ideololgy would argue IMO (and others here can add to what they believe liberalism is) that its about allowing choice. If you want to live your life by tradition biblical standards so be it but dont impose your will over others. Its broader than that and probably would make a good thread.

I believe in the historical Christian faith and morality that's taught in scripture and opposed to whatever is against it. As a Christian, I have a duty to oppose what is contrary to the Christian faith.

dont impose your will over others

Why not? Are you opposed to forcing pharmacists to provide contraception, forcing drug stores to sell abortion drugs, forcing Catholic universities to provide free contraception, forcing Christians to bake cakes for sodomite weddings, and prohibiting men from disciplining their wives? All of those are imposing someone's will on others. We can't have laws without it. The only question is whose standard to use - God's standard or some human standard.

My issue with what you say is that often when I read your posts in this and other threads you make reference to the disobedience of women, who by their recalitrance cause so many social ills - and its all because of the feminist ideology.

Well the moment you use the word "disobedience" I feel like all women should be wearing a dog collar so that when you say something they must obey - SIT, I Said SIT - good wife.

Im being flippant Samir but its quite Ok for people to disagree and have different opinions. It not illegal and it helps the construct of a relationship. And if that relationship breaks down then thats due to a whole littany of issues not just a problem of the women "disobeying" her husbands will. Plus Samir realise that for women choice to leave their husband (as you referred to) is about having a more harmonious life for both partners and children. You must surely realise the prevalence of domestic violence and under such circumstances the parties separating is far safer; particularly for the women and children...

Lastly I dont regard a woman disobeying her husband as a sin.

Ephesians 5:22-24 "Wives, obey your husbands as you obey the Lord. The husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is the head of the church people. The church is his body and he saved it. Wives should obey their husbands in everything, just as the church people obey Christ."

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing or having a different opinion. I'd just point out they are disobeying God if they claim to be a Christian so they know they are sinning and leave it up to them to decide whether they want to repent or continue living in sin.

Is this your gut feeling or do you have evidence to support your claim?

I've know people who were victims of affirmative action and read enough to confirm it. Regarding suicide, it's well known that loneliness leads to depression so it makes sense that it would occur more often when wives abandon their husbands.

Samir the day we all stop thinking with some emotional intelligence, is the day our society becomes robotic, simply obeying. What a sad sad world when empathy and love fails to have a part in our decision making

I'm not saying to be emotionless but when it comes to truth and morality there is no room for it as it gets in the way and hinders one from thinking logically. Being emotional is a positive trait if you're a mother but not if you're in charge of preserving sound doctrine.

 

[samir]

OK I can accept what youre getting at. Do bear in mind though that these people are easy targets. Often they simply cannot get work even though they are able-bodied. Those on welfare are frequently tainted with the brush of "welfare cheat"

In the US welfare often pays more than working a full-time job so some people on welfare who want to work choose to remain unemployed to avoid being worse off financially. I don't target the welfare recipients. I target the politicians who made the rules.

 

[Zoii]

Are you opposed to ....... forcing Christians to bake cakes for sodomite weddings, and prohibiting men from disciplining their wives? All of those are imposing someone's will on others. We can't have laws without it. The only question is whose standard to use - God's standard or some human standard.
.

Baking cakes for sodmites??? Are you talking about a gay couple purchasing a wedding cake?. If so be careful - that type of case is about the law of equality - you are no longer in the 1960s where blacks were not allowed in theatres or had to sit down the back of the bus. They could not come in some stores and were often refused service. Now here you are wanting the same for gay people. If a person comes into a store to purchase an item, you cannot refuse service based on their race, gender, sexuality or ethnicity. Thats the law and CF does not permit people to advocate for the breaking of law.

Now as to your complaint about prohibiting men from disciplining their wives. What on earth????? The wife isnt an animal. And you know what... if your referring to phsyical disciplining then again your advocating a breach of the law in your country. But psychological discipline ... maybe you should explain in your own words what your saying here. If you told me as your wife to do something and I said no get lost - just what are you meaning by discipline?

 

[Larniavc]

Tell that to ISIS. They do not scare me either.

If it is out there, I would much rather it be in the open where we can keep an eye on it.

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

 

[Paidiske]

I was specifically talking about teacher/student relationships. The workplace environment is entirely different and since the participants are all adults, the laws are quite different as well.

Yes and no. Many of us start our working lives below the age of consent.

As to the question of imposing one's will on others, there's a handy guideline: your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. That is to say, our societies should allow for the most freedom possible which doesn't result in harm to others. The difficulty inevitably comes in, in the arguments about what constitutes "harm," but it would be helpful, if arguing for curtailing a freedom, to demonstrate what harm allowing that freedom would cause.

 

[Dave-W]

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

The reason they do what they do is religious ideology.

 

[Dave-W]

Yes and no. Many of us start our working lives below the age of consent.

That is true. And in such instances the same rules as the classroom should be in place.

As to the question of imposing one's will on others, there's a handy guideline: your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

Yeah - I don't buy that. Swinging my fist (even if it does not come close to your person) is bullying and intimidation. I am all for limiting that "freedom" as well.

That is to say, our societies should allow for the most freedom possible which doesn't result in harm to others.

I am familiar with that position; but as a "conservative" of an earlier decade, do not completely agree with that.

 

[Paidiske]

Yeah - I don't buy that. Swinging my fist (even if it does not come close to your person) is bullying and intimidation. I am all for limiting that "freedom" as well.

I agree, to an extent. The "nose" here is a metaphor for the point at which you do harm.

I am familiar with that position; but as a "conservative" of an earlier decade, do not completely agree with that.

Why not?

 

[Dave-W]

Why not?

Because the conservatism of the 1950s and 60s had a lot of limits that I agree with. Of course, there was also a lot of racism and sexism in there as well. (which I do NOT agree with)

I understand the bible to be against "casting off restraint" which is the core of classic liberalism. (and a lot of modern conservatism)

Prov 29.18 Where there is no revelation, people cast off restraint; but blessed is the one who heeds wisdom’s instruction.​

 

[Paidiske]

I understand the bible to be against "casting off restraint" which is the core of classic liberalism. (and a lot of modern conservatism)

I can see the point, but I guess my question would be where the appropriate locus of restraint is? Do we seek to restrain one another in (a secular, pluralist) society? Or do we look to the formation of our own consciences for appropriate constraint? (Noting that I don't assume that the formation of conscience is an individualistic effort).